Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New Imperial Guard Codex

  1. #1

    New Imperial Guard Codex

    I am new to this posting stuff, so I apologize if I am using the wrong colors.

    Anyway, I got bored waiting for the new Guard codex to come out so I made one. I attached it to this thread because it was too long to fit. Thanks in advance for anyone who reads the whole thing. Let me know what you think. I made some pretty huge changes to some of the stats and units.

    Goals of the new Imperial Guard codex:
    • Increase Numbers: To a Guard player, the only thing that matters is wave upon wave of troops and/or vehicles. Therefore, platoons ought to be used instead of squads, and vehicle squadrons instead of vehicles. This also has the benefit of allowing a Guard player to field 2,000 points on the battlefield. (I use my entire force organization chart by 1,750 pts).
    • Simplify and limit Advisors and command squads: this ensures more guardsmen on the battlefield rather than cramming all one’s points into only a few powerhouse guardsmen (I’ve seen a 10 man guardsman squad cost 500pts due to heavily equipped advisors).
    • Eliminate doctrines: I have taken the 35 possible Imperial Guard doctrines and added 9 new ones. Then with a few simple changes, I eliminated every doctrine without eliminating any the options Guard players had with them.
    • Simplified Vehicles: In the previous codex, there were 6 types of Vehicles with 6 different stat lines to memorize. I included 13 types of vehicles but simplified them in such a way that the player need only remember 4 vehicle stat-lines.
    • Simplify Troops: in the previous codex, there were 18 different troop-type stat-lines listed. I have increased the variety of available troop-types but simplified them in such a way that the player need only remember 6 troop-type stat-lines.
    • Simplify Guard weapons: not only does this help distinguish the Imperial Guard from other Imperial armies (particularly Space Marines), it greatly simplified the Imperial Guard codex. There were 25 weapon stat-lines to memorize in the last codex. I simplified this to 15. Although eliminating these weapons simplified and clarified the Guard’s rules, the primary purpose of doing this was to improve the “theme” of the Guard.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008

    Re: New Imperial Guard Codex

    You did a very good job! I felt that things were simplified a bit too much, though.

    I also don't really like the removal of bolter weapons, just because Marines have them doesn't mean that the IG can't.

    Although, I did like that the individual soldiers got cheaper, on a whole, everything seemed somewhat cheaper, which is good.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Australia, Australia, Australia, we love ya!

    Re: New Imperial Guard Codex

    Seems you and i have completly different design philosophies!

    Ive tried to make guardsmen worth their current points cost and have found that sometimes my guardsmen armies are Smaller than the ones from the current codex! But more elite.

    Youve taken the opposite route :P

    I agree that there is much too much simplification in your list.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    England, Midlands, bashing 5th edition

    Re: New Imperial Guard Codex

    I don't like getting rid of bolter weapons either, its not like anyone was ever confused and mistook guard for marines, its silly, and it invalidates allot of models, which again is silly, punishing players imaginations is GW's job

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007

    Re: New Imperial Guard Codex

    I agree with the previous comments. You've succeeded in your design goals, but they are goals I don't really agree with, particularly given the 5th edition rumors (massive numbers of cheap units with little survivability will be very bad) and the fact that variability is the hallmark of the IG. I'm also confused about your comment that your codex benefits Guard players by allowing them to field armies of 2000 points; the IG can have the largest army that still fits in the FoC. Having said that, I'm going to keep my remaining comments within the context of goals.

    First, your removal of the multi-laser makes little sense if you want to increase the IG's distinctiveness; it's one of the only weapons that can only fielded by the IG. Surely the solution to its odd status as a light-vehicle is not to eiminate, but rather to increase its availability in general.

    Second, the leadership situation is an absolute trainwreck, to the point of making this army unplayable. You've reduced the leadership of the basic guardsman, reduced the leadership of the vet sarge and prevented IG from using their officer's leadership without a costly upgrade (once applied to the entire army) that can be rendered useless by killing a few 1W T3 models. On that note, keep in mind that "only human" has a very different meaning in 40k than the real world. Being an experienced combatant actually does justify substantial stat increases. SM commanders are, after all, "only Space Marines", but are significantly better than the base troopers.

    Third, your opening comments on Ogryns are way off. The reason IG players don't field Ogryns isn't because they aren't human (they are, they're just mutants, and even that wouldn't bother most of us), its because they suck. Badly.

