Tactica Imperial Guard

[Shrapnel]

Keep in mind, with IG you can always have lots of both. At 2000pts fielding 16 independent AV12 tanks/skimmers with 80 infantry isn't exactly impossible. Most people will see that as a mechanized army, but there's still more infantry than most opponents will have, up to double many opponents model counts in infantry alone.

Very true. Realising that a 35 man platoon with 4 transports takes up only 400 points is downright terrifying.

[ColShaw]

I think it's worth making the distinction once again that while the units in the IG army should be specialized (don't mix weapon types in Veteran squads, for example), the army works very well as a hybrid. And the IG has so many units, it can have lots and lots of specialist units while retaining versatility.

That's why I think it's the best army in the game at the moment, honestly.

[Fithos]

I disagree. I think hybrid is potentially the strongest IG build. It's not my personal cup of tea (I like my infantry too much to compromise), but a mixed force has a lot of flexibility and resilience. The joy of the IG is that you don't have to choose between lots of tanks and lots of boots on the ground--you can have both!

I'm not saying it's not competitive. what I meant is that it isn't as competitive. My rational is that if I bring all infantry then any points my opponent put into AT weapons were wasted. If I'm almost all meched up my opponents small arms are useless. If I bring hybrid then all of my opponents models have good options for shooting at. I (don't think) I ever lost a competitive game with a specialist force. I have to work twice as hard to win with hybrid lists. That's why I find them less competitive.

Also, if all your points are in infantry it's almost impossible to lose as I have never seen anyone bring enough shots/attacks to table an all infantry guard list.

[sean_scanlon2000]

i'm leaning towards the hybrid simply because i have found that lists that are all comers tend to survive better during edition changes and its not so much for a purely competetive point of view. I usually dont mind a bit of a challenge so if by taking a hybrid list i allow most opponents to have a chance against me then im more then ok with that.

I was leaning towards the school of thought that having both boots and tanks that i would be able survive a beating while giving a beating back.
- yes your opponent will be able to kill both infantry and tanks if he has a mixed army.
- Guard have a very very good chance of neutralizing alot of threats depending on when they go. and even when going 2nd they have alot of resilance based on sheer numbers and their ability to overload an opponents weapon systems.
- and i have found from an old friend that its a good idea to switch around my armies abilities tanks that can kill infantry and infantry that can kill tanks. when they work together and support one another they work well in that concept.

[Fithos]

Are you adverse to using "tanks" in the more loosely defined sense? (artillery, transports, valkyries(?))

If not I would urge you to consider artillery as it sounds like that does what you want it to do. I play an artillery regiment as my primary and it puts out a ton of firepower. I also include a lot of infantry around them as dedicated tank guards, but it is very gunline-ish. My army revolves around destroying my opponent with all my heavy weapons for the first 3-4 turns and then running what is left of my guard squads up to take objectives.

There is a lot of indirect fire in my army (that's kind of the theme) and a lot of explosions(mortars, MoO, etc) I also urge you to consider the basilisk as I think it is the most under appreciated. Mine have never let me down.

So I guess the real question is what do you want from your army besides "hybrid" since that is kind of vague, especially to the guard.

[Duhgame]

@Fithos: nice to hear someone else runs my kind of army! If you don't mind me asking, what does your list look like? Mine is here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319464

[Fithos]

Usually my lists run along the lines of:

2X CCS with MoO and some combination of snipers and a mortar

2XInfantry platoons with 30 man squads with assault weapons(usually melta guns) and PCS with X4 flamers

heavy weapons teams usually sport mortars

2X basilisks (individual)
2X colossuses(in a squadron)

something in a vendetta to grab distant last minute objectives.

It started out as a fluffy idea of just being an artillery regiment but then it was working so well for me I made it into my standard army. Pie plate death from above works really well, especially followed up by waves of infantry. Sometimes I make one of my platoons gunline platoons to camp a home objective and fire over the heads of the others. Then I switch(or add) heavy weapons.

I'll post a detailed list in your army list thread when I have one at hand.

[russellmoo]

I've found that even in an all mech list- it usually means that some troops have to get out of their vehicles early to put a stop to certain units dealing close combat death to the tanks-

So I think ideally IG does better with what I would call a weighted-hybrid list- that means either a few tanks+ hordes of infantry, or almost all mech plus a small foot platoon-

[Vaktathi]

Personally I've found that mechanized platoons provide the best flexibility. Vets are nice, but they aren't quite as...expendable, and the greater volume of armor and dudes that platoons offer can make all the difference, especially when you don't care as much about losing them and you still have PCS's that can pack in 4 Specials.

That said, I don't think I'd ever take an army with some mechanized and some non-mechanized infantry, the mechanized infantry can dismount if they have to for some reason, and the footsloggers simply give my opponents heavy bolters/smart missiles/scatterlasers something to shoot at.

[Gondorian]

Personally I've found that mechanized platoons provide the best flexibility. Vets are nice, but they aren't quite as...expendable, and the greater volume of armor and dudes that platoons offer can make all the difference, especially when you don't care as much about losing them and you still have PCS's that can pack in 4 Specials.

That said, I don't think I'd ever take an army with some mechanized and some non-mechanized infantry, the mechanized infantry can dismount if they have to for some reason, and the footsloggers simply give my opponents heavy bolters/smart missiles/scatterlasers something to shoot at.

Which are all shots not gunning for chimera side armour, I have to say that having a foot platoon supporting my armour and mech infantry has worked because they make tempting targets for enemy assault units, who don't realise that the infantry is bait to draw them off the armour.

[Vaktathi]

That assumes you're giving them side armor to shoot at, especially side armor that isn't getting a 3+ angled shot cover save.

