[Stonebeard]

I've been reading a lot of lists for IG and noticed that people really like redundancy. Why is one of something generally considered a waste of points? Is this some hard-wired tradition or is there a solid argument for the case? Why, when there are many options, do people only take autocannons and grenade launchers? Why is every squad armed the exact same way? Are some of us lazy to think of the different uses of different arms combinations?

Something else that troubles me. I see so many people complain about the weediness of the guardsman. Who knew? Why don't you play SM? Everyone takes these crazy elite squads and justifies the choice by saying guardsman don't cut it. It seems to me like people try to make lists more and more like SM with all sorts of reserves and melta and elite units.

Alright still more ranting here but why do we use about half of the codex list available to us? All I see are vets or stormies, CCS, BTs, and sometimes vendettas, chimeras and hellhounds. NO ONE uses ratlings, psykers, ogryn, primaris, priests, enginseers, penal legions, conscripts, sentinels, rough riders, ordnance batterie...

I think a lot of the lists and thoughts right now regarding IG are close minded. Have people really tested these things that people say are garbage? Sure they aren't a marine but they have uses. Ratlings + psykers is gross! One wound causes pinning at -4 or so leadership? doesn't work against fearless? w/e - psykers just let loose that largeblast and ratlings peck at big nasties like fexes or daemon princes.

Just saying people, lets diversify.

 

[ChadMS]

I can understand your ranting Stonebeard. But not everyone likes redundancy (like me for example). What you've probably seen in this forum are peoples list that are configured for tournaments, or lists that are designed to win, and it is true that in these cases the same things do crop up constantly. I am in fact a bit of a hypocrite, as in the army list section you may have noticed my comments. But if you were to see me own army, you would get a totally different picture. I use all sorts of units, like ogryns, psykers, priests and ratlings, for the simple reason that they are cool, fluffy, and can be effective. In, fact, I rarely abide by my own 'rules' at all. And it is perfectly possible to play with these units, win and above all-have a fun game.

That is of course the golden rule - have fun. It is after all, still just a game. I also believe people like playing against units such as ogryns and priests, as it is more fun. I would rather play a tyranid army with killing machines ranging from trygons, to pyrovores, to gargoyles, to zoanthropes, rather than an army of genestealers. You may have got slightly the wrong impression from the army lists forum. A lot of peoples lists on there are designed to be competitive.

I for one don't care about guardsmen being weedy. In fact, that makes the game more fun (albeit in a twisted way). Theres nothing more entertaining than seeing guardmen kill chaos lords.

Another reason why I have stood with the guard for more than five years (a third of my life to date! Is that good or bad?) is their conversion potentials. The guard can be converted more than any other army in 40k.

The guard wouldn't be the guard if they were like space marines. If they were then what would be the point? None at all. I agree with you totally, and would call upon other players to try different units and army lists.

 

[ernie55]

You have to bear in mind a lot of the lists posted on here are quite competitive in nature, people are looking to get advice from hopefully better/more experienced players, and therefore want as much bang for their buck. Commonly taken combos such as lists of melta vets in chimeras or valk/vends and lots of demolishers are relatively cheap and effective. The more, shall we say, fluffy and varied elements are generally more expensive (points and/or money) and more situational. Autocannon/grenade launcher squads are again rather effective while being multi-functional.

I would love to be able to use ogryns because they are cool, offer a nice CC punch and have nice models but in the UK they are 140 pounds for a unit of 10 that I would want, which would buy me 4/5 tanks which would serve me a lot better in my opinion. Rough Riders are the opposite with the stupid 2nd ed models on one end or expensive forgeworld models. The ratling/PBS example you gave is quite expensive and rather a one trick pony. Sniper rifles in-game are no way near as awesome as they should be. Techpriests aren't very good at their role of fixing tanks because they are slow/expensive. Penal Legion are too random for my liking and are more of a theme centric-unit - my regiment don't want anything to do with dirty convicts.

 

[ChadMS]

If price is a problem then convert it! Techpriests don't have to be slow - just borrow a chimera from a command squad. You don't like insane, desperadoes ernie? Huh-highborn so-and-so

 

[ernie55]

This is true, but how do you cost effectively convert ogryns? I quite like most of the fluffier elements but also like fielding as much as possible.

I see techpriests as "backroom" staff, like basilisks, they are support elements not battle field units in my opinion.

And no I prefer my more trained and disciplined insane people thank you very much

 

[CaptainSarathai]

Use a standard box of Ogres from the WHFB line to convert your Ogryns. It's a bit cheaper, they're a bit cooler, easier to pose, and you can get their weapons from Bitzbarn or your own bin.

