Codex wishlist

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

For me, I think FOBs still need a durability buff.

 

a ‘dig in’ or a ‘field fortifications’ ability.

 

something like

 

this ability cannot be used in a turn this unit has moved, and this unit cannot move for one turn after this rule has been used.

 

this unit gets a 6+ FNP

 

catachans should also be able to replace their lasguns with pistols and CCWs, along with the 2 flamers. And the sgt should have options of bolt pistol, hand flamer, and chainsword.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Also I think the exterminator doesn’t need any changes.

those gakheads finally made it useful, it needs to remain useful.

[Emperor Ming]

Not think its a bit premature?

 

Guard dex could be over a year away

 

The fob all need something, there just not good, too expensive and its crazy that they are the same points. 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

Not think its a bit premature?

 

Guard dex could be over a year away

 

The fob all need something, there just not good, too expensive and its crazy that they are the same points. 

 

 

Never too early.

besides nice and early means maybe someone who is involved with writing the dex may see, and take some inspiration.

 

can’t complain about not getting what we want if we don’t vocalize what we want in a timely manner.

[TheArtilleryman]

I’d like to see the executioner plasma turret have an increase in its strength. Having the same strength as a plasma pistol just doesn’t seem right. Strength 8 even at overcharge is nothing in this edition really and just doesn’t feel worth the risk of the overheat. Strength 8 should be the standard strength and maybe 10 at overcharge.

Edited November 20, 2023 by TheArtilleryman

[Emperor Ming]

The battle cannon needs some love, why does it always have to be the worst or one of the worst choices, ap1 is laughable

 

Turret rule should return as well,  the super heavies are a joke at bs4, and it just makes the lord solar an auto take

[TheArtilleryman]

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

The battle cannon needs some love, why does it always have to be the worst or one of the worst choices, ap1 is laughable

 

Turret rule should return as well,  the super heavies are a joke at bs4, and it just makes the lord solar an auto take

Not for me, I don’t have the model :)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

The battle cannon needs some love, why does it always have to be the worst or one of the worst choices, ap1 is laughable

 

Turret rule should return as well,  the super heavies are a joke at bs4, and it just makes the lord solar an auto take

The BC is supposed to be the standard/default, so it needs to be worse than the ‘upgrades’. 
but I agree AP-1 is a bit silly for a tank main gun. AP-3 D3 seems fine.

[Harrowmaster]

21 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The BC is supposed to be the standard/default, so it needs to be worse than the ‘upgrades’. 
but I agree AP-1 is a bit silly for a tank main gun. AP-3 D3 seems fine.

I don't think that by being standard it has to be worse, then there's no point in taking it. The other guns should be more specialised and the battlecannon should be a decent all rounder imo,  

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Harrowmaster said:

I don't think that by being standard it has to be worse, then there's no point in taking it. The other guns should be more specialised and the battlecannon should be a decent all rounder imo,  

I agree it’s a bit underpowered as is, but the question was why is always the worst option, but if it’s too good then there’s not much reason to take the other variants unless you know you really need to specialize against a specific build.

even upping it to AP-3 D3 it still would likely be the worst Russ variant, but it would be good and make sense as a main battle tank weapon.

 

edit

going through the profiles again the eradicator may be the worst option, with the BC coming in second worst/tied with the executioner.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Harrowmaster]

21 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I agree it’s a bit underpowered as is, but the question was why is always the worst option, but if it’s too good then there’s not much reason to take the other variants unless you know you really need to specialize against a specific build.

even upping it to AP-3 D3 it still would likely be the worst Russ variant, but it would be good and make sense as a main battle tank weapon.

 

edit

going through the profiles again the eradicator may be the worst option, with the BC coming in second worst/tied with the executioner.

I don't think it's always the worst option historically. Pre 8th edition it was a decent all rounder coming it at cheaper than the demolisher and with longer range. I think a balance like that should be considered. The issue is I think a lot of the nuance has been lost in the transition to this type of game which means it's harder to vary weapons. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Harrowmaster said:

I don't think it's always the worst option historically. Pre 8th edition it was a decent all rounder coming it at cheaper than the demolisher and with longer range. I think a balance like that should be considered. The issue is I think a lot of the nuance has been lost in the transition to this type of game which means it's harder to vary weapons. 

A good all rounder will be worse than the specialist options in their areas of specialty.

 

does anyone take tanks to be kinda good against infantry, and kinda good against armor, or do you take a tank to wreck armor, or take a tank to chew through infantry?