    Fourth, you haven't actually increased the number of guardsmen most players would field. Because the leadership makes the vox upgrade nearly mandatory, the squads are a scant 5 points cheaper, and what little synergy they had is removed.

    Fifth, you've done nothing to improve the base value of the vehicles other thn allowing more of them in the FoC. The Chimera and Leman Russ are still overpriced and underprotected.

    Overal, I feel this list doesn't address the concerns of most IG players. The army is no more competetive than the current one, and probably less so, and you've sacrificed a great many of the things that make the IG interesting. Simplicity is a worthy design goal, but not at the expense of everything else.

  6. #6

    Re: New Imperial Guard Codex

    I believe kdh88 failed to give an accurate review of my codex. Here are some reasons why:

    First he says that he doesn’t see how the current codex doesn’t allow 2000 point armies. Of course the Guard can field a 2000pts army, as well as the largest army, but that does not mean that a large Guard army is a good army. The current codex does not allow for a good 2000 pts army. My codex allows a Guard player to field both a large army AND a good army. It also allows you to field an armored company, a drop army, a jungle fighters army, mechanized infantry, etc…and all without doctrines.

    Second, he says that removing the multilaser doesn’t make any sense as it is only an Imperial Guard weapon. Although this is a good point, it is not accurate. My point was that if GW does not make the multilaser universal to the entire army, then it makes LESS sense to keep it in the Codex than it would to remove it entirely. If you read my entire codex, you’ll see I noted this.

    Third, he claims that I ruined the Guard’s leadership. But if you read my Codex carefully, you’ll notice that I actually made it easier for the Guard to increase their Leadership without resorting to expensive upgrades. By giving an opportunity to promote or award Guardsmen for their individual valor (see Honors section), the average Guardsmen squad can receive 10LD without a vox or even a commissar. I can’t see how a 10LD Guardsman is worse than what is found in the present Codex??

    Fourth, he claims that being an experienced combatant justifies a substantial stat increase. I whole-heartedly agree. However, he then assumes that I have somehow weakened the Guardsmen??? To the contrary, I have allowed the average Guardsman to receive four WS4 attacks in an assault. Certain Officers can even receive SIX attacks at WS5! This is a HUGE increase to Guardsmen close-combat abilities, not a decrease as he seems to believe. Furthermore, it is equally possible for Officers to receive BS5. This doesn’t seem like a decrease either (since every Guardsman currently maxes out at BS4). My simplifications to the Guard codex did not decrease or limit Guard players in any way. On the contrary, I greatly increased the number of options available to Guard players.

    Fifth, he claims that my comments on Ogryns were way off. However, those comments were made based on my personal experience with other players. While it is true that Ogrnys suck, that doesn’t mean I didn’t truthfully report my personal experience. Anyway, the purpose of changing Ogryns was to make them intelligent enough to create a platoon formation which matched the rest of the Guardsmen units; and this was just to simplify things. I love abhumans. I think they are awesome, but there are millions of worlds with Guardsmen; how many worlds have evolved abhuman stupid mutants? In comparison, the Ogryn is a fairly unique race. As a unique race, how is it that every Guard army in the galaxy can use them (unless they are purposely excluded by picking doctrines)? This is more a little strange. Fluffwise, Ogryns and ratlings should be removed and placed in an Abhumans Codex along side those wonderful squats. And heck, we’ll throw in nightsiders, slave levies, Afriels, beastmen (homo variatus), subs, gland warriors and feral ogryns too…and then we’ll give them xeno-mounts and we’d be ready for some great allies. But as far as including them in the Guard codex…ummm…no. Fluff-wise, there are just not enough Ogryns in the galaxy to justify using up an entire section of the Codex. The only reason to include them is because they are fun, and according to their current rules, Ogryns are NOT fun because they suck. My codex corrects this by making them very fun (after all, who can really say that an Ogryn powerfist/Krak Grenade pistol isn’t a fun combination?).

    Sixth, he claims I haven’t increased the number of guardsmen most players would field. This is true. My purpose was not to increase the number of total Guardsmen on the field (there are plenty already!). My purpose was to make the Guardsmen more effective in combat. This was done by allowing units of 30 Guardsmen instead of maxing Guard squads out at a mere 10 models. 10 models = shooting moral test at 3 casualties. 30 models = moral test at 8 casualties. 8 is more than 3; therefore, 30 Guardsmen = tougher.