I agree that a lot of what you see here on the forums are people looking to build a winning list for tournaments or competitive gaming. If you post up your friendly list, people are going to start telling you to replace unit-such-and-such or to add this weapon to that squad etc. However, you can choose whether or not you want to do this. Some people do, others don't. Just because someone makes the suggestion to drop the Deathstrike doesn't mean that the player actually will, or will do it all the time.

Redundancy is a good thing in lists from a tactical standpoint. You never want your only anti-armor squad located all the way across the field where the enemy infantry is. And you never want the enemy to say "I only need to take out that squad, and then my tanks are safe." Redundancy ensures that whatever your army is geared-up to do, it does well, and it does regardless of casualties or deployment. It's like a safety net. I've seen Eldar armies where almost every unit was build for a different purpose, but that player was so good, and so advanced, that it rarely ever caused him troubles. And even he had duplicates of some squads, just for the purpose of making sure that they were properly deployed.

If you get into the mathhammer, some regiments just have more bang-for-the-buck when it comes to doing their job. Yeah, a plasmagun can knock out a tank, but a meltagun does it better. So it you want to kill tanks take a meltagun. If you want to kill hordes, a heavy bolter or flamer will do better than a plasmagun, so you take those instead of the plasmagun. Suddenly, you stop using plasma altogether.

 

[cKerensky]

And thats why I run a Melta/Plasma mix!

Conscripts are a hard unit, and really a gamble. You arent ever really sure what role they're going to be until you start the game. Sometimes you really need them to be an effective assault troop. Congrats! they've got assault weapons, when you really needed that extra CCW.

As for Elites, the points that you could use to get an elite unit can be spent elsewhere. I could take Ogryns, or I could take a Grey Knight Grandmaster/GKTs. It'll cost about the same points AND price wise, and provide me with a counter-assault unit that is far scarier than Ogryns will ever be. I don't like min-maxing, but I also don't like throwing my hard earned cash away to buy models that I will hardly ever use. If I think I might sorta use a model, I'll buy it (points to his 10 Wraithguard models), but outside of what you commonly see, I rarely use another model (Though I do want storm troopers, I can see how they'd be useful), and I love my Hellhound and varients, AND I love my basilisks (and varients).

I don't mind losing, but I don't want to spend cash to go out of my way to do so.

 

[Intrepid]

I've been reading a lot of lists for IG and noticed that people really like redundancy.

Because Guard units have only mediocre stats and/or serious weaknesses, you cannot rely on any one unit working. The Russ missed a clutch shot, the infantry didn't catch the order, the Chimera exploded on the first hit. Bringing two of a unit for the same purpose means you can count on them doing what you need them to. Other armies with better stats and abilities can "do it on a 2+" but, for the Guard, 'twin-linked' usually means 'two squads'.

It seems to me like people try to make lists more and more like SM with all sorts of reserves and melta and elite units.

I blame Codex Creep. Now that Guard is (momentarily) the best special weapon-spam army in town, we're attracting all of the hardcore competitors who don't even notice an army's fluff, let alone care. Rest assured, though, it won't last. As soon as Eldar (or Black Templars, or Dark Eldar, or maybe even Tau) get their next revision you'll be able to buy two Chimerae for a dollar as the powergamers move on. Meanwhile, we gunline/armored cav/infantry regiments are here for the long haul (and with the biggest guns, too).

 

[kevin vanrooyen]

If it's not too late for me to comment...

Most of the lists posted in the army list section are compedative/ tournament builds. If you have a themed army you aren't as inteerested in exploiting the codex for every bit of an advantage you can get. I rarely post in the AL section for this reason, I posted there quite commonly before the new codex came out but building the most compedative army as possible isn't what WH40k is about to me so I post more in other sections of the forum.

Also people have different ideas of what's the most compedative, all of my infantry squads use missile launchers instead of autocannons, they have used them for 5 years.


I've been a for fun gamer, i've been to 2 tournaments in my 6 years of gaming -the first one I spent more time talking to the guy I met in the first round about Tanith, time after our game (it finished fast, I had my marines he had his armoured company), between rounds, after the tourney...

I'm more interested in the fluff and social aspects of gaming than making all conquoring lists, ask my all-scout army lead by Shrike.

Anyway the new Tyranids codex wil be out soon, so people will move on to it; many people at my LGS are already begining to sell their armies to have some money for when the 'nids codex hits us.