As for assault units, if I need a screen I can disembark a 65pt infantry squad and have it move and run to get into position to hold something off if I need it to, most assault units however are going to have more issue breaking the tanks than breaking the infantry, and chimeras can always be used as screening units if need be.

[Chiron]

That assumes you're giving them side armor to shoot at, especially side armor that isn't getting a 3+ angled shot cover save.

As for assault units, if I need a screen I can disembark a 65pt infantry squad and have it move and run to get into position to hold something off if I need it to, most assault units however are going to have more issue breaking the tanks than breaking the infantry, and chimeras can always be used as screening units if need be.

Really? I find that tanks die depressingly easy to close combat. Easier than to ranged AT fire to be honest.

[Gondorian]

Really? I find that tanks die depressingly easy to close combat. Easier than to ranged AT fire to be honest.

Have to admit this is my experience of it, grenades and combat weapons pop them open pretty easily unless your moving at top speed.
Not saying hybrid is better/worse than full mech, just saying that with my experience of it, combined arms works well.

[Vaktathi]

Really? I find that tanks die depressingly easy to close combat. Easier than to ranged AT fire to be honest.

True, but still harder than a putz squad of guardsmen.

[Shrapnel]

True, but still harder than a putz squad of guardsmen.

Going to have to disagree. Since 5th ed came in with the whole CC strikes on rear armour thing, I've been no-where near as agressive with my tanks - I don't even tank shock anymore. Whereas I'll throw guardsmen into a meat-grinder and be fairly certain some will walk (or run) away - especially if I've plumped for a commissar.

[ColShaw]

Whereas I'll throw guardsmen into a meat-grinder and be fairly certain some will walk (or run) away - especially if I've plumped for a commissar.

That's the spirit!

It entirely depends on what the enemy is, and what they're armed with. Guard infantry can actually kill guys with Powerfists sometimes before they strike, and even if not, the couple of men you lose is nothing near the cost of removing a tank from the board. But mass low-mid strength attacks will rip the Guardsmen right up (even S3, which can't touch any Guard vehicles).

I've found that the most resilient vehicle the Guard have when it comes to assaults is the Armored Sentinel, by far. A squadron of these will hold off most things in the game for a couple of turns at least. They won't KILL anything themselves, but they're a great tarpit; a Marine with 2 attacks and a Powerfist only has about a 1 in 3 chance of actually killing one Armored Sentinel... with 3, you'll be there literally all game long.

But to kill stuff in assault... yeah, blob squads or Rough Riders. MAYBE Ogryns, on a good day.

[sean_scanlon2000]

maybe its my mindset but im more likely to lean towards the mixed list doing better then an all mech list more often then not. and while yes you can set your self up to have lots of nice cover saves. but your not going to be able to do much in an assault. and while yes you can disembark a unit to protect your tank but is that really the best option? giving up a troop unit? so you'd sacrafice a 65 point infantry squad to protect an even cheaper transport? i can and do believe in using men to protect tanks just expensive ones....
One of the guards greatests strenghts IMO is their numbers both troop wise and tank wise. i just dont rate one as being higher then the other in the long run. if i sacrafice all my infantry to protect a tank then what do i have left to win the game with? and if i loose all my armour what do i have left thats carrying most of my big guns? the answer i came up with is its simply a matter of mixing effectiveness with protection. knowing when to sacrafice men and when not to.

[Okuto]

Blah....lazy men ride in metal boxes, proper guardsmen march in good order.

Though I agree the armored sent is pretty darn hard to kill, even pf need a 5 to pen most of the time, though I'm a infantryman so sents are my bread and butter, others would have better options

[Gondorian]

maybe its my mindset but im more likely to lean towards the mixed list doing better then an all mech list more often then not. and while yes you can set your self up to have lots of nice cover saves. but your not going to be able to do much in an assault. and while yes you can disembark a unit to protect your tank but is that really the best option? giving up a troop unit? so you'd sacrafice a 65 point infantry squad to protect an even cheaper transport? i can and do believe in using men to protect tanks just expensive ones....
One of the guards greatests strenghts IMO is their numbers both troop wise and tank wise. i just dont rate one as being higher then the other in the long run. if i sacrafice all my infantry to protect a tank then what do i have left to win the game with? and if i loose all my armour what do i have left thats carrying most of my big guns? the answer i came up with is its simply a matter of mixing effectiveness with protection. knowing when to sacrafice men and when not to.

Pretty much agree with this, its a question of what and how much you sacrifice to get the job done.

Currently I'm running with what I call a combined arms list, it has
35 Platoon foot infantry
35 Mechanised infantry, veterans and command squad though one basic squad of men is actually airborne in my vendetta
3 chimeras
2 hound tanks
2 battletanks
one manticore
One gunship

I've always been a fan of making balanced lists that can try and take all comers, I also hate spamming units outside basic troops which is why most of those armour pieces often vary (eg, One leman russ with one demolisher ect)
I was very surprised at the performance of this list. It seems to have enough fire power to engage most things at range yet retain enough mobility to go on the attack if it needs to. With the mix of units I have far more options than if I just went taking x amount of one, the relatively big weakness of this list so far has been the number of killpoints it can present to an enemy.

[sean_scanlon2000]

i see my chimeras as a tool to either get them into the fight or as well mobile cover. they work like bunkers blocking line of sight to areas i don't want short granting me cover saves and protecting units i see as valuable or necessary for the win. I also follow a mind set of to try and bring things into 3's because 1 will be dead the 2nd will be tied up so ill need the 3rd to do the job just trying to come to a balance you can agree on is a bit difficult at times.