# Guard Rumours from Dakka



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

This popped up on Dakka Dakka today, thanks to Dexy over there for sharing.



Dexy said:


> I spoke with my friend in Nottingham, he had a word with the guy writing the new IG dex (Name I won't reveal due to his popularity on the boards (Good or bad I won't say!)).
> The focus of the new IG dex is troops and so is the only information I have regarding new Dex.
> First of all Guard are now 4 points each, but this is the "Ground level" guard so to speak. They can have no Special weapons or heavy weapons at all, in all respects they are the new conscripts but with normal guard stats.
> 
> ...


Source


Sounds really good to me, be interested to see how the platoon thing works out though.


----------



## Spot The Grot (Jul 15, 2008)

that is a really interesting find there it sound quite cool that thy are getting cheaper


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Hmm. I don't like the sound of that. Can there be no combinations? Such as a 'heavy infantry and airborne' division?

Ah well. Just going to have to use the 4ed codex in that case.


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

I think from the info he posted thats hard to tell, but I would assume if you can take more than one Platoon (like you can now) you'd have no problems. You might find with such a system you'd take two or three varying platoons all counting as Troops, well possibly.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Sounds crap to me.

I will certainly be unable to reflect my army as it now stands.


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

Aye to be fair Cole I haven't got an army atm, so I'll be able to walk in unburdened by any figs who have just been bent over a barrel by the changes. I certainly feel for anyone who suffers that mind you, had it hit me in the past with previous armies, but in this case I'm a little more optimistic as I'll be starting fresh.


----------



## beenburned (May 15, 2008)

4 point guardsmen has me scared. It really does. I like how the platoons works, but is the massive points drop really necessary?


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Compared to the point/efficiency seen in other newer dexes.... yeah... the point drop is necessary. But, keep in mind that this point decrease is for the basic guardsman. Unit upgrades will most likely increase the average cost of an individual guardsman considerably.


----------



## Spot The Grot (Jul 15, 2008)

it is when you think about it 2 squads now would be worth 3 then yikes 10 more lasguns !!:shok: :shok:


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

Hm... I'm not sure if I really like those platoon organizations... 1 special weapon and 1 heavy weapon was good enough for me!


----------



## beenburned (May 15, 2008)

Hespithe said:


> Compared to the point/efficiency seen in other newer dexes.... yeah... the point drop is necessary. But, keep in mind that this point decrease is for the basic guardsman. Unit upgrades will most likely increase the average cost of an individual guardsman considerably.


The point drop may be necessary to keep in line with some armies, but when a 1750 can take something along the lines of 200 lasguns currently, along with basilisks and a few other whatnotz...well, I dread to think of some of the armies I could be fighting when they're dropped down to 4. _If_ they're dropped down to four. I'm having trouble believing this rumour to be honest.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

As long as there is a serious limit to the ammount of Leman Russ tanks that can be included it seems fine to me :good:

And on the cost of guards: Orks are now 6 pts each so that a standard guard would be priced under that aint a big suprize right?


----------



## beenburned (May 15, 2008)

Yeah, but my guardians are 8 points each for a better gun and leadership then a guardsman. If they guard go down to four, mine better be dropped to 7 at least, if not 6 to equal the orks. I mean geezus...they're balancing guard for orks alone, and the rest of the armies are slightly screwed because of it.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

MaidenManiac said:


> As long as there is a serious limit to the ammount of Leman Russ tanks that can be included it seems fine to me :good:
> 
> And on the cost of guards: Orks are now 6 pts each so that a standard guard would be priced under that aint a big suprize right?


orks and guardsmen have pretty much been equal, it's pretty much the players that are unequal. If a guard player can't keep the orks from meeting their lines in bits and pieces, they are doing something wrong, as I, playing an army with only 2 weapons with a range greater than 24 inches can make them meet my lines in a slow trickle, a guard player, with the mortars, scads of heavy weapons and ordinance should be able to do this reliably. The guard player should not deploy one line of infantry, but two lines, with the first being a speed bump for the second, sacrificing itself to blunt an ork assault. 