The Emperor Protects

 

[SimSnow]

Really, it's all been said. Sure there are lots of fluffy and fun reasons to play Guard, but let's face it, it is generally more fun to win with an army than to lose. I personally have a lot of units I wouldn't bring to a tourney, but I enjoy painting them and making them fit into my fluff. I bring them along when I'm playing against my similarly minded buddies, and its a great time. However, if I was putting together a fun list just to play with my friends, then I wouldn't really seek advice on a forum about how better to streamline it or make it more effective because it doesn't really need to be. However, I would definitely post my list up if I was making a take all comers, serious tourney list.

Come to think of it, it might be a cool idea for a thread for people to post their not so hardcore lists just to see what kinds of units people like to take, as opposed to units they feel like they need to take. just sayin

 

[kevin vanrooyen]

Sorry for taking this off topic

I've had an idea for a series of threads for a while now and this seems like a good place to post it so...

What about an Army List Challenge of the Week?

It would be a weekly challenge where you try to make different fun/themed lists that are still relativley compedative? Something like a topic of the week but with people also posting up lists to answer the challenge. Does anyone think this is a good idea? Or is it just anothe idiotic half baked idea?

We have one of the most versatile codexes and we should at least recognise it. Besides this would help other people consider different ways of using some units that they never reallyy gave a chance.

The Emperor Protects

 

[rafis117]

for the Guard, 'twin-linked' usually means 'two squads'.

New favorite quote.

 

[==Me==]

Redundancy is encouraged because relying on 1 unit is not a good idea. With just about any army, having 1 unit fulfill a crucial role is asking for disaster. They'll miss, fluff rolls, get immobilized, nailed turn 1, etc and you are left with a big gaping hole. Enter the backup, who exists purely to make sure that whatever you need to do (pop tanks, kill infantry, hold objectives) you will always have the right units.

IG do mech and do is exceptionally well, that's why I picked them up after running foot gunline marine armies forevs.

Invariably when you have so many experienced players going over the Codex, certain cream will rise to the top. There is very little in the IG book that totally sucks (Rough Riders, Mogul Kamir, certain Russ/Bassy variants, Ogryns), but most of it is workable.

 

[Stonebeard]

Good to see the topic garnered some attention.

Actually, I feel that a list which incorporates a large mix of different units is more competitive than a redundant one. My general concern is that a more diverse army is harder to predict and able to exploit more openings in your opponents army.

It's like growing a crop of cloned corn. A virus hits one it hits them all. If they've got something to take out one chimelta (love that term, never heard it before) with ease - there go all your others.

Melta vets in a chimera are 155pts. Running numbers on them in a round of full on shooting doesn't look promising to me against marines or really any other army. Example:
Shooting at marines - they kill ~51 pts of marines. Sit there for 3 turns and you've got your points back. A few less points at further range or movement.
Shooting at say... a land raider - ~157 pts per round. That's pretty nice come to think of it. But how many land raiders are there to the many many chimeltas I see out there. That's within 6 inches, btw.

Here is an example of just how good a unit most think is worthless. Rough riders.
On that first a fateful charge - charging marines - rough riders will exactly match their points. Assuming of course you don't kill pf sgts or special weapons.
11 attacks / 5.5 hits / ~3.7 wounds x15 (pts of marine) = 55 pts.
Thoughts?

I question whether the generally accepted tactics are actually sound to make tournament competitive lists. Winning a tournament also involves winning sportsmanship too ya know. I see a chimelta army - thumbs down to that man.

 

[rafis117]

Good to see the topic garnered some attention.

Actually, I feel that a list which incorporates a large mix of different units is more competitive than a redundant one. My general concern is that a more diverse army is harder to predict and able to exploit more openings in your opponents army.

It's like growing a crop of cloned corn. A virus hits one it hits them all. If they've got something to take out one chimelta (love that term, never heard it before) with ease - there go all your others.

Melta vets in a chimera are 155pts. Running numbers on them in a round of full on shooting doesn't look promising to me against marines or really any other army. Example:
Shooting at marines - they kill ~51 pts of marines. Sit there for 3 turns and you've got your points back. A few less points at further range or movement.
Shooting at say... a land raider - ~157 pts per round. That's pretty nice come to think of it. But how many land raiders are there to the many many chimeltas I see out there. That's within 6 inches, btw.

Here is an example of just how good a unit most think is worthless. Rough riders.
On that first a fateful charge - charging marines - rough riders will exactly match their points. Assuming of course you don't kill pf sgts or special weapons.
11 attacks / 5.5 hits / ~3.7 wounds x15 (pts of marine) = 55 pts.
Thoughts?