 

most people take a tank to do one or the other.

[domsto]

Well i wish for a complete rework of the Command Squads and Orders.

First we need Order splash back or some other way to get more Orders on the Board.

 

About the Command Squads i really don't understand why you have to attached them to a Unit, it makes no sense in Lore (why would the Command Staff run around at the frontlines?) and Gameplay wise.

 

I would redo them from the Ground up. They loose the ability to be attached to any Unit as they themself are a Unit on which you attach units. I would then give them lone Operative while in 6" of an Astra Militarum Unit.

 

Then i would also redo the Officer in the Command Squad, at baseline you get the Platoon Command which can give 1 Order, but for X Points you can upgrade to a Company Commander which can give 2 Orders.

I would even go further and also make Creed, Straken, Leontus a upgrade for the Command Squad. So we don't have this convoluted mess of attaching the Command Squad to a Infantry Unit only to attach Creed to same Squad so Creed can Profit from the Command Squad and the Infantry Unit is simply Tax.

 

Then there are the usual wishes like, up our Damage Output or down the Points of Tanks as they are not competetiv compare with the Tanks of Other Factions.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, domsto said:

Well i wish for a complete rework of the Command Squads and Orders.

First we need Order splash back or some other way to get more Orders on the Board.

 

About the Command Squads i really don't understand why you have to attached them to a Unit, it makes no sense in Lore (why would the Command Staff run around at the frontlines?) and Gameplay wise.

 

I would redo them from the Ground up. They loose the ability to be attached to any Unit as they themself are a Unit on which you attach units. I would then give them lone Operative while in 6" of an Astra Militarum Unit.

 

Then i would also redo the Officer in the Command Squad, at baseline you get the Platoon Command which can give 1 Order, but for X Points you can upgrade to a Company Commander which can give 2 Orders.

I would even go further and also make Creed, Straken, Leontus a upgrade for the Command Squad. So we don't have this convoluted mess of attaching the Command Squad to a Infantry Unit only to attach Creed to same Squad so Creed can Profit from the Command Squad and the Infantry Unit is simply Tax.

 

Then there are the usual wishes like, up our Damage Output or down the Points of Tanks as they are not competetiv compare with the Tanks of Other Factions.

You don’t have to attach a leader to another unit if you don’t want to.

 

but from a lore stand point. The officer in a command squad is a Jr officer, a captain at most, and captains tend to be on the ‘front lines’ and often actually at the front, even more so for lieutenants.

 

what makes less sense is for the senior officers at the major, colonel and higher ranks to be running around near the front.

 

then again much of the guard seems to have been based on the soviet red army, which required commissioned officers to make choices which necessitated officers nearer the action than western militaries. A doctrine that stuck with the Russian army and now we see how that’s turned out for them lol.

[Harrowmaster]

22 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

A good all rounder will be worse than the specialist options in their areas of specialty.

 

does anyone take tanks to be kinda good against infantry, and kinda good against armor, or do you take a tank to wreck armor, or take a tank to chew through infantry?

 

most people take a tank to do one or the other.

It will be, but that's also the point, unless you are list tailoring you can't go far wrong with it because you will always get some use out of it. Whereas if you over specalise you might not get that much use out of it. It does depend on your local gaming scene though, if you play a lot of pick up games you may want something that can take all comers. 

 

It's all personal preference of course. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Harrowmaster said:

It will be, but that's also the point, unless you are list tailoring you can't go far wrong with it because you will always get some use out of it. Whereas if you over specalise you might not get that much use out of it. It does depend on your local gaming scene though, if you play a lot of pick up games you may want something that can take all comers. 

 

It's all personal preference of course. 

That’s why I said it has to be worse than the others.

because it will be significantly worse than another option for specific targets 

[domsto]

17 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

You don’t have to attach a leader to another unit if you don’t want to.

 

but from a lore stand point. The officer in a command squad is a Jr officer, a captain at most, and captains tend to be on the ‘front lines’ and often actually at the front, even more so for lieutenants.

 

what makes less sense is for the senior officers at the major, colonel and higher ranks to be running around near the front.

 

then again much of the guard seems to have been based on the soviet red army, which required commissioned officers to make choices which necessitated officers nearer the action than western militaries. A doctrine that stuck with the Russian army and now we see how that’s turned out for them lol.

i know techinally you don't have to attach them to a Unit, but first they don't survive a second on their own without the meatshield. And secound you can't attach Creed to a Command Squad, so for her to give Orders more then 6" you have to attache both to a Tax Infantry Squad.

