Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So i recently played my guard in a RTT and concluded that the Guard need to be more flexable on terms of movement. Being one of the most unspecialized armys in the 40k universe i found that the guard need to stand and shoot in almost all scenerios in order to keep them selfs alive. I found my problem was i needed to make the choice of trying to kill my opponet or make a dash to the objective marker. In almost every game i played i choose to stay in cover and force my opponet to assault me. the result, 90% casualty rate, but a victory over all. but seriously, a 90% casualty rate in every game! thats unpractical in any battle situation. Seriously, if the Guard need to suffer 90% casualties in order to take an objective, then they need an overhaul on the flexability part.

Personally i think the Guard already have all they need to win a battle, without the outragious casualty rate, however those items are way too expensive and need to be fixed. Such an example would be my HQ, it was an amazing counter-assault unit, that turned any opponet that broke my lines, however i had to pump 250pts into it to make it that strong. Or even the doctrines i find are excessive in cost. so are rough riders, and the cost of a lascannon for a sentinel is outragious! at BS3 with 1 shot for a 65pt AV30 walker, i think its better at looking dangerious then acually being dangerious. Like i said the codex is full of flexable units but there prices are anything but flexable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
I think in order to take objectives with guard you need to either a) charge with stacks of guys, get most of them killed and hope you have enough left when the smoke clears, or b) use units in concert to do it. The guard don't have cheap flexible units, as you said. This doesn't mean they aren't flexible though, it just means you need several units to do a job most armies would attempt with one.

I have to disagree with you on rough riders too, I think they are cheap as chips points wise. Charge them into a unit of meqs holding an objective, obliterate them or drive them away, then move up and hold the objective with an armoured fist squad (using both the infantry and the tank to cover each other). Your rough riders will probably be too messed up to do anything useful afterwards, but taking objectives is what they're for I reckon. They just can't hold them very well.

I guess that's the thing with guard. Most armies have assault units which can take and hold an objective. Guard have obj. taking units and obj. holding units. You have to use them together.

Standing back and shooting is OK if the object is to wipe your enemy out. If you're playing an objectives-based mission though it just won't do (unless of course you can COMPLETELY wipe your enemy out. In that case, well done).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
If you read the fluff for the IG, that is how they do things. With the exception of the fairly elite drop airborne/drop regiments (Elyssians and others) the IG is the sledgehammer of the Imperium, they don't do subtle. They are the archtypical attrition-warfare army, backed by a industrial base covering a good chunk of the galaxy. Massive casualities are acceptable to a IG general so long as they do get the objective done (to see the extreme of this mentality read up on the Death Korpe).

In regards to mobility, a Space Marine can run down a street at a enemy with a reasonable expectation that he will get to them without being riddled with bullets because he has heavy power armor and stands 8 feet tall with biceps bigger around than your average IG PFC. IG lack the equipment, physique, and mentality for that.

This may not be the response you are looking for, but what you are wanting is not really in the fluff for IG. IG operations are going to have casualties, and most likely substantial ones. That is the way they do things.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
and the cost of a lascannon for a sentinel is outragious! at BS3 with 1 shot for a 65pt AV30 walker, i think its better at looking dangerious then acually being dangerious. Like i said the codex is full of flexable units but there prices are anything but flexable.
It's 55 points. And there is nothing, I repeat nothing that can walk onto the table with a lascannon for less points in the game. (Correct me if you can - ranged STR 9 weapon anyone?) - TO CLARIFY - yes, buying a anti-tank squad and equipping it with lasc's, then dividing it by 3 is less points PER lascannon, but I'm talking about the minimum points spent on your tabled army list to place a weapon that can hurt/take out anything whatsoever?
These puppys don't take wounds, they roll on the damage table. = more Survivable
They take objectives - for a tiny investment. Your line squads cost more for pete's sake!
& Can move & fire their heavy weapons - hide in deployment (or with the scout move) then move out and hammer away on your first turn (hiding is good in case you don't get 1st)

Sentinals with Lascannons are exellent value for points.
 