    Seventh, he claims that the vox upgrade is practically mandatory. However, if 30 Guardsmen can receive 10Ld for 15pts, a vox can’t really be that necessary, can it? And they can receive 9Ld for practically free. Vox-casters are simply an ALTERNATE way of using leadership, not the only way, nor even the best way. My purpose was to allow players multiple options to upgrade the Guard without making one way better than another. This allows Guard players to choose an option because they like it, not because it is the strongest. The main reason to choose vox upgrades over the other methods is because you like utilizing the vox’s other options, such as its combined-arms capabilities.

    Eighth, he claims platoons in my codex will lose their synergy. However, with my codex, the squads can actually merge into one big unit. What could be MORE unified than a SINGLE unit?? And this bonus comes at the amazingly high price of “free”.

    Ninth, he claims I didn’t improve the base value of the Chimera or Leman Russ. However, I did lower the Chimera 20pts while giving it more vehicle upgrades to improve its capacities. Secondly, if you actually know how to use a tank in battle, you’ll realize the Russ is actually UNDER priced for its value…but that is only if you know how to use it. My purpose was to make the Imperial Guard army better; to be better, it doesn’t have to be STRONGER. If you play the Guard because you just want to win games, then you’ve got the wrong army. And if you can’t win games with the current codex, it doesn’t mean the Guard is weak, it just means you don’t know how to use combined arms; and if you can’t use combined arms tactics, play an easier army (I would suggest Space Marines considering how much some of you seem to love bolters; the only thing true Guard player needs is a lasgun…and maybe a little battle cannon).

    Tenth, he claims that my codex doesn’t address the concerns of most IG players because I didn’t make the Guard units stronger. However, this is what he’s really saying, “Most Imperial Guard players don’t know how to use combined arms; and to make up for the player’s bad performance we should make the Guard units tougher.” First, that’s a poor argument. Second, I’ve never lost a battle with my Guard force. In fact, I think there are quite a few units in the Imperial Guard who are over-powered and under priced. Example: the Chimera doesn’t need to increase its side armor if players would just learn how to properly support their Chimeras (it does, however, need a point reduction, as I noted in my codex). If a Guard player thinks the units in the current codex are bad, then he just has a problem with his tactics (well, advisors, tech-priests and Ogryns are bad; Storm Troopers are over priced, but ironically enough, I corrected all these problems in my codex, yet few have mentioned any of these facts).

    I think the real problem was that kdh88 just didn’t read the codex very closely; this caused him to jump to erroneous conclusions. If he took the time to see how all my changes worked together for a more balanced, better functioning Guard army, he probably would have liked it. After all, I really didn’t simply the Guard. I actually made them much more complicated. Considering vehicles: I added two new salamander options; I added two new Valkyrie options; I added two new hellhound options; I added 7 new tank options; I added 3 new sentinel options. This is obviously NOT a simplification. Considering infantry: I added 9 new types of troops, 7 new types of rough riders. And I did all without limiting a single option from the old codex. I can’t see how adding new things is really a simplification. Next time, read the codex more carefully before you judge it.

    As far as the bolter removal; I know it goes against Imperial Guard fluff. But the idea actually came from ForgeWorld (see Imperial Armor 5); its exclusion was not due to its rarity but because of Space Marine fluff. A bolter is “technically” too big for any human to shoot accurately without strength augmentation (ie: power armor). Secondly, the cost of bolt ammunition vs. slug or energy ammo would limit or even eliminate their use in Guard forces. Fluff-wise, I could see requisitions for expensive bolt ammo being denied to any unit with BS3 or less; this eliminates most guardsmen and their vehicles.

    Lastly and most importantly, I designed this codex with production of minis in mind. I would like to include multilasers and heavy bolters as options; I wouldn't even put up much of a fuss if Gauss Cannons and Bright Lances were included as heavy weapons options in the Guard Codex. But GW decided to rule that only GW minis can be used in tournaments. In order to protect those gamers who have less conversion-skills, by requiring that only GW models can be used, GW has effectively given itself an obligation to produce a mini for every option in the codex. Since all these minis must then be included in the models thy sell, imagine purchasing a tank! It could have a hull mounted heavy bolter, hull mounted heavy stubber, hull mounted lacannon, hull mounted multilaser, hull mounted rocket launcher, hull mounted gauss cannon, hull mounted mortar, hull mounted bright lance, etc... and etc... When you buy one tank you'll have 100 bits left over; and GW WILL charge you for those unused bits!!!! I don't really feel like paying $150 for a Leman Russ. If you don't like the idea of increased prices, there is only one other option remaining: reduce the number of weapons options in the codex. This is the option I choose. I didn't enjoy removing those weapons, but I felt it was required modeling-wise, so I removed the ones which were most convenient to remove. This leaves me with a question: if you wanted to add the multilaser as a hull mounted weapon or squad-level heavy weapon, which other weapon would you have removed? Obviously not the lascannon? The auto cannon, then? Or would you just opt to further increase the prices of already ridiculously expensive models? The only other argument would be to leave it the way it was…but then you have to answer the obvious question as to why one of the best heavy weapons in the Guard codex (multilaser) cannot be used on tanks or in heavy weapon squads? Any answer you give would be complex and obtrusive, while simplifying is both easier and helpful to new players.
    Last edited by ssgtdanclay; 28-06-2008 at 05:32. Reason: adding more info that I forgot eariler