The points drop would unbalance the IG, as they would be able to deploy a third line, preventing any force from claiming objectives, and swamping any oponent due to the dirt cheap troops. a 1500 point force could then have 250 infantrymen, with 500 points for tanks, artillery and heavy weapons.


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

250 infantrymen and 500 points of tanks and stuff? That would be... interesting. Of course, with my luck, I'll need all the help I can get.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> The points drop would unbalance the IG, as they would be able to deploy a third line, preventing any force from claiming objectives, and swamping any oponent due to the dirt cheap troops. a 1500 point force could then have 250 infantrymen, with 500 points for tanks, artillery and heavy weapons.


Hmm fair point. Hope the Nottingham dudes reason roughly the same atleast. After reading the rumor more carefully i realized that the 4 pts detail seem to be for conscripts which feels a bit comforting atleast :angel:


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

Conscripts with the stats of current guardsmen, that is.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Lord_Murdock said:


> Conscripts with the stats of current guardsmen, that is.


I doubt they would have the same stats, either they would have significantly reduced ld, or ws and bs would be 2. otherwise, it is a bit much, seeing that they would be 1/4 the cost of a space marine.


----------



## Duke Vorian (Jun 21, 2008)

I really don't see why people are worried about Guardsmen as 4 pts. a pop. First off its just a rumour.....

Second, and my point, is that as it stands a Guardsman is the same point as an Ork, who in the aspect of shooting, technically is in the advantage for being able to field large squads of assault guns that they can fire in route to the enemy to exceed also in the field of Assault with an increase to their charge (once, but still only really needed once), and a _FAR_ superior assault action. 

The current Guard codex is undoubtly the most balanced list out their, even in the 5th edition universe, but its not balanced to the other armies. I believe Dark Eldar are in this boat too. 

So you see 250 basic Guardsmen. You really think your going to have that much trouble? 

It is just a rumour though...


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

I like it all, and as for the usual bleat "it outdates my favourite ........", fuck it.

Anybody starting guard recently had to know a change was coming. Do we never want anything to change?


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> Do we never want anything to change?


When this much-ballyhooed "change" stand to POTENTIALLY invalidate roughly twenty percent of my entire army? Yeah.

I DON'T welcome it.


Trying not to panic, since these are just rumors, but if all of this crap is true, they're not only changing the stuff we knew was going to go, they're altering the way the army is going to be BUILT from the ground up.

And that, quite frankly, takes those of us who HAVE existing armies and bends us over a barrel.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Yes. Some players don't want to play a footslogging army, or a generic attrition based regiment, supported by masses of armour. If that's what you like, power to you. In fact I even see the appeal.

However, players like myself enjoy the heavy infantry, light infantry and airborne feel the Guard can offer. In fact I think it'd be fair to say that a large part of Imperial Guard players enjoyed the fact that they really could have a specialized regiment.

But anyway. If you don't like it, then play the 4ed codex. As long as your opponent agrees.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Cole... don't you understand GW's motivations yet, lol.

GW will always alter each army in such a way as to maximize the marketing potential of the army. Now that the core authors of the original 40K universe no longer work with GW, little care is given to army background, balance, or even game consistency.

GW, IMHO, still carry and make the best models in this scale. The support GW gives to these models, meaning the GAME, leaves a lot to be desired. It is for this reason, mainly, that I no longer play GW games, lol.

IG are the new Chaos, Eldar, Dark Angels, etc... Most armies have been bent over by GW's game 'development' team.

Granted, I do like much of what I am hearing, but I also dislike much of it.


----------



## Shas La (Oct 13, 2008)

4 pts for a guardsman tht dont soundtoo good but if u think about it most armies can easyly counter it. tau long range and kroot sm assult termies and marines with fire support for thundefires not to mention drop pods.


im not for it but im not seriously against it either.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Well for standard Guardsmen that's quite good. You can get 30 men for the price of 20.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

KellysGrenadier said:


> Yes. Some players don't want to play a footslogging army, or a generic attrition based regiment, supported by masses of armour. If that's what you like, power to you. In fact I even see the appeal.
> 
> However, players like myself enjoy the heavy infantry, light infantry and airborne feel the Guard can offer. In fact I think it'd be fair to say that a large part of Imperial Guard players enjoyed the fact that they really could have a specialized regiment.
> 
> But anyway. If you don't like it, then play the 4ed codex. As long as your opponent agrees.


then don't play imperial guard. find an army that suits your style of play. I have said it many times to players in the shops I play at. trying to mix elements of the various armies in 40k is a disservice to the game. You take a game that has a rich flavor and reduce it to numbers when you do this, because the models become meaningless when they all play the same. you also do yourself a disservice when you do this, because the primary result, and the usual intent, is removing the primary non-points based weakness of the army. 

as for the doctrines argument, it was never a fluff argument, as few players created fluff, and then took doctrines to reflect it. most took doctrines and then created fluff to justify it. 
When the new dex comes out, it will be fine, just as the space marine dex is now. It might have a few things that bother people, but we might also see the return of some cool things from the past, such as the mole mortar outside of an imperial armour book. with the marine dex, they brought back the conversion beamer, and the thudd gun, but as the thunderfire cannon.
If the rumors about the platoon organization are even half true, that means that most of the stuff from the current dex will still be there, and enough to be reasonable.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> then don't play imperial guard. find an army that suits your style of play. I have said it many times to players in the shops I play at. trying to mix elements of the various armies in 40k is a disservice to the game. You take a game that has a rich flavor and reduce it to numbers when you do this, because the models become meaningless when they all play the same. you also do yourself a disservice when you do this, because the primary result, and the usual intent, is removing the primary non-points based weakness of the army.



No. 

That is not the point. The Imperial Guard suits my style of play wonderfully, because I've built it to my style. I could do that with any other army, but I don't want to play any other army. I want to play Guard. I don't need to be told what I should or should not play. The attrition-style regiment is not the rule, no matter what anyone says, just like the Ultramarines are not the rule for Space Marine players.

I knew someone was going to throw the 'then don't play Guard' card. And the fact of the matter is it is not the point. So I reject it. The Guard is what you make it. I don't want to play a Space Marine, Dark Eldar, Eldar, CSM, Necron or Inquisition army. I want to play Imperial Guard that can deep strike with a 4+ save. Okay, I might not have as many troops as more 'traditional' Guard armies... point being? I don't care. I think it's cool.

The Imperial Guard is such a flexible army that it can be played in any style you practically wish. The current Codex allows this. 

I don't see how you can 'mix elements' of different armies. Beyond that -- even if you could -- I don't see how it is a disservice. 

As for 'meaningless' models, because they all play similarly. Well that's just tough luck. It's not my concern if anyone objects to my current deep-striking Guard army that mirrors, and only _somewhat_, of a drop-pod heavy Marine company.

In fact these armies with a theme add to the richness of the game. All armies have this flexibility, so I don't see your point. _Not everyone wants to play a generic force._

Lastly I don't understand your last point, about the 'non-points based weakness of the army'. If you could please explain further that would be terrific.



Son of mortarion said:


> as for the doctrines argument, it was never a fluff argument, as few players created fluff, and then took doctrines to reflect it. most took doctrines and then created fluff to justify it.
> When the new dex comes out, it will be fine, just as the space marine dex is now. It might have a few things that bother people, but we might also see the return of some cool things from the past, such as the mole mortar outside of an imperial armour book. with the marine dex, they brought back the conversion beamer, and the thudd gun, but as the thunderfire cannon.
> If the rumors about the platoon organization are even half true, that means that most of the stuff from the current dex will still be there, and enough to be reasonable.