·
Treadhead with a Chainaxe
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
Or even the doctrines i find are excessive in cost.
Some of the doctrines have quite silly point prices yes - bionics for instance. However, I find most of them to be pretty fair priced.

so are rough riders
What!? Rough Riders are a bargain for the destruction they can bring a squad of marines. Fragile? Yes. They're a one trick pony, but dang, that trick they do never gets old. At 11p with a lance, I can't say I think they're overpriced.

and the cost of a lascannon for a sentinel is outragious! at BS3 with 1 shot for a 65pt AV30 walker, i think its better at looking dangerious then acually being dangerious. Like i said the codex is full of flexable units but there prices are anything but flexable.
Ironically, single sentinel with a lascannon is the cheapest lascannon you can field in the entire game. In addition, the sentinel has an ability that no other unit in the Imperial Guard aside from the Leman Russ can match. It can move and fire lascannons, and as you said so well yourself;

...need to be more flexable on terms of movement.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
596 Posts
the result, 90% casualty rate, but a victory over all.
To me, it sounds like we dont have a problem here.

If both armies start with the same amount of points and you lose most of yours but still win the game, then the end justified the means.
I wouldnt complain if I won a checkers game by one peice, I would rejoice.

I agree that IG armies are generally static to ensure that our massed HWs can fire. Even if you played a more 'flexible' army like Chaos, you still wouldnt see mobile havocs.That's why it is important to have mobile elements such as armoured fists or grenadiers in chimeras. Drop troops also add to our ability to take objectives.
So, there are mobile elements available to an IG commander but flexiblity is not our forte.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,800 Posts
There are several ways to go about taking an objective. The only really straightforward one is the Light Infantry doctrine, which lets you start closer or even on your target. My own preferred method right now is to create a wall of armor to screen my advance (and pave the road, as needed). Alternatively, keep your troops static and dedicate your vehicles to taking objectives. If you are heavy on troops, then drop troops might work for you, or simply dedicating a couple squads to run while the others gun. None of these methods is an automatic success--pick your weakness--but that's one of the endearing things about Guard. Objectives aren't just a turn 6 rules glitch for us, we need to plan the play and play the plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Hmm ok let me clarify, i wont because i had the 10% of my remaining troops at the objectives. IF we honisty went down to victory points, i would of been screwed. I had my 2 platoon commands left, my HQ barely above 50%, and various other squads here and there below 50%. all in all, i had maybe 300pts left on the feild in rag tag units. My opponet easly had me beat with a Land Raider, TechPriest, and a his Chaplian left with a little less then half his retinue, and a near full tactical squad.

Like i said, i toke massive casualties and won, suffered a 90% casuality rate. My opponet suffered only about 70% casualties. Ill give it to him that he gots Marines and could easly out shoot, fight, and survive my guardsmen. Even then it felt like i was not getting what i NEED out my army for the points i was paying. I had him out numbered nearly 3:1 yet all the lasguns, lascannons, Heavy Flamers, and Power Weapons in my army couldnt seem to keep his army down. What really saved me in the end was the fact that i droped a good portion of my army around his troops and was able to take a good chunk out of them in 1 turn. but next turn he just shredded 4-5 of my squads and was back on the move.

I guess my real complaint is that it feels like i cant move my Guardsmen actively on the field and keep my opponet at bay like all other armys are capable of doing. In a Seek and Destory i can sit back and out shoot my opponet, but in taking objective, it seems to take almost as much luck as it takes tactics to take the objective and hold my opponet off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I guess my real complaint is that it feels like i cant move my Guardsmen actively on the field and keep my opponet at bay like all other armys are capable of doing.
Bingo. Guard cannot be played like the various other armies. Using your guardsmen like marines will result only in a pile of corpses.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,800 Posts
In a Seek and Destory I can sit back and out shoot my opponet, but in taking objectives, it seems to take almost as much luck as it takes tactics to take the objective and hold my opponet off.
I had a similar problem with Tau. The question wasn't taking the objective so much as holding on to it when you aren't good at CC--your opponent gets a movement bonus to reach you and has a reasonable chance of beating you down under half strength before the game ends. The only two solutions I had were to kill all fast units early--not always possible--and to be in a vehicle to take the objective, thus keeping troops safe. For the Guard, Hellhounds and Armored Fist squads are the good objectivetakers; you can move fast enough to be near-immune to CC on turn 6. Using light tanks also solves the problem of losing firepower when you move up. Russes work, too, if they aren't too busy pie plating the Emperor's Finest into oblivion.

Anyway, I empathize with you. Guard do have a disadvantage in such matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Bingo. Guard cannot be played like the various other armies. Using your guardsmen like marines will result only in a pile of corpses.
Im gona be honest, i HATE it when people compare me to Marines. I have no respect for the traderous ab-humans, Half of the Marines join Chaos, not half of Humanity. Ive played Catachans, Tau, Ork, and now doctrine IG, and in that order. None of my armys were made up of good saves, but i worked with what i had. Oh and i played old Catachans, back when they were cool and unique. Now there just another IG army...anyways my point is in all my armys i kept my troops on the move, the new IG cannot move and thats a huge problem. Espically when my army brings minimal tanks (Fluff reasons) and is forced to rely on heavy concentrations of troops to support troops. Its tough but it works in most cases, but that doesnt change the fact that in almost every battle i need to suffer more casualitys in order to do the same thing any other army can. It puts serious balance questioning into the armys over all, but mostly the army that seems to fall out of place with the others.

I agree, i won so the army is working. But for how long will it keep working? At my game store, the IG are the laughing stock army because every player who plays them has lost there way into other armys. Im only IG player left and i understand the flaws and reasons why the IG are being left. I think the codex gots all the right gear and units, but many wrong prices for them.

Oh and Espcially the Doctrine system, great idea, but it needs a total revamp. Its great and all but doesnt make every IG army truely different from one another. even with all the cool Doctrines it seems the IG are still reliant on numbers, guns, and the Tank that holds the name of a Marine(see above). I dont think my armys Fluff against bringing tanks and Heavy guns should force them to rely soley on there numbers to win. Over all i feel because i abandoned tanks and gun i dramatically changed my armys make-up and the way it functions, I have developed tactics that work well for them, but in the end my army is all ways lacking the punch of a Russ, or Mass Heavy Bolters that i cannot seem to make up for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Zerocid, i think you may just be asking too much of the guard. We cant do fast armies, but we can do mobile, Unfortunately, mobile infantry is just not going to happen. Aside from the blimp that is infantry squads with grenadelaunchers, IG infantry are always going to have to play fairly static. Tanks combine the ability to move 6" and shoot generous ammounts of dakka, sentinels provide mobile heavy weaponry. How can that ability be transfered to IG infantry?

Speaking of sentinels: 55pts for the basic model. And at that price i find them a bargain. Sure on paper a single BS3 lascannon looks terrible for effeciency, compared to the multilas or autocannon. But the 110pts i spend on sentinels in my 1500pt army are probably the best deal ive got. They can threaten the heaviest of armour, yet they can also slip under the radar. Although its unlikely that your sentinel will pop that land raider, your opponent cannot afford to discount the possibility. Because if it does its paid its cost 5 times over, and more importantly, disrupted their plans. A sentinel can pop out from behind level 3 cover and shoot at least once without fear of retaliation. It can move to minimise its exposure: in an ideal case only its target with have LOS to the sentinel at any given time. And finally, theyre priceless against S3 swarms, because they can tie them up in combat permanently.

I also use rough riders, and they seem decently priced to me. Not the bargain that the sentinels are, but hey. My only complaint is that i always roll terribly with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I got to agree, i find sentinels a bargin too for there price. But i have never and never knew anyone to arm them with a lascannon. Mine are currently armed with a Heavy Flamer and Hunter Killer. I made them with the only concept of tieing up my enemys long enough for my troops to get into position. Works fairly well against all non-marine armys. But i still think 55pts for a BS3 Heavy1 Lascannon is too costy, even if it was droped my 5 pts i think it would be far more reasonable in price. At BS3 i know the IG work best when you mass weapons that only get 1 shot, 1 shot has a 50-50 of hitting or missing, and no garintee its gona pierce the armour. But when you place in groups of 2-3, they suddly become very deadly. and anyone can see that a 165pt 3 man sentinel squad cost more then a 110pt Anti-tank support squad. Same amount, of Lascannons, just as deadly as the next one.

I guess my problem with Rough Riders is that suicide units never made any sense to me. Never could figure out why a Guardsman would go into combat so il-prepared for the fighter after the intial assault.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
and anyone can see that a 165pt 3 man sentinel squad cost more then a 110pt Anti-tank support squad. Same amount, of Lascannons, just as deadly as the next one.
True, however the sentinels can:

  • Move and shoot
  • Be individual units instead of a squad
  • Take a free move before the game starts
  • Shoot immediately after deep striking
  • Be unkillable by S3 enemies (gaunts, orks, guard, elves)
  • Be damaged (maybe) by S4 on a 6 as opposed to a 3
  • Be deployed near last, allowing you to set up a fire lane
  • No morale or target priority
That's a lot of perks for an extra 55 points.
 

·
Murder
Joined
·
3,492 Posts
I'm using them right now vs my brothers ork army, Which for the past month I've had trouble getting close to beating with the super chaos warriors, but its a sinch with sents because of hit and run on the tanks from range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
I myself have recently been debating getting some Lascannon sentinels. They're pretty expensive (in dollars) for a relatively weak unit, but your pointing out that they deploy last (for me at least as I have no other fast attack choices in my army.) That is pretty tempting, and furthermore I want to paint and model the miniatures too, haha. Maybe I shall invest in one after I finish painting the huge legion of guardsmen I bought.
 

·
Treadhead with a Chainaxe
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
I myself have recently been debating getting some Lascannon sentinels. They're pretty expensive (in dollars) for a relatively weak unit, but your pointing out that they deploy last (for me at least as I have no other fast attack choices in my army.) That is pretty tempting, and furthermore I want to paint and model the miniatures too, haha. Maybe I shall invest in one after I finish painting the huge legion of guardsmen I bought.
No guard commander should be without a unit of sentinels. A tip for saving money is to magnetize the weapon options so you can swap between lascannon, autocannon, multilaser and heavy flamer. With a little conversion work and a few extra weapon bits it's not that hard to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Anyway, lets not concentrate on the sentintels. I think my huge problem is the little to no armour i have. I believe this is in direct result from a the Doctrine system. Personally i think the Doctrine system should take all tanks away from you, then give you a choice to buy back Basilisk chassie tanks and/or Russ Chassie tanks. In a trade off some of the doctrine that greatly modify the army should be adjested in price. Such as Carapace armour, Cyper Enhancements, Jungle Fighters, or Light Infantry. Others i think need a overhaul either way, never saw how Chemi-inhalers was worth 20pts a unit, i can see 10-15 working fine. I think Hardened fighters would be more appropriate at 10 a unit and sentinel, but i dunno how well it works for i have never taken it.

Also got to add i never understood why Heavy and Special weapon platoons were resstricted. I could understand everything on that list except why basic infantry men with special/heavy guns suddenly became rare in a doctrine army.
 

·
Pedantic Englishman
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
Also got to add i never understood why Heavy and Special weapon platoons were resstricted. I could understand everything on that list except why basic infantry men with special/heavy guns suddenly became rare in a doctrine army.
I can see your point, to some extent, about Special Weapon Squads being restricted, but I think Heavy Weapon Platoons have a rightful place there. HWPs seem a much more specialised formation than you'd normally see, which is why, I think, they've been put on Restricted Troops.

Special Weapon Squads, though.. I can kinda see your gripe there, they do seem like something that would be present in most, if not all, regiments.. though they are (generally) shorter ranged, and slightly more mobile, than most support squads..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Not sure what your saying... youve got a lack of armour, so you want doctrines to restrict armour? doesnt seem right to me... a person can restrict themselves to no armour without the use of doctrines already.

Also, slightly off topic but i cant help notice you putting light infantry in the same catagory as cyber enhancements? Light infantry seems perfectly priced for what it does in my opnion, as well as being thematic. Not many doctrines we have can do that.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top