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Australia, Australia, Australia, we love ya!

    Re: New Imperial Guard Codex

    And you didnt even respond to the other players who gave you their ideas?

    Bad form, i must say.

    I, for one, agree with him in that your codex doesnt really approach the crappy parts of the Guard codex and tries to make them something which they arent.

  8. #8

    Re: New Imperial Guard Codex

    Varath- I'm sorry I got bad I said on my first post, I'm new to this posting stuff and I'm not really sure what "bad form" means. I did answer the questions of the other guys, I just didn't mention their names. I thought they could figure it out for themselves. I guess I was supposed to do something else? Secondly, what are the "crappy" parts of the current Guard codex that you are talking about? I thought I had corrected them all. Can you tell me which ones I missed?

    Vladsimpaler: sorry, I should have said this sooner: thanks for your support. I hope you enjoy the read as much as I enjoyed the write.

    Lastly, I couldn'y figure out how to replace my codex attachment on my first post so I'll just attach the new one. I didn't change much because most of the suggestions were pretty vague. I did add HQ support vehicles and sevitors to Officer Armory. I changed some Grenadier options around to include bolt weapons. I modified the shotguns to include two more types of ammo options. I added multi-lasers, but not in the way people will probably like. Best of all, I had a little fun with Ogryn berserkers.

    If you have any specific suggestions it would help me a lot more than just saying "your codex sucks,man". Thanks:skull:
    Last edited by ssgtdanclay; 01-07-2008 at 03:49. Reason: typo

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Australia, Australia, Australia, we love ya!

    Re: New Imperial Guard Codex

    Varath- I'm sorry I got bad I said on my first post, I'm new to this posting stuff and I'm not really sure what "bad form" means. I did answer the questions of the other guys, I just didn't mention their names. I thought they could figure it out for themselves. I guess I was supposed to do something else? Secondly, what are the "crappy" parts of the current Guard codex that you are talking about? I thought I had corrected them all. Can you tell me which ones I missed?
    Bad form is just my way of saying 'Very Impolite and not how you should do things'.

    The Forum you are posting in is 'Rules Development' meaning that anything you post here will be read, judged, and people will post their advice. People saying that your codex sucks (not their words, i dont think) have a reason for it, and they all said it. Your Codex does not address the problems of the Imperial Guard Codex, merely compounding them. The lack of any fun additions and the lack of interesting rules or Stat lines makes your codex bland, uninteresting to read, and not work well on the tabletop, a very poor combination.

    If your not sure what the problems of the codex are, then why are you rewriting it? :P hhehehe. You can take it from me, though, since i am rewriting the Imperial Guard codex too (see Sig if you want) that there are a few problems that need solving:

    1. General lack of use for a number of units due to pricing or the fact that another item does it better and cheaper. (Ie. Why take Commissars if they will shoot your officers and are that expensive, when you could take voxes, have a good covering of Officers around the place, vet sarges and Trademark items. See? All of these things do the same thing a commissar does, but at less cost and less risk.

    2. Infantry squads being useless without a heavy weapon. This is my personal greivance, that to play guard you HAVE to work in a gunline, which isnt how they are depicted as fighting in the background.

    3. lack of Nasty rules that many other armies get, such as Deepstrike+assault, T7 5W regen carnifexes, and other such things which are fluffy, powerful, and make an army very interesting.

    there are many others, but really, just ask in any Imperial Guard Tactics thread what the problems with the guard codex is, and anyone will give you advice.

    Now, with your new update.

    - Your Officers still use the armoury system which is outdated, use the 5th edition codex style without an armoury and with all options being in the same place for each character. This allows greater control to access of items and changes in points cost for you as a writer.