I question whether the generally accepted tactics are actually sound to make tournament competitive lists. Winning a tournament also involves winning sportsmanship too ya know. I see a chimelta army - thumbs down to that man.

While this is true, I believe that the topic at hand was more taking two of a unit versus one, and if it justified the point-cost. For example, if you invest in a lascannon support squad, does it make sense to take a second, just to be sure? The general vibe that I've been getting is that (and from a statistical standpoint this makes sense) the probability that both of the redundant units fail enough in the dice department to not achieve their goal/get their points back is considerably less with two units than one. Further, losing one of the redundant units isn't a catastrophe.

Recap: the question is less "chimelta spam vs. diversity" than "should I make like Noah and take two of gun?"

 

[Seraphim_Guard]

I question whether the generally accepted tactics are actually sound to make tournament competitive lists. Winning a tournament also involves winning sportsmanship too ya know. I see a chimelta army - thumbs down to that man.

Why? Why would you do that automatically to someone who may have just liked the concept of an armored fist squad? What is so bad about a list full of vets in chimeras?

You are also forgetting the shooting of the chimera itself: formidable in it's own right with the 3 s6 shots, and the versatility being able to move 12" inches if you need to provides.

The example with the rough riders is decent, but remember you have to get a charge off to do that, and these guys have the survivability of a guardsman combined with a huge profile that can't hide behind terrain as well.

On topic: the only thing I would take in 1s is an expensive artillery piece like the collossus, or a CCS .

 

[rafis117]

On topic: the only thing I would take in 1s is an expensive artillery piece like the collossus, or a CCS .

And the inexpensive? Basilisks and Griffons and such?

 

[IronWeevil]

Good to see the topic garnered some attention.

Actually, I feel that a list which incorporates a large mix of different units is more competitive than a redundant one. My general concern is that a more diverse army is harder to predict and able to exploit more openings in your opponents army.

It's like growing a crop of cloned corn. A virus hits one it hits them all. If they've got something to take out one chimelta (love that term, never heard it before) with ease - there go all your others.

Melta vets in a chimera are 155pts. Running numbers on them in a round of full on shooting doesn't look promising to me against marines or really any other army. Example:
Shooting at marines - they kill ~51 pts of marines. Sit there for 3 turns and you've got your points back. A few less points at further range or movement.
Shooting at say... a land raider - ~157 pts per round. That's pretty nice come to think of it. But how many land raiders are there to the many many chimeltas I see out there. That's within 6 inches, btw.

Here is an example of just how good a unit most think is worthless. Rough riders.
On that first a fateful charge - charging marines - rough riders will exactly match their points. Assuming of course you don't kill pf sgts or special weapons.
11 attacks / 5.5 hits / ~3.7 wounds x15 (pts of marine) = 55 pts.
Thoughts?

I question whether the generally accepted tactics are actually sound to make tournament competitive lists. Winning a tournament also involves winning sportsmanship too ya know. I see a chimelta army - thumbs down to that man.

Your argument about the chimelta vs marines ignores kills from the multilas or HB or hvy flamer from the chimera itself. This unit should be chasing troops only in the event that a juicy AV target does not present itself. That said, a third of the unit cost is the transport which serves to get the vets where they need to be and protect them from small arms fire. Both of these traits are useful and worth their points in my book.

The rough rider example is all fine and good, assuming that they are able to deliver their charge as a full strength unit (people have a nasty habit of shooting at assault troops), and that said marines are not cruising to their objective in a rhino.

A more varied army offers an increased number of tactical options at the expense of decreased consistency. A degree of redundancy allows a commander sustain, what might otherwise be, a disastrous loss. Too much variation has as many issues as too much redundancy, and finding that happy balance to match your play style is the challenge that all of us face.

I run a hybrid force myself, consisting of tanks, mechanized vets, infantry, airborne transports, and specialist infantry. It works well for me. I enjoy of running an IG army because, it offers a bewildering number of options and permutations. I can't think of a tactical obstacle that cannot be overcome by some mix in the IG codex.

I've rambled more than long enough. Good luck with your army, and enjoy the game

 

[Seraphim_Guard]

And the inexpensive? Basilisks and Griffons and such?

Griffons should always be bought in pairs, imo. One of them range-finds with that nice special rule and then the other template is placed right beside it, perfect for hitting an entire ork horde unit.

Basilisks should just never be taken. Period.

 

[rafis117]

Basilisks should just never be taken. Period.

Nerfed something awful?