It's not my concern also that many players don't write up fluff. Nor is it theirs. Furthermore they do not need to justify anything. If it's legal then it is legal. End of discussion. If someone wants a Jungle Fighters regiment with Hardened fighters, and then charge them into the open because they can, so what? It doesn't need justification.

As for the Marine codex, well that's neither here nor there. We're not discussing that.


----------



## LeeHarvey (Jul 25, 2008)

I can sympathize with anybody who is going to have the new codex make their beloved army illegal just by the nature of GW's medling with rules that don't need to be changed.

This is why I stand by those players who would rather use an old codex with their army. If you go through the trouble to make a characterful, interesting and rewarding unique army based upon the doctrines/traits system, and then GW goes and removes that ability making your army illegal or nonfunctional by changing rules, by your efforts I believe you've earned the right to play with the army the way you built it, even if that means you are going need to use an out of date codex to do it. You bought and built the army, you bought the codex, you have the right to do with them as you please and if somebody doesn't want to play with you because of it, that's their problem. They are the ones denying themselves what could have been a fun and challenging game with a worthy opponent.

That said, I do have a disagreement with mixing the rules from different books as it is too easy to build a power army and take advantage of your opponent. If you are going to use a certain set of rules they should be from the same book. Whether that book is old or new doesn't so much matter to me.


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

So, what exactly is being made illegal from the current rules? What is it that GW is getting rid of from guard that everyone's so angry about? I've only ever used infantry platoons and tanks, so that being said I play a pretty generic force to begin with and have no problem with all these changes GW might be making. 

I mean, point drops across the board for the guard can't be that bad, can it? No one's stopping you from making a specialized force as the troops will likely still be able to deep strike and start mounted in chimeras etc. I'll admit that I'm going to miss the +1 WS, but it's hardly necessary. What am I missing here?


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> then don't play imperial guard.


Wow, that's constructive.

I DO play Guard. I play MY guard, and they do fine.

If I wanted to play bloodydamn Cadians, I would.

The appeal of the guard for me was that they were the army you could customize the most.... that you could make a Regiment that was _yours_.

For your bland dismissal of this, I have nothing but contempt.


----------



## Shugotenshi47 (Mar 2, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> then don't play imperial guard. find an army that suits your style of play.


Well lets see what army fits my play style then. I play Light Infantry Guard with harden fighters, camo, chem inhalers, and veterans and I structured it to be very fluffy and fits my play style. First up is Tau, good guns and mobile but too weak in cc for my play style/fluff. 2. Inquisition, too elite for my taste my men may be light infantry but they are not army of Rambos or the Tanith. 3. Space Marines, in general fit what I want in my army but is too popular, too elite, and it is hard to create the flawed but fanatically dedicated force that my IG force is making itself out to be.

Besides massed bayonet charge of guardsmen screaming "Banzai to the Emperor" is just more cinematic then a badly outnumbered force of SM making the same type of charge even with the same battle cry and converted to be feudal samurai


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Cole Deschain said:


> Wow, that's constructive.
> 
> I DO play Guard. I play MY guard, and they do fine.
> 
> ...


you also seem to have contempt for anything that is canon.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> you also seem to have contempt for anything that is canon.


If you want to make a flame war out of this, by all means, but do it in PM boxes.


And since your post contains nothing except personal sniping.... I have nothing more to say to you on the subject. Call back when you have a cogent response.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> you also seem to have contempt for anything that is canon.


After third edition I kind of stopped listening to it...as did GW.

IE:Eldrad died yet is still playable.



Also the current fluff is kind of...unplayable with these armies. What if i want to play alpha legion? OOOOOH SNAP!

Plus I mean, the dude has a point, it was fun making your own guard regiment and playing it. I for one, know I don't want to always play black legion(Cobra in space), why should he have to feel anymore glad about being forced to play cadians?


----------



## Maximus (Mar 9, 2008)

I like the rumors presented here and IMHO that point drop was necessary to balance Guard, not only against Orks but I will take them to give an example.
I will take a Guardsman and a single slugga & choppa boy to show a few numbers:
I think we all agree that an Ork will easily defeat a Guardsman in close combat, so I am just going to show you the probability that a Guardsman will kill an Ork with his lasgun.

The probability to do that is 13,89% for a single Lasgun shot. In most cases, there is a 24" distance between the Guardsman and the Ork. An Ork boy can move 7-12" a turn, depending on your luck in the run-roll. For outlining the situation, I think we average a 9 here. At this rate, he can make close the distance within 2 turns, again depening on probability and assuming that the Orkplayer calls a Waagh to get the fleet special rule.

This means that an Imperial Guardsman will only have 1 or 2 turns worth of shooting before the ork comes and tears him apart in close combat. A Guardsman will only get 2 or three shots off, this gives him a chance of 27,78% off killing the Ork worst case and a 41,67% chance assuming a realistic case.

A charging slugga boy has 4 Attacks with WS and S4 striking at I3, meaning simultaneously with the Guardsman. This comes down to 1,18 dead Guardsmen per charging boy, while the Guardsman has the same CC output as a single lasgun shot. 

Now my point is that Guardsmen are almost not worth their points when compared to other troops available to other races, a thing that really needs to be changed.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

Imperial Guard regiments arent all attrittion-only footsloging armies. Many are specialist forces. You have the drop-troops, catachans, steel legion etc.. the list just goes on. However, the list will most likely give you the option of giving a platoon deep strike or the like. Guardsmen can be played as a specialist force without being un-fluffy.


----------



## wertypop (Feb 25, 2007)

It will be intresting how this will effect tactic and deployments look forward to seeing the new codex


----------



## The Hobo Hunter (Jan 2, 2008)

Being a cadian player myself, I probably stand to lose the least in terms of the impending ultrasmurfanisation, but I feel for all of you guys who play a different IG list.

I'm going doctrineless at the moment because I'm on a mission to prove the IG don't need them to win - but they will be sorely missed IMO.

This idea of differing types of platoons concerns me greatly. All this talk about 'basic' platoons getting nothing but lasguns while other platoons load up on heavy weapons sounds, frankly, like a retarded concept. I am quite happy with 1spec/1heavy in each squad. If they gave the option for 2 spec/0 heavy I wouldn't mind.

I don't see why an individual IG army would have access to all these different styles of warfare. A single infantry company usually fights independently, as far as I know, calling in help from other companies when they need things like armoured support. One doesn't simply have a platoon of cadians fighting with a platoon of tallarns, supported by elysians.

If they do give us the option of playing 'specialist' armies (and it sounds like a big if so far), I'd rather see the change on an army-wide basis, not a platoon-wide basis. However, knowing GW, this would lead to some form of special-character-spam, which I dislike intensely.

Special characters are fine. Seeing Yarrick tagteaming bad guys with Gaunt (probably to beat up Abaddon or Mephiston....) each game is not.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Well, if any of this is true, it's a marketing scheme by GW. I'm not blaming them; they're a business, and a business's objective is to make profit.

Lets see the worst-case scenario for specialist-regiment players like myself. 

The generic attrition-style, with masses of infantry and waves of tanks, requires a _lot_ of models to be bought to be made effective. Some may say 'but you get 20 Cadians in every box. Marines only have 10 per box'. 

That doesn't matter, however, when Marines are vastly superior to Guardsmen, and you only need to buy one box of them to be effective. How are you going to glue and paint that block of 200 Guardsmen? Well you'll need _moar_ paint and glue.

Bottom line; if the 'traditional' Guard army is made the rule, then players will need to buy boxes upon boxes of Cadian/equivalents infantry to be effective, not to mention 4 or 5 tanks to fill in the Heavy Support function. That's a lot of money. You might get 'more bang for your buck' when starting a Guard army, but that doesn't translate on the board.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Having pondered the subject a bit i think like this:

They will most likely not remove the weapon options in normal guard units, and i dont think conscripts will get lots.

The support/heavy squads thats beeing talked about are the ones you buy as such (lascannon units/autocannon units) and i dont think these will be unavailable to folks. I think you need to buy some "standard unit for heavy companys" to unlock the option of buying each of the other picks in the heavy company.
If youre familiar with how skavens work in WHFB army constructing wise its like that. For each Clanrat unit you take you can take 1 of each other unit in the army, more or less :dunno:

But thats ofc only my speculation


----------



## spitfire6x (Jan 28, 2008)

hi,

if a normal squad cant take heavy weapons or special weps(and i guess this includes the standar flamer and grenade launcher) does this not mess with alot of guard players. i know it does with me. i have 15 squads all with heavy weapons and spec weps not including platton hq's
now my army is spit up into standard guard, scout mech and airborne so i have all elliments however if these are true i can see alto of reorganisation and more cost outlay.

i does not make sence to take flamers or a gl away from the common troop at the end of the day its point and shoot not much iq needed.

i thought in a recent white dwarf the guy doing the codex suggested it was all about the tanks!!! bringing in more and suggesting the infanrty side just needing a tweek?


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

4 pt Guardsmen.... hehehehe

I can finally fit all 500 of my guardsmen in a 2000pt game... oh yes.... horde army indeed.

but I still dont like it, rather have it as thus:

4 pt basic Guard

Special Abilities like Drop Troops, Chem inhalers, etc, add onto the basic cost of the Guardsmen, say 1pt apiece?

10 man squads no HVY weapons, only 1 special weapon.

Each platoon can have 1 HVY support squad (3-4 Teams), which the teams may then be added onto the regular guard squads

Tank Platoon options may either be Basilisk, or LRMBT but can only use one type for your army.

You can choose instead to have the other used bought as a single tank for one hvy support FOC place.

That is my wish.. doubt Ill get it though....

And damn it, I better get Independent Commissars.


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

Lord_Murdock said:


> So, what exactly is being made illegal from the current rules? What is it that GW is getting rid of from guard that everyone's so angry about? I've only ever used infantry platoons and tanks, so that being said I play a pretty generic force to begin with and have no problem with all these changes GW might be making.
> 
> I mean, point drops across the board for the guard can't be that bad, can it? No one's stopping you from making a specialized force as the troops will likely still be able to deep strike and start mounted in chimeras etc. I'll admit that I'm going to miss the +1 WS, but it's hardly necessary. What am I missing here?



Easy, some of us DON'T play generic Guard.

Some of us use specialised Armies, not just AC or just Droptroops/

For Example me:

I use Conscripts with Independent Commissars with Chem inhaler that rush forward under the fire of Basilisks, and when the going gets rough, I have all my regular guard Platoons Drop in, using the Drop Troops Doctrine.

I have played that way for the past 4 years. I like the feel of it, it fits the way I think.

You get rid of some of those elements, I can't play my Army the way I have for the past 4 years.

I can no longer play the way I love to play my army. I do NOT want to play just Drop Troops, its just too Specialized. I like the idea of my whole Army being drunk before a battle (thus the Chem Inhalers) and I do not want to change that. I don't use Vox Casters, or an officer above JR. I do not want to change that.

I do want to play my WWII ish Artillery, Conscripts, and Paratrooper Army.

I do not want to play as Damn Cadians, nor do I want to play as any other Army. They do not fit my Persona. 

I mean come on, the change from the 3rd Edition Codex to the 4th edition one was great in my opinion, they added instead of take away. Built upon, instead of create anew.

From the sounds of it, it sounds like they are trying to make a new type of IG army. AND I DO NOT LIKE IT. 

I'll probably go the way of Hespithe and stop playing. I have no wish to change the way my army runs. Its not a Power Army, its a Fun army, its definetlly no tournament winner, and I don't care, I play because it is FUN. once it stops doing that for me. Im done.


----------