    - The Colonel is Ld 10, which means there is no point for a Commissar.

    - If the Officer can freely leave his command squad for another squad, that takes away the weakness of being an officer. The Command squad is a method of balancing the fact that he can Command so many troops at once. Just add a few defensive rules to him, remember that he gets a 4+ cover save from intervening troops in 5th edition, and make his presence much more powerful.

    - Counting a platoon as a single unit loses the flavour of the guard codex which is multiple small units, and turns it into yet another horde army with big units. Also, it really doesnt change anything.

    - Making each little squad have a Ld enhancing character makes a HUGE amount of Checking game. "Am i within 12" of my commander? no, what about 12" of an Officer? no, Is my Unit commander still there?! Gah! Where is he?! I must have accidentally taken him off! Can i take it back? please?!"

    Way too much red tape.

    - Having a medic in each squad is again alot of red tape "Did i already use this squads medic? or was it that one?!" If you change the medics rules (i made mine into a 5+ Feel No Pain save, but much more expensive, and only 5 per army, to make it easier to keep track of)

    - Why does the Infantry HK missile only have a 24" range while the Tank one has Unlimited range? Keeping the same name makes it difficult for the opponent to keep track of whats going on.

    - Vehicle squadrons isnt a bad idea. But clarify it to say that it doesnt work on Chimeras, as they are Infantry upgrades rather than true vehicles.

    - I really really *really* hate the change in stats. Seriously. Please for the love of god change it back. Guardsmen may be only human. But some humans are conscripts and some are Duellist Masters of the Officer class.

    - Allowing bunkers as vehicle choices just makes the Guard army more static and boring.

    - The Support devices are alright, but the only one which i really like is the Rallying position, mind if i steal that rule? It would be great for Officers in my codex i think!

    - Give the Commissar Ld 10, otherwise abilities like Mind War will get confusing. Also, i know its in the current codex, but why does the Commissar only shoot Squad leaders? In the background and even the blurb in the codex(!) the Commissar shoots ANYONE. I made it that you get different bonuses to shooting Troopers and Officers, meaning that players have to choose how they are going to do it.

    - Giving Furious Charge to Imperial Guard units through the priests is counter productive because: How often will guard squads be charging? Give him Counter assault and holding bonuses rather than assault ones

    - 1 point for a 5+ invulnerable for servitors? are you insane? :P

    - Lightning arc is useless compared to the other 2 powers.

    - Why does the Psyker allow the Ogryn upgrade?

    - 50 points is still too much for the Chimera

    - Platoons have always been between 2 and 5 Infantry squads, why change it?

    - Conscripts using Ld 5 only will mean noone takes them.

    - Close Order Drill is much too powerful. Give it to a Command squad with 4 Plasmas and have fun.

    - So...Deep strike is only 15 points with a free Vox? Why?

    - Iron Discipline working without an Officer being there? Doesnt make sense

    - Claymore mine the same amount of points as a Demo Charge?

    - 10 points for refractor fields? Thats an awsomely powerful doctrine.

    - How many Rough riders are in each squad?

    - Your trying to get rid of Hunting Lances? You do that and your render the Imperial Guard basically unplayable.

    - The explosive power of the lance is the ignoring armour saves part (which still happens if the Rough Riders are charged) but the +2 S and +2 In is due to the rough rider charge.

    - Actually, Medieval knights had shields attached to their WRISTS, not their hands. They did so because when charging you needed to hold onto the saddle, otherwise you would break your back from the Impact.

    - I actually like your list of Rough Rider Upgrades, but there should be a disadvantage to taking them rather than only points.

    - Hellhounds as Elites? Why?

    - If its called a Hellhound it should take the Inferno cannon without being able to upgrade it.

    - Stormtroopers dont work in platoons, they are not part of standard Imperial Guard regimental Doctrine and are instead added as Support squads.

    - So basically, in the Imperial Guard codex, the Ogryn platoon is Space Marine Guardsmen? Lame

    - If you can take Inferno Cannons on Leman Russ Chasis there is no point to taking them on Hellhounds.

    -Heavy weapon platoons have 5 Heavy weapons per squad?!

    There are lots of others, but i cant be bothered to really write about them.

    Seriously, your guard codex can be alright in ways. But the main thing is that you compleltly destroy the Imperial Guards background and add in heaps and heaps of upgrades which are fun, but reduce the entire codex to one statline in the name of simplicity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts