# Guard Rumors



## loyalist42 (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey there gents, 

Picked up an interesting little tidbit here from Warseer; make of it what you will....



onlyjoking... said:


> I spoke extensively to Robbin Crudace at the Games Day about the upcoming guard codex. I asked him about the platoon drill special rule that has been floating around here on Warseer and while he didn't deny it the rumour he mentioned that it would be more a case of intergrating and streamlining the traits and variations that make the guard so special into codex, in the same way as the upcoming marine 'dex does.
> Asked if there would be more tanks he said that including variants there could be "almost twenty".
> He said the core image of the codex would revolve around the three parts that make up the combined arms approach of the army: infantry,tanks and with paticular emphasis in his voice artillery.
> The most intriguing part of the conversation was when he said that he wanted to make the lasgun much more "interesting"!
> ...





Karnage said:


> I can confirm the tank comments as when I discussed with him, he said that he had "about 21 different tanks" in the new book, and that the book would be big.
> 
> Also, he said that he wanted to go back to how he feels the Guard should be seen. Lots of men, lots of tanks, huge amounts of firepower and complete attrition-style warfare. All in all, although I didn't get MANY hints (and some of the stuff mentioned here is news to me), I was very happy with what I heard.



I do find it quite interesting to hear two people confirm the '20+ tank variants' thing...this is above and beyond anything I've heard before. Mayhap it'll be just as exciting a time for Guard players as it's fixing to be right now for Marine players! 

:biggrin:


----------



## EndangeredHuman (Feb 20, 2008)

Wow, 21 tank variants, hell! That's an impressive feat. By the definition of 'more troops, more tanks' I can presume a decrease in the points cost across the board? 

Lasguns more interesting, huh? So they're finally going to admit they can light campfires into the fluff too!


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

I thought the rumor would be something stupid
Special Rule: your screwed AGAIN: every turn you must remove one platoon from your army, you know your not gonna win, your playing 5th with guard


----------



## Underground Heretic (Aug 9, 2008)

I hope they drop the points cost all around. I've heard the points cost for the new SM characters and they are pretty low for what you get. I want to see the Smurfs balanced out. Go Guard!


----------



## cooldudeskillz (Jun 7, 2008)

if does indeed come true then guard are going to be alot more instresting


----------



## Lucius Vane (Jan 21, 2008)

I had been thinking about jumping into guard, but the new kill points rules have me a little nervous to try. 

Have there been any rumors about addressing this? Might they change the guard rules so that you get kill points for platoons instead of squads?


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

Aye, I'm looking forward to the new Guard book, can't wait to see what hes done with them.

The comment about the Lasguns is interesting, does that hint that the rumour about rapid fire 3 for Lasguns is correct. Hmmm.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

For me the most interesting thing is what will happen to the las gun, which is generally pants. Perhaps the ability to fire a single more powerful shot with a higher ap (as seen in many of the novels) and spend a turn reloading?
As for the tanks, I imagine this is just bringing all the existing variants and tank types from the existing range from the forgeworld camp. Perhaps making plastic kits instead of resin will make them more affordable. There must be at least 21 scattered across the various Imperial Armour books.


----------



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

Tbh, the forge world leman russ varients arn't too bad price wise, at least in my opinion.

What I want to see: The infinite variety present in the guard ranks represented in the book and army list.

What I dont want to see: Very very low points guardsmen (my infantry army will get even further behind schedule)
Loads of stupid special characters with magic the gathering type army upgrade rules 'replacing' traits, a la codex spaz marines


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

This kind of worries me. 'Complete attrition-style warfare'? Fantastic -- but I play _drop troops_.


----------



## Trigger (Mar 12, 2008)

I just hope I finish my marines so I can start another Guard army.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Yeah, my Light Infantry army? Not happy. They can keep their damn artillery and piles of different tank types.

Guess it's back into the mothballs, boys....


----------



## EndangeredHuman (Feb 20, 2008)

I wouldn't take it too critally, Cole, we'll have to wait and see. I was deeply worried about the Marine codex at first.


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

Yay! More tanks for my mechanized army! I just hope they lower the points cost on most IG things... there's no way a chimera is worth double that of a rhino, and standard guardsmen should be worth less than ork boyz as well.

I wonder if they'll give IG generals the ability to have double powerfists or lightning claws like on DOW...


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

Lord_Murdock said:


> I wonder if they'll give IG generals the ability to have double powerfists or lightning claws like on DOW...


Doubtful, guard have never had lightning claws as far as I know...


----------



## LeeHarvey (Jul 25, 2008)

Sounds pretty cool. I may be starting a guard army next.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

i thik i want to see something similar to what panda wants. a lot of variety, more character and more tactical opportunities, as well as some better wargear and also a points dcrease on somethings. 

i do think that the special characters, special rules, is a bit sucky though, it really limits your possibilityes


----------



## Leaf (Feb 8, 2008)

Sounds fun. Cant wait. Although I only have mortars I might have to get some basilisk.I cant wait to see what they do to the las-gun.
I know I wont be effected by the lose of doctrines since I do not use them really as I like to keep it as simple as possible


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Lord_Murdock said:


> I wonder if they'll give IG generals the ability to have double powerfists or lightning claws like on DOW...


Why? thats like wanting a screen door on a sub, it might look kewl if done right, but would do nothing.


----------



## beenburned (May 15, 2008)

Well, it would allow an extra attack in close combat...I'd like to see double powerfist on the general too personally. Can look great too.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

beenburned said:


> Well, it would allow an extra attack in close combat....


a chainsword and a laspistol does to and cheap, so whats the point?


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Cheaper, but not as effective. Guard and powerfists go very well together, as they'll nearly always hit last anyway.


----------



## LeeHarvey (Jul 25, 2008)

For guardsmen to hit at STR6 and ignore armor saves while getting an extra attack can only be a good thing.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

And given the right doctrines, hitting on a 4+ with MEQs, or a 3 otherwise.. rerollable with master crafted. Hellz yeah.


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

My point exactly. I've always been a fan of powerfists.

Anyway, I wonder how they'll make the lasgun more interesting. If it's either of those two rumors, I hope it's the rapid fire 3 one. Unless the single more-powerful shot is something like str 6 ap3, I wouldn't see much point in it.


----------



## NerdyOgre254 (Jul 16, 2008)

Lord_Murdock said:


> My point exactly. I've always been a fan of powerfists.
> 
> Anyway, I wonder how they'll make the lasgun more interesting. If it's either of those two rumors, I hope it's the rapid fire 3 one. Unless the single more-powerful shot is something like str 6 ap3, I wouldn't see much point in it.


Str6 Ap3? that would be overkill. 

I'm concerned with the whole Attrition-style thing. 
To quote Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt:
"My men will fight like bastards if you put them on the front line, but to do that would be a waste. Their strengths lie in.." and so on.
The way the guy at GD says it, Death Korps will be the new thing. 

However, i have faith that the new codex will allow for both styles of play.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

i think making the lasgun like 18 inch assault 3 or 24 inch assault 2 would be good


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Dang bastards stole my idea!

Still that'd be cool though, to have Lasguns be assault 1 or 2, or to increase their Strength by 1, but don't get the +1 shot when in 12''.


----------



## Lord Lucius (Sep 18, 2008)

I use IG in my demon hunters army.I wonder how it will affect me


----------



## Trigger (Mar 12, 2008)

I'd be happy for lasguns to be 24" Assault 2. Then I wouldn't have to make so many shotguns.


----------



## itie101 (Sep 30, 2008)

what i want to see is lower point cost _special _ weapons, the heavy weapon platoons are cool now, but in fluff like gaunts ghosts there are heaps of special weapons that own. and being able to feild more than 3 leman russes, just for fun:biggrin:


----------



## Apoctis (Feb 14, 2008)

I really hope they keep some things besause money is an object I can't throw away just because I need 8 squads as 1 troop choice.


----------



## Gannon (Mar 13, 2008)

Probably old and shot down all ready, but I thought they were going to allow Tanks in squadrons of 3 for the new dex. I think I read in on BoLS, but I may be wrong here.

The Assault 2 with the 24" range would be nice especially for Guard. I'm not a real fan of the extra strength shot though. Well maybe if they made is a shortened burst, like 6" Strength 5 ap 5 Assault 1

I really think it will be a bayonet fix thing that will give the guard an extra attack makes sense, similiar to the Kroot. Most services require bayonet training during boot camp. At least they did when I went through.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

I heard that Guardsmen were dropping to 4pts. We started talking about it and then an idea came to our head, what will conscipts be worth :shok:


----------



## Gannon (Mar 13, 2008)

If they drop the cost of guardsman they'll probably phase out the Conscripts. Conscripts are what half the cost of guardsman now?

On the other hand if they keep Conscripts they may just half the cost to 2 pts each and call it even. That would make for some very unhappy people I think. I'd rather not spend the $35 on a platoon for a 40 point unit. Of course there are those types of units out there though...Trukks and Rhinos for instance...


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

Assault 2 24" lasguns would be just great. So would tank squadrons. Can't wait to see what they come up with...


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

They could make it Rapid Fire 36" - that way they get a single longer range shot, but not as long as a Las Cannon, and also get the extra shot if within 12".


----------



## Underground Heretic (Aug 9, 2008)

As a Tau player, I don't really want to see line guns going to 36 inches. Admittedly, I want to keep some range on people, and as crazy as my 12 shots at 30 inches is, imagine an IG gun line with 36 inches. That would cut down most anything T 3 before they could do anything. And where did those technophobes in the Adeptus Mechanis get that much range out of a lasgun but not a bolter? Sorry about the rant, I just don't want to see shooty armies, mine included, rain death with no need to worry about CC.


----------



## Duci (Sep 26, 2008)

if lasguns went up to 36 they would be over powerd


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

I still think that with the new rules not allowing units to lock when they win a combat, rapid fire 3 (suggested on Bols or Seer, can't remember which) would suit the guard down to the ground.


----------



## Alexander_67 (May 5, 2007)

Two ways this is gonna go. Make guard rules better or make guard much cheaper. I think its pretty clear which way its going to shift. Yay roll out the 3pt guardsmen to balance out the fact that orc boys are as cheap and far nastier than you. 

The tank variant rumours are good. Customisability is and always should be your best friend when building guard. Making artillery not suck would be awesome (considering my guard are actually all mortars and basilisks). Leaving some special rules not dependant on special characters i would consider a blessing as well. 

Changing the lasgun to not suck would be weird. I mean the lasgun has always sucked. What will we make torch jokes about if they make it good?


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

The Lasgun does _not_ suck. Its AP does.


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

The other option Alexander would be to make the Tanks cheaper, now that would be alot more scary I think for a fair few foes, especially if the three of one slot thing happens.



I must admit I've got that itch to play Guard again, and this is one of the biggest books I've been wanting to see for a long time, I want to see how the repair the damage of removing Doctrines, how many New tanks, Special Characters appear, and mostly I want to see what 3-4 boxes (going on current average) come out in plastics for the army.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

Call me a cynic if you want but it seems that to build an effective guard army if half of these rumour are true will become really expensive even compared to normal. The games workshop tanks are costly (compared to normal model kits) so more tanks = more cost and if standard troops become cheaper that means more cost GW make a habit of reducing points cost in accordance with price rises and horde armys which have always been a favourite of mine are now far to expensive I suppose I'll have to settle for marines they may be soulless and unchallenging but I can afford them.


----------



## Commissar Maximus (Sep 20, 2008)

I would like a leman russ with twinlinked assaultcannon


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

Only if they make them with a longer range. 24 inches without str 10 ordinance just would not be worth it. With the new rules regarding assaulting vehicles, any infantry with in 18" of my tanks need to die fast and assault cannons just can't do that.

Leinad


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

Leman Russ with Vulcan Mega Bolters, anyone? 

I did actually read somewhere that they were planning on making one, but with only a half-set of mega bolters (heavy 7?), and that they were making a Hellhound with a meltagun the size of a battlecannon (48" range? Meltaness at 24"?). I doubt those are anything more than someone's dream tanks, but you never know...


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Lord_Murdock said:


> Leman Russ with Vulcan Mega Bolters, anyone?
> 
> I did actually read somewhere that they were planning on making one, but with only a half-set of mega bolters (heavy 7?), and that they were making a Hellhound with a meltagun the size of a battlecannon (48" range? Meltaness at 24"?). I doubt those are anything more than someone's dream tanks, but you never know...


If it seems too good to be true.....


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

The most simple solution is to put the actual wargear options that doctrines afforded in as platoon options. For example, have Carapace Armour available for the entire platoon at a points cost per model. Will they do that? Doubtful. It'd help represent the variety of the Guard by having light infantry platoons and heavy infantry platoons in the same army, though. 

Imperial armour is supposed to be the sort of defining thing about the Imperial Guard war machine. No pun intended. What waves of infantry can't accomplish, the tried and true Leman Russ can. Since Guard regiments almost never fight on their lonesome, and tend to be combined into army groups, even if you play drop troops, you'd still likely have support from an armoured regiment somewhere along the way, so it's still fluffy to have a squadron of Leman Russes backing you up. Lowering the cost of the basic Leman Russ actually makes a lot of sense to me. Battle Cannons are a hell of a lot less accurate than people give them credit for, and the things are going to be more or less static for most of the game anyway. At that point, you might as well bring a basilisk since its got a better main gun and is doing functionally the same thing. The other option would be making the Leman Russ more mobile via the rumored Rugged rule and allowing it to move and fire with its heavy bolters at full effect. 

The biggest thing the Imperial Guard need, which nobody is focusing on, is a reason for players to bring Ogryns, Ratlings, and Stormtroopers. It's a cold day in hell when people bring them along in my experience, even though all three are quite good. Games Workshop is surely aware of that little fact as well, so I'm sure Ogryns, Ratlings, and particularly Stormtroopers will be seeing the kind of love that Space Marine Veteran squads just got. I've got nothing to back that up, but as trends with army development go... call it an educated guess.

Lastly... leave the fucking lasgun alone. Lasguns are perfect as they are. They're cheap, mass-produced weapons which are fine for what you get out of them. People get hung up about the AP value, but honestly, the most surefire way to get rid of Space Marine Terminators is to shoot them with thirty lasguns at close range. Lasguns are about quantity, not quality. If you make them assault weapons, or change their basic profile in some other way, then you drastically alter the dynamic of the army. I think a good compromise would be to follow the example of the Space Marines, and give everybody a laspistol as a sidearm, or at least an option as an upgrade for it in the units. That can easily represent a single snap shot from the lasgun as you charge in, and still lets you shoot before you charge, which is what you want out of an assault weapon, correct? It just doesn't make the emphasis of the unit running forward blazing the way having everybody with an assault weapon does. 

Flamers should be free for guardsmen. Seriously. Follow the example in Codex: Space Marines and give 'em free flamers and heavy stubbers or something, and pay pennies on the dollar for everything else. The guard bring loads of that stuff anyway, and it's a feature of the army. Might as well play it up.


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Well put Tsoh, id also like to see gaurdsmen get a little cheeper with orks costing the same and getting more imo, and the upgrades per platoon per model would be sweet too like being able to give a front line squad carapace armor and something else to a more static platoon, and like army wide special effects from special chars(since thats the way GW is going) like creed giving army wide stubborn for a iron disiplin like effect.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

If I had any desire to bring special characters, I'd be doing so already.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

I've been thinking it might be a decent idea to have special characters be kind of like advisors. Take one to effect the whole army and take another to effect one platoon. This would probably be rather costly but it would give us access to doctrines and fill GW's need for special characters. This may be a way for us to take LR platoons with a famous tank commander.

Leinad


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

DaemonsR'us said:


> Well put Tsoh, id also like to see gaurdsmen get a little cheeper with orks costing the same and getting more imo, and the upgrades per platoon per model would be sweet too like being able to give a front line squad carapace armor and something else to a more static platoon, and like army wide special effects from special chars(since thats the way GW is going) like creed giving army wide stubborn for a iron disiplin like effect.


I would say that orks get the same as ig, just in different areas. The armor save on a basic ork boy is so atrocious that it might as well not be there most of the time, their bs is just as bad, and not too many upgrade options, which makes it balance out with the options that ig receive, their better armor, and bs. the two armies play differently, and if a player wants to play a horde army that is good in close combat, play orks and stop trying to change IG so it can also rock in close combat.


----------



## Estragon (Feb 25, 2008)

Agreed, guard are never going to be (and shouldn't be) great in CC. But they should have enough firepower to level buildings, even in a low points army. I'd like to see the new artillery, especially if it doesn't cost -More Than You Can Afford- from FW. Plasic medusas or bombards would be bloody amazing...


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

Hear hear! Personally, though, I'd hope more for Hydras. Ooh, and while we're on the subject, I'd love to see them plasticize the FW Hellhounds as well. I love the smell of promethium in the morning...


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

One i never said a CC army, two for orks...the armor save may be atrocious but gaurd isnt much better, the fact that most guns wills till tear through gaurd armor just as well as ork, and as well with 5th gaurd and ork alike benifit from cover more than any armor so armor isnt really an issue... when i said front line i meant like melta/flamer units rapid firing, i would never want to imagine gaurd as a CC army, the one BS difference ill give you, but orks too have one better ws, one better toughness, one better attack, and only one worse I, which can be offset by furious charge which orks get that gaurd do not, as well as a almost army wide waaaaah, as well as the mob rule, for the same cost as a standard gaurdsmen


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

On the other hand, footslogging Orks will be in flashlight range for at least three turns, at least one of which will be within rapid fire range. So with fifty Ork Boyz v. a like number of Guardsmen, you've got no less than TWO HUNDRED shots with the flashlights to take 'em down. Let me crunch some numbers here...

200 shots
100 hits
~33 wounds
~26 dead Orks.

Then they hit your line, take out a couple of squads, and the rest of your army has yet another turn of rapid fire on them...

The points seem fair to me.


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

Personally, I think 6 points a guardsman isn't too bad either (although 4 or 5 would be better!), it's their pricey weapon and wargear upgrades that kill them points-wise. There's no way a lascannon fired by a guardsman is worth 10 points more than one fired by a space marine!


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Valid point but your also not account for running and waaaah, chances are with a good ork player it would be 1~2 turns of shooting and doubtfull either would be able to rapid fire


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

DaemonsR'us said:


> Valid point but your also not account for running and waaaah, chances are with a good ork player it would be 1~2 turns of shooting and doubtfull either would be able to rapid fire


that isn't something that points will change, as it is a matter of play. that argument also assumes that the IG player will be unable to slow down the ork player. the basci value for each troop, IG vs. orks is equal, as the strengths and weaknesses even out.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

I'd like to see a few things change, gaurd and drak eldar are the only two armies I haven't made for 40K as I just don't think they ever got it right.

For me I'd change the following.

Platoons, just get rid of them. They do nothing but confuse things. And personnaly I think it would almost half internet whinging overnight by removing the gaurd players kill point bleats. The number of gaurd infantry models wouldn't nesc decrease because troops are so important in 5th.

Troop options need to change to make them useful. squads of 10 to 20 with one special per 4 or five models would make them worth having.

Cheaper tanks, make them worse if you want but make them cheaper get more on the board.

New ratling models.

Stormtroopers should get more special weapons. I really think the stat line is where it should be but that means gaurd can't win a fistfight so they need more guns.

More cheaper, points wise, artillery.

Basically gaurd should be able to hold thier own with tau at long range be survivable at rapid fire range but fcuked in CC.

Oh and a new chimera model, its ugly and too big to hide in 5th.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

I think getting rid of the Platoon formation is a huge mistake. 

5ed's emphasis on Troops has made the Guard an incredibly strong objective-claiming army.

55 men, split into 5 squads and Platoon Command, filling in just one FOC for Troops can't be bad, can it?

The ability to have more than one special weapon per Infantry Squad would be a nice addition, though.

And I think Rough Riders should get more models; Cossacks alongside a Cadian army just doesn't quite fit, know what I mean? Maybe they should release a Cadian range of cavalry.


----------



## Commissar Maximus (Sep 20, 2008)

I will soon be posting pictures of my Catachan grox riders.The rough riders models are
totally discusting and do not fit well in an army from an optical point of view.
I can't wait to see the new entry...hope they will still kick ass as they do now


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

KellysGrenadier said:


> I think getting rid of the Platoon formation is a huge mistake.
> 
> 5ed's emphasis on Troops has made the Guard an incredibly strong objective-claiming army.
> 
> ...


agreed. I think that those whinging about the kill points A) need to read their fluff, and understand that a loss in a kill points mission is seen as a win in the eyes of the imperial guard, as they fight primarily through attrition. and B) look at the upside, which is they are awesome at objective based missions.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

i do have to say, i wouldnt miss the platoon system if it was replaced with something similar. its pretty confusing for new players, and also a gaming disadvantage inother respects.


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

I like the platoon formation. 5 squads of 10 is much better than one squad of 50 in my opinion.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

Ditto. Anyway, platoons are half of what make the Guard... well... the Guard. They can bring a staggering number of individual squads to bear (potentially about 50 in a standard FOC, though it'd have to be one helluva big game...). Without that, all they'd have to mark them out would be the ability to field huge amounts of armour. And not everyone wants to field huge amounts of armour. Kill points notwithstanding, it's nice to be able to lose twenty or thirty men and just not care. When you're used to paying around two hundred points per squad, it's a great privilege to be able to laugh it off, and know that there's always more where that came from. You can't get that from small numbers of large units; just large numbers of small ones.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

I like platoons.... and the fact that each officer has a "staff" with him, instead of the Space Marine approach of charging in with a chainsword because "I'm the most badass thing that has aver lived!"

That, and it lets you style your multi-doctrine army's platoons aroudn the officers who lead them.

The insane Captain Harker of the Combined Brigade (my army) for example, leads the all-infiltrating no-Comissars-allowed LI, while the likes of Lieutenant Meares hold out with cheaper, non-LI units witha different look.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

the cabbage said:


> Platoons, just get rid of them. They do nothing but confuse things. And personally I think it would almost half internet whinging overnight by removing the guard players kill point bleats. The number of guard infantry models wouldn't nesc decrease because troops are so important in 5th.


yes it would, to 60 men max with the usual restrictions, instead of 330 men

plus constructing a Platoon is as easy as eating a potato, if anyone finds simple instructions so difficult to understand....well


the cabbage said:


> Troop options need to change to make them useful. squads of 10 to 20 with one special per 4 or five models would make them worth having.


ewwwww, big unwieldy squads

what I would like to see is

A LD10 commander option (even if it has to be a special character)
reduced HQ pts and command squads that make both them and commander only 1 kill point
Sanctioned psykers with better powers you can buy instead of getting random crappy ones
reduced guard trooper costs (doesn't need to be by much, it could even be the same but give them something)
Sharpshooters as standard for all *Lasgun* armed models (lasers are supposed to be pretty accurate)
Cheaper stormtroopers
Something that makes sponsons actually worth taking on such a big tank
Cheaper tanks/Transports with more weapon options
and get rid of the Honorifica Imperialis, its too much of a cop out


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

No way. Keep the HI.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Stella Cadente said:


> yes it would, to 60 men max with the usual restrictions, instead of 330 men
> 
> plus constructing a Platoon is as easy as eating a potato, if anyone finds simple instructions so difficult to understand....well
> 
> ewwwww, big unwieldy squads


I didn't explain myself very well.

My point was that with troops being important in 5th you would probably see six squads of between ten and twenty. That would be between sixty and 120 models. That is more than you normally see now in gaurd armies. I normally see two platoons of twenty five men. I won't argue the maximum I am talking about the likely quantities. I also put the squads at 10 - 20 so you can still have your 10 man squads.

And big unweildy squads is surely what the guard are all about.

And to address the making of platoons, as you so cutely put is very easy. However have a squint at the rules discussion. It often includes posts in which the rules fail to effectively differentiate between units and force org slots which is just annoying.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

KellysGrenadier said:


> No way. Keep the HI.


Amen to that.



the cabbage said:


> And big unweildy squads is surely what the guard are all about.


Not mine.



> And to address the making of platoons, as you so cutely put is very easy. However have a squint at the rules discussion. It often includes posts in which the rules fail to effectively differentiate between units and force org slots which is just annoying.


Take it up with GW.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> I didn't explain myself very well.
> 
> My point was that with troops being important in 5th you would probably see six squads of between ten and twenty. That would be between sixty and 120 models. That is more than you normally see now in gaurd armies. I normally see two platoons of twenty five men. I won't argue the maximum I am talking about the likely quantities. I also put the squads at 10 - 20 so you can still have your 10 man squads.
> 
> ...


that seems to be their biggest problem as a company,making assumptions. They assume that the rest of the world is going to understand their "clear' language. They assume that players won't use any lack of clarity to gain advantage, or cause disadvantage. it does seem as if the simple ability to clearly state their intentions is missing from the company.


but we still love 'em any ways, so who is the bigger moron?:laugh:


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

Aww I'll be gutted if platoons went bye bye, one of the fave things for me was modelling different sgts and junior officers, and then going all out for my HQ officer and his guards. It was a great way of theming the army as well, I don't see it happening though, unless I missed a post here in this thread, and this wasn't just someones idea. :no:


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

KellysGrenadier said:


> No way. Keep the HI.


is there a good reason to keep it other than saving 5pts and sticking fingers up to fluff and having a Lieutenant leading an entire regiment?


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> is there a good reason to keep it other than saving 5pts and sticking fingers up to fluff and having a Lieutenant leading an entire regiment?


Yeah, there is. For a truly badass Hardened Veteran Sergeant, it's hard to beat.

To say nothing of being able to bring TWO three-wound models (I have a HSO and a JO with the Honorifica in my army)

It serves a purpose.

None of which matters, of course.

GW is going to take it away, as they have taken away EVERYBODY'S armory.


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

Aye I had that item on a Hardened Vet more than once, nothing says surprise like one of those fellas armed to the nines appearing in the rear lines of your foes force. 

But aye, if the armoury goes, I can't see how it'd still be there.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> is there a good reason to keep it other than saving 5pts and sticking fingers up to fluff and having a Lieutenant leading an entire regiment?


Unless you have several thousand models, then it's not really a lieutenant leading an entire regiment.

Really, on the table, you'll find either two very big platoons, or a very small company. A junior officer leading one of these is believable.

In an Apocalypse, you might see a medium-to-large company, not including tank formations. So it's not really fucking over fluff at all.

Wanna know what _really_ screws with fluff? Having a senior-ranked officer leading 40 men.


----------



## Commissar_Mike (Jul 31, 2007)

KellysGrenadier said:


> Wanna know what _really_ screws with fluff? Having a senior-ranked officer leading 40 men.


QFT. To have it make sense scale wise it would be HSO= Hero Captain, SO= Captain, JO= Lieutenant. Thing is, a Captain is not a senior officer.

Maybe they should make it so that you can only take a HSO if you have a certain (high) number of troop choices, and leave Honorifica (somehow).


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

I'm not against that idea, but I reckon the Officers Command Squad should be more potent in that case, for smaller games.


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Hey you never know, HSO could be a colonel, SO could be a major, and then JO is a captain, there is no set rank for it, and you have commanders like gaunt and shaffer who are colonel(HSO) leading small groups of men


----------



## beenburned (May 15, 2008)

You could think about it in that your army is the portion of the overall force being led by your commander - that the army you're currently fighting with is you're big leaders army of choice. He's not leading just any army, he's leading a spearhead, or a strike force. That's how I think about using an avatar in 1500 pts. His presence is crucial in an overall war. Makes sense that way.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Yeah. Think of a standard 40k game as a battle within a battle. Remember, there's not just nothingness off board; there's fighting going on there too, if you imagine.


----------



## Ste (Aug 28, 2008)

In th english army a Lieutenant commands 30 men? so having a HSO for example a colonel who on average leads over 200 men running around with 20 cadians just seems to fuck fluff up the ass? 

Platoons ftw! but they shud make more sense with it like, JO for a 30 man squad, SO 40-50 HSO 50+


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

I think that using the foc as a basis for when a hso is allowed is probably best, if the force includes 2-4 platoons, senior officer(cpt.) if the force has less, junior officer(2lt., 1lt.), and if it has more than 4 platoons, then heroic senior officer(ltc, col.)


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Or maybe a point basis like they did with chaos chosen in the 3.5 codex? but then it becomes harder to justify masters in smaller point matches and such, my guess, your going to get a command squad with a strong(gaurd wise) hq with many upgrades, and then for plattoon command squads, get a weaker officer(1W maybe 2?) with many options but not as many, with how the codicies are going i doubt there will be much more of a option between a hso, so, and jo just a stronger guy as your lead and many mini leaders

Edit: by masters i mean like SM masters and daemon princes, like an example earlier, if these guys get to lead spear heads, why not IG commanders?


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

DaemonsR'us said:


> Edit: by masters i mean like SM masters and daemon princes, like an example earlier, if these guys get to lead spear heads, why not IG commanders?


it is because they are really supposed to be in a command tent/bunker/vehicle developing strategy, not spearheading assaults, they are too valuable and it takes too long to train someone to do the job. it would also be next to impossible to find someone that could become familiar enough with the situation to effectively lead the massive effort that is the imperial guard war machine.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

This is the way I see it;
The Officers that lead from behind the lines far out rank a HSO. think more along the lines of a 3-5 star general not a Col. or a Commander. The HSO's job is to lead large forces of Guardsmen, the only way he would be behind the lines was if he was acting as an advisor due to some experience the he has relative to the battle as a whole. This is the reason that I don't use characters like Creed in my armies, they should be behind the lines.
JO leads a platoon strength force. This is where he/she learns the ins and outs of battle.
SO leads the company as a whole. Multiple platoons, loads of men. Here they can fine tune their skills in the theatre of war.
HSO will lead a battlegroup made up of many parts. Infantry, armor and special forces all set to a specific task.
An officer with Honorifica Imperialis is one who has shown himself to be destined as a superior leader.

In larger games I use a HSO and a JO with HI and task that JO with a task that he will more than likely die trying to achieve. Like taking a major objective while mounted in a Chimera or dropped in behind enemy lines. 
I look at it as would you have a green officer lead men on an important mission or use someone who has proven themselves time and again.
Just my 2 cents.

Leinad


----------



## when in doubt shoot! (Oct 19, 2008)

Hey guys, you've all probably seen this paragraph floating around, but in case anyone hasnt, I'll show it here; 

"Take this with the usual dose of salt guys, but someone I trust told me that the new guard codex may have the following things in it.

Army wide special rule: I think it’s called Platoon Drill or something like that. Basically, units from the same platoon may ignore intervening squads when shooting. So enemy units targeted in this way do not receive the 4+ save. Apparently this only works if the Platoon command squad is alive and within 12” of the rest of the platoon. I’ve been told that this is just one of the abilities guard Platoons may get, but only as long as the chain of command is intact (whatever that means). So loosing your HQ Command Squad may be a really bad thing.

Doctrines are for sure gone (I think we all knew this), but have been replaced by more mutable platoons. Instead of Armoured fist squads you can buy Chimeras for a whole platoon. Or buy the whole platoon grav-chutes to give them deep strike, or drop the heavy weapons from squads and give the platoon Scout. Veteran squads become upgrades to platoons (i.e. they are not elites anymore).

Apparently infantry platoons let you attach certain types of support vehicles to them(kinda like back in second edition). Things like sentinels, hellhounds and demolishers can be attached to platoons. They still take up a FOC spot, but become part of the platoon and so will benefit from the Platoon Drill rule.

The Leman Russ can be bought as a squadron so you can get 3 for a single FOC. They can not be attached to platoons however.

Sniper Squads can now infiltrate, get stealth, range finders and all models in the squad have sniper rifles (and BS 4!).

Like the Land Raider, a new plastic sprue for the Leman Russ has been made that will allow plastic demolishers and a 3rd variant (my money is on the Exterminator).

The Baneblade in NOT in the new codex. It just doesn’t work (i.e. overpowered)in games that are not Apocalypse in size.

However Stormtrooper squads can now take Valkyries as transports. Both will be getting a plastic kit. Valkyries follow the rules for skimmers I’ve been told. Again, they want to keep flyers and super heavies out of “normal games” but give people the ability to use them with all the special rules in Apocalypse and Planet-strike (if the ever get around to that.)

This last one makes me wonder what’s they are doing, but apparently there is a new HQ in the book; Inquisitor and Retinue much like the elites from the current Daemon Hunters/Witch Hunters books."


----------



## GhostGaunt36 (Oct 2, 2008)

my buddy plays gaurd, i hope he enjoys the new codex coming out. i still would like to see a new Dark Eldar codex come out though.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

when in doubt said:


> The Leman Russ can be bought as a squadron so you can get 3 for a single FOC. They can not be attached to platoons however....


Hahahahahaha right...

9 LMR BTs in each guardlist, go figure....


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

The last major thing that I heard about the Russ squadron was that it is a 0-1 HS choice.

This could still be greatly abused though. Could you imagine a Russ squadron with a Demolisher on each flank or 2 Basilisks firing indirectly over advancing Russ's. That would just ruin someones day, but it would make me smile:biggrin:

Leinad


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

I agree, that would be fun!


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

MaidenManiac said:


> Hahahahahaha right...
> 
> 9 LMR BTs in each guardlist, go figure....


id imagine they would have some kind of restriction, i mean no matter how dumb the army designer is, hes got to notice that this is something that shouldnt be allowed to be abused.


----------



## Zarahemna (Aug 7, 2008)

*Is it really abuse?*

Is it really abuse? After all they will be paying the points and they will then be vulnerable to capable anti-tank armies...


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Allowing any army to field 5-6(or even more) av 14(front) vehicles in 5th aint really good in any way. I know its doable in the SM list(5 LR if you play 2k) which in itself is really sad but this would take it to a new level. Its alot worse when those same have 5-6(+) cheeseplates to toss out into the enemy army each shootingphase :angry:

No i agree CCCP, and more so i really hope, that the questionably smart folks at GW will be able to understand that such an entry _will_ be overabused 

With the(albeit really good) change to the glancing rules it'd be a killer to let guards do a tank army. Those are (imo) ment for Apocalypse, where the whole idea of the game is to have the most and biggest tanks/titans. It'd really be a ruination(moralwize - thinking about codex fuckup escalation) to me to see that such an army would be available in a normal 40kbattle uke:


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

As long as they make the battlecannon shots ap4 I don't care what guard are doing. I don't want AV14 pieplates bopping around the board killing everything with little to no care.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

They're making Battlecannon shots AP3?


----------



## Underground Heretic (Aug 9, 2008)

The battle cannon is standardized across codexes as a S 8 AP 3 Large Blast weapon. The demolisher cannon is a S 10 AP 2 Large Blast weapon. The Earthshaker is a S 9 AP 3 Large Blast weapon. These are the guard's cure for the common marine. I'm all for a blast that will pierce 3+ armor. If the Guard loses them, they are seriously nerfed. BS 3 causes more scatter and the difference between an AP 4 blast and and AP3 blast is 200% (I think) because it allows 2/3 of the wounds to be saved by power armor. Against non-power armored units there's no difference, but against 3+ armor the difference is huge.


----------



## when in doubt shoot! (Oct 19, 2008)

GhostGaunt36 said:


> my buddy plays gaurd, i hope he enjoys the new codex coming out. i still would like to see a new Dark Eldar codex come out though.


Yeah, fortunately you can tell him that Dark eldar are next in line for an update I believe, then guard.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Which dex that'll be out next will reviel itself in time.

Battlecannons have always been, and are still AP 3, that wont change.
All i was(trying) to say in my post was: 3 cheeseplates are ok(well almost atleast  ). If they give guards 6(or more) of em this game will rapidly degenerate into something very booring. If you wanna play midless "I r teh tankz0r" game try Apocalypse :mrgreen:


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

You have to remember than a tank-heavy army, in, let us say, a 1,500 point battle, leaves little room for Troops and Elite choices. Because of this those big, lumbering tanks will be picked up piecemeal by smaller and/or more maneuverable, more numerous units. 

Lets not forget that the humble infantry (mere beggers!), dug in in ruins can give tanks a nasty, destruction-filled shock.


----------



## beenburned (May 15, 2008)

Meh, tanklists aint so bad, and are in fact very easy to take down. You can take a lot more AT guns then you can tanks in any given points limit. Kablammo.

No worse then horde armies, and in fact, tank armies could very well be the detterent for the huge number of horde armies, which will mean more elite armies will come along, meaning less tank lists (as elite armies should have a decent amount of AT really) which will encourage more hordes, meaning more tanks, meaning less hordes and more elites, meaning less tanks and more hordes and less elites....hmm, I seem to have got a bit carried away. How terrific.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

"IF" the rumors of the LR squadron are true then at current points and the way I kit my tanks you're looking at 715pts for 3 Russ's and 2 Basilisks. So that would leave more than enough points for troops in a 1750pt list and if they do lower guard to 4pts per man then that puts even more men on the table.

Leinad


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

leinad-yor said:


> "IF" the rumors of the LR squadron are true then at current points and the way I kit my tanks you're looking at 715pts for 3 Russ's and 2 Basilisks. So that would leave more than enough points for troops in a 1750pt list and if they do lower guard to 4pts per man then that puts even more men on the table.
> 
> Leinad


that doesnt leave much room at all in 1500 pts for troops for many other units. when you consider that each platoon unit _is at least_ 170 points, with no upgrades and you have to take two of them to make a legal army. thats another 340, plus another 80 for a HSO/banner combo with no other upgrades.

that leaves you with 365 points tocustomise your army with, including upgrading the aforementioned units. 

i mean, its entirely possible to make that kind of army, but you really would have to skimp a bit at 1500 points, and i doubt it would really be what effective. however, if they do drop points costs and things in the new book, i can see it working a bit better.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

I think that the big thing to look at here is if you follow the current trends of the new codeces then we will most likely see a price drop in our tanks and our troops. This will encourage us buy more and newer units for our army thus bumping up GW sales which is the whole point of selling models.

No matter what the new codex gives us to work with we will still fight the good fight. I have heard a lot of b****ing about all of the new rumors on various boards and the problem that I hear the most is GW is screwing my army and the way that I play.

With the most recient rumors about specialised platoon upgrades for light infantry and whatnot will affect the way people build their armies but I don't see it ruining anyones army as a whole. I task my platoons with a goal and equip them to get it done. Some with specials only and some with both and I use weapon squads to bolster the line. Everything has a purpose and I try to get the most out of them, sometimes it goes well and sometimes it just goes to hell in a hand basket, but I deal with as best I can.

These rumors seem to give us all the options that I here people say they want but it takes away most of the restrictions that the current codex has. How can this be a bad thing? I don't use doctrines because the ones that I like have to affect the army as a whole and I only want to give it to a platoon or two at most, I think these rumors are a good thing for all those who don't wish to go all or nothing while still giving the options to go all out and keep what you have.

That's it for now I hope this can be understood I'm a little foggy this morning.

Leinad


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

leinad-yor said:


> These rumors seem to give us all the options that I here people say they want but it takes away most of the restrictions that the current codex has.


Uhm... no. Not even a little.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

Cole Deschain said:


> Uhm... no. Not even a little.


How so, could you explain?


----------



## domdan (Oct 26, 2008)

i hope they release a new plastic kit for mordians and vostroyans as you are limited to only a few choices unless you have lots of money.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

leinad-yor said:


> How so, could you explain?


They're killing doctrines, which is what made it possible to personalize your army. Not a big surprise. However, they're making it impossible to have a number of different kinds of armies impossible to represent. Light infantry and drop troop armies, for example. 

What the Codex does look like it'll do is play to the demands of people who never really used any tactics with the Imperial Guard, and is giving them the means to bring more ordinance weapons instead of forcing people to really play the game. Enough people whine about their six-point guardsmen not being good enough-- my response is that those people just suck at playing Guard. It's not a "line up and shoot 'em and give up when the other army gets to you" army... nothing works that way in the game. Rather than encourage people to remedy that kind of mentality by making a dynamic army which relies on how individual squads within a platoon support one another, they're just giving people static units in volume which are capable of being lined up and fired without any real thought. 

The current Codex, with no doctrines taken, is perfectly good. It's not like the Codex: Orks from the start of 3rd Edition which badly needed an update and didn't even really work at the end of 3rd. The current Imperial Guard Codex is extremely good-- you just have to pay attention when you play the army. All you have to do is treat your platoons as a single unit. Trying to match up a squad of ten guardsmen against ten Space Marines is going to fail almost every time, and that's what a lot of people try to do, which is why they think the Guard suck. If you have twenty-five Guardsmen (mind you, that's a minimum sized platoon) go fight a Space Marine Tactical Squad, you've got a really good chance of killing the Space Marines by weight of lasgun fire and numbers in combat. It's a very cooperative army on a unit-by-unit basis... as long as you keep that in mind, the Guard is awfully hard to beat. 

Apparently, Games Workshop thinks that getting people to differentiate tactics from army list selection is too much to ask, though. So, you'll be able to bring squadrons of Leman Russes that just blow everybody and everything up in one fell swoop, and defeat the purpose of playing the game. If you want a game where your stuff plays itself, go play a card game. Or, perhaps, once you're able to bring nine Leman Russes in a 2000 point game, play Imperial Guard.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Got this from Warseer:



> Hi all,
> 
> Here are a few rumours about the new IG Codex a friend heard from a local GW manager. I trust him, as he had already provided me with very accurate informations concerning the 5th Ed SM Codex a few monthes ago. We can expect:
> 
> ...


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

Nice; doubt the Leman Russ firing all weapons is true. Hopefully they'll give us an option for sponson Heavy Stubbers or some such instead.


----------



## Underground Heretic (Aug 9, 2008)

I hope they don't have 3 Russes per HS slot. That could lead to the same power listing that the new 3+ storm shields allow, though at lower points level.
I hope that GW isn't going to re-balance the game to be a clash of titans instead some armies being overwhelming in numbers of meat shield troops while others can kill their points cost in models. Personally, I don't like how my tau work some times but I would much rather they have their own strengths and weaknesses. If GW makes the armies mostly the same, except one has tanks and one has good guns and one is green, then they will be moving in the wrong direction. Three cheers for fluff!


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

The Son of Horus said:


> They're killing doctrines, which is what made it possible to personalize your army. Not a big surprise. However, they're making it impossible to have a number of different kinds of armies impossible to represent. Light infantry and drop troop armies, for example.
> 
> What the Codex does look like it'll do is play to the demands of people who never really used any tactics with the Imperial Guard, and is giving them the means to bring more ordinance weapons instead of forcing people to really play the game. Enough people whine about their six-point guardsmen not being good enough-- my response is that those people just suck at playing Guard. It's not a "line up and shoot 'em and give up when the other army gets to you" army... nothing works that way in the game. Rather than encourage people to remedy that kind of mentality by making a dynamic army which relies on how individual squads within a platoon support one another, they're just giving people static units in volume which are capable of being lined up and fired without any real thought.
> 
> ...


very true, except that doctrines are being used instead of tactics. the unfortunate side effect of the doctrine system is that it has further encouraged people to treat their guardsmen as if they were space marines. I have had to explain the futility of building imperial guardsmen to fight meq in hth. the points cost of doing so raises the cost of the guardsmen to the point where they are nearly as expensive as scouts, and are still not as good.
I do like the idea of leman russ squadrons, as that means that a real-world platoon of tanks can be fielded.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

beenburned said:


> Meh, tanklists aint so bad, and are in fact very easy to take down. You can take a lot more AT guns then you can tanks in any given points limit. Kablammo.
> 
> No worse then horde armies, and in fact, tank armies could very well be the detterent for the huge number of horde armies, which will mean more elite armies will come along, meaning less tank lists (as elite armies should have a decent amount of AT really) which will encourage more hordes, meaning more tanks, meaning less hordes and more elites, meaning less tanks and more hordes and less elites....hmm, I seem to have got a bit carried away. How terrific.


What are you on about? This is AV14 with anti-meq main cannon pieplates. Buying them in droves screws many armies that don't have very much ranged anti-av14(Chaos, nids)
I'd have to feasibly infiltrate melta-weilding chosen, or take potshots with lascannons that will fail to hit 1/3 of the time, and only minorly inconvience the paintjobs 1/5th of the time.
Or deep strike(ugh) expensive terminators with combi-meltas and chainfists.
Fifth edition has made tanks really quite good when they have a good main cannon.

Also how will this affect orks at all? The thirty man mob is still extremely reliable for anti-tank with it's hidden powerfist and four attacks on the charge. And with coverhammer fifth edition, they benefit alot from having squads so cheap, with horrific armor saves.
"Oh you're shooting? That's cute. By the way, these squads are interlaced here, here, and here, giving them a 4+"

I mean, in a vacuum, it won't happen, in the real game you have things to hide behind and scurry around. But for a grand tournament like 'ard boiz, deploying corner to corner, I never even got close to the frontline with only a single peice of terrain in the way.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

Son of Horus
Both of the main guard rumors that I've seen about infantry platoons have replaced doctrines with platoon upgrades. These options have made it possible to really make the Guard into what ever you want it to be without the drawback of having to take a doctrine that effects your whole army when you want it to only affect part of it.

At the moment I don't use any doctrines but I do have lists that I have played with doctrines. I do like them for their flavor but I don't consider any of them to be a must in every list. If some of the rumors of platoon upgrades to replace doctrines do make it into the new codex I will be very happy but I won't depend on them to win me any games.

Lord Waffles
I understand where you're coming from I used to think the same way. Any army that has units with str4 or higher can take care of most guard tanks due to the rear armor value of 10. Take any squad you have that has str4 or higher and roll the dice for them to assault it, see if it survives. Even if it does it most likely wont be able to shoot the next turn. Vehicles in a squadron are even more vulnerable because results carry over to the next vehicle.

A space marine assault squad with no upgrades can put out 30 str4 hits when assaulting and could possibly glance a Russ squadron to death. It all comes down to how you approach(?) the problem.

In a game against orks I had 4 infantry squads with with krak grenades turn two battlewagons into craters on the battlefield. Right now the only thing that I worry about is anything with AV14 on all sides, but doesn't every one.:grin:

Leinad


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

I'm loving those Leman Russ rumours from Warseer, sounds a little too good to be true, but if that just ended up being the case for the non ordanance varients I would be beyond happy.

If there is a new plastic Command Squad and Hellhound then aye, expect dancing. :laugh:


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

I like how they're making so much in plastic these days. It just makes everything that much easier.


----------



## GMMStudios (Apr 1, 2008)

From my post on Dakka:

"Now that my sheer excitement has worn off, and I have truly thought about it critically, I think the russ squads will be true, but I think the OP or whoever heard the rumor about shooting everything misinterpreted it. I can see being able to move and shoot the battle cannon OR all hull weapons. That really isnt that broken.

Also, I play AC first and foremost, and for those of you that have not and are going purely on stats, it isnt uber competitive even now to have all that armor. I think that the squadron rules will really balance it, plus the fact that you DO have so many points in them, and in this list they wont be scoring and you wont have an HQ tank.

Armor 14 is good, but when you have a lot of vehicles on the board, movement is tough, and you basically have to make a wall (and be clever to try and never show 12 to anyone who matters) thus you are really susceptible to anything that doesnt deploy in their zone. Not only that but having to be within 6 of each other makes it even tougher.

Also, and the real key for me is that the leman russ will be a new kit. Almost all new kits are good in the new rulebooks. Look at the new WFB chaos, where the best lists use nothing but the new models. Look at marines with...okay I dont need to explain that one. GW will want to sell a lot, and if this rule is true it will add a lot to that.

So in short, I think the squads, and being able to have nine is a very believable rule, but I think the firing rule is either misheard or just...really good. I dont think that will stay as it is written here though.

EDIT: Also the armor values will not change. I can tell you that with confidence and would bet a lot on it. I just dont see that happening."

Armor is really quite tactical compared to a mob of 3+ saves that are the same no matter the direction you fire. Next time you play with your marines try playing so they have a 5 up save on the side and a 6 in the rear, and a 6 in combat. Marines are the "old maid" of 40k when it comes to strategy. They ignore all rules and pretty much just walk forward and fire.


----------



## GMMStudios (Apr 1, 2008)

LordWaffles said:


> Buying them in droves screws many armies that don't have very much ranged anti-av14(Chaos, nids)


This does not fly. As a ten russ chassis AC player, Nids are what I fear most. Fast and once they get into CC its AV10.

The only thing that I think is hosed by AC *currently* (as in before we get squad rules) is poorly played marines and this local guy that takes all foot slogging death guard with sorcerers for HQ. But come on thats a given. Its otherwise a lot more balanced than you would think.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

GMMStudios said:


> This does not fly. As a ten russ chassis AC player, Nids are what I fear most. Fast and once they get into CC its AV10.


You mean like how most nids can't fly? Only the flyrant should be any major danger at all to your tanks unless you're foolish enough to let hormagaunts hit the line.
Even the crushing claws carnifex, with running, shouldn't hit your lines in less than three turns, and by than it should be a steaming pile of ichor. If you deploy in two seperate corners, all you have to do is let him choose which squadron he'd like to hit, than just focus fire. If he's got infiltrating genestealers, just block one side with either infantry or basilisks, with the reduced rending, they're largely ineffective in one-shotting a vehicle.

I'm confused how fast nids(I assume you mean swarm) scare you more than drop-podded multi-melta dreadnoughts?



GMMStudios said:


> The only thing that I think is hosed by AC *currently* (as in before we get squad rules) is poorly played marines and this local guy that takes all foot slogging death guard with sorcerers for HQ. But come on thats a given. Its otherwise a lot more balanced than you would think.


Oh I never said it's completely omg overpowered, especially since they can't capture points, I'm just saying that when you don't have cheap, expendable infantry, or quick little buggers, it's very hard to weather the pieplates of "screw marines".

Albeit I didn't know they HAD to carry over the vehicle damage results, that alone changes my opinion as deep striking combi-melta terms could fix that situation. I thought each tank was a seperate entity entirely, thus my immediate concern.


----------



## Death 0F Angels (Feb 27, 2008)

3 Leman Russes per HS slot. (requires certain conditions to be met)
- Leman Russes can now move and fire ALL their weapons (including the Battle Canon), regardless of their strength.
-New doctrines, including one which provides +1 to cover and allows firing while going to ground. -New Plastic Command squad.
-Assault 2 Lasguns (probably an upgrade).
-The plastic Valkyrie will cost 60€.
-New plastic Hellhound.

these are posted in another thread for those who havent seen. If these are true they are actually ADDING doctrines. Also YAY!!!, i was not looking forward to pulling off my heavy bolter sponsons.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Oh yeah, 60 Euros, what does that translate into Great British Pound Sterling?


----------



## Casual_T (Jan 2, 2008)

60 euros is, as of 12:28 November 3rd:
76.93 USD
47.81 Pounds sterling
90.04 Canadian dollars


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

$90? Wtf? That had better be one big freaking model (like, Land Raider sized).


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Its actually a bit larger than a land raider... not as bulky, but length and wingspan make it more comparable to a baneblade.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Well as long as i can still use my resin one! lol Cool model, bloody heavy!


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Awesome. Who needs armour when you can have armour _*FROM THE SKIES.*_


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

*Heavier Tanks*

Of these new Tank Variants does anyone know if there introducing something with similar capabilites and points value to the Land Raider (or the Warhammer Steam Tank)?


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm confused how fast nids(I assume you mean swarm) scare you more than drop-podded multi-melta dreadnoughts?

I agree with Lordwaffles, especially since the new dreadnought rules mean you can combine lascannons (for heavy armour) and autocannons (for light armour) on a single sarchopagus.

Even the crushing claws carnifex, with running, shouldn't hit your lines in less than three turns, and by than it should be a steaming pile of ichor. 

However I must disagree with him on the Carnifex point. Whether built for fire support or close combat these guys can win the day all by themselves, in my first game one of these guys nearly secured a Tyranid victory despite the fact it was the only unit left facing me.

Do not underestimate the Carnifex or suffer your father's fate you will.


----------