 

Regarding the Frontline Officer, isn't that what the Cadian Castellan is for? I mean i quess. I have never seen one on a Gametable since they came out^^

[Santaclauswitz]

To compare Leman Russ tanks on the stat line of the main weapon only is daft and will lead to daft conclusions like the ones here. To me there are 3 components that must be looked at: the stat line, the standard rules attached to that weapon blast, ignores cover, heavy etc and finally the rules that are specific to the variant of the Russ. 

 

Let's take the battle cannon variant as a starting point. It doesn't have an amazing stat line. Blast is handy but situational. But then we have the special rule "Armoured Spearhead: Each time this model makes an attack that targets an enemy unit, re-roll a Hit roll of 1 and, if that unit is within range of an objective marker you do not control, you can re-roll the Hit roll instead". Please note that unlike all other Russ special rules it does not specifically tie the rule to the main weapon fully or partially. What this means is the lascannon gets rerolls, the sponsons get rerolls, the hunter killer gets rerolls, the heavy stubber gets rerolls and even the blooming armored tracks get rerolls. This makes the battle cannon variant much more independent than other variants. Wherever that makes it a good choice is up to whoever is building the list. 

 

The other 2 variants with special which partially aid other weapons are the demolisher and the eradicator. Which both are able to fire their non main weapon without a penalty whilst in engagement range. Not a great special rule. In fact a lot of people will choose to run the demolisher as a tc to benefit from the tc's fire on death special rule. 

 

So by this understanding does that mean I view the eradicator as the weakest russ? No not at all, because I view Russ' as different not better. Different points costs etc. So the eradicator has the most reliable amount of shots amongst the random number of attak Russ' with its d3+6. It is also the only Russ main weapon that ignores cover without the aid of a hell hound. Like the battle cannon variant it can act a little more independent of buffs. It's all a matter of horses for courses. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 minutes ago, Santaclauswitz said:

To compare Leman Russ tanks on the stat line of the main weapon only is daft and will lead to daft conclusions like the ones here. To me there are 3 components that must be looked at: the stat line, the standard rules attached to that weapon blast, ignores cover, heavy etc and finally the rules that are specific to the variant of the Russ. 

 

Let's take the battle cannon variant as a starting point. It doesn't have an amazing stat line. Blast is handy but situational. But then we have the special rule "Armoured Spearhead: Each time this model makes an attack that targets an enemy unit, re-roll a Hit roll of 1 and, if that unit is within range of an objective marker you do not control, you can re-roll the Hit roll instead". Please note that unlike all other Russ special rules it does not specifically tie the rule to the main weapon fully or partially. What this means is the lascannon gets rerolls, the sponsons get rerolls, the hunter killer gets rerolls, the heavy stubber gets rerolls and even the blooming armored tracks get rerolls. This makes the battle cannon variant much more independent than other variants. Wherever that makes it a good choice is up to whoever is building the list. 

 

The other 2 variants with special which partially aid other weapons are the demolisher and the eradicator. Which both are able to fire their non main weapon without a penalty whilst in engagement range. Not a great special rule. In fact a lot of people will choose to run the demolisher as a tc to benefit from the tc's fire on death special rule. 

 

So by this understanding does that mean I view the eradicator as the weakest russ? No not at all, because I view Russ' as different not better. Different points costs etc. So the eradicator has the most reliable amount of shots amongst the random number of attak Russ' with its d3+6. It is also the only Russ main weapon that ignores cover without the aid of a hell hound. Like the battle cannon variant it can act a little more independent of buffs. It's all a matter of horses for courses. 

Variant specific special rules/abilities are brand new, and can’t be used to make historical comparisons. For most of the game, the main weapon was the only difference.

7 hours ago, domsto said:

i know techinally you don't have to attach them to a Unit, but first they don't survive a second on their own without the meatshield. And secound you can't attach Creed to a Command Squad, so for her to give Orders more then 6" you have to attache both to a Tax Infantry Squad.

 

Regarding the Frontline Officer, isn't that what the Cadian Castellan is for? I mean i quess. I have never seen one on a Gametable since they came out^^

The castellan is just a rebranding of the senior officer, so they’re there to represent a major of higher.

[Harrowmaster]

16 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

That’s why I said it has to be worse than the others.

because it will be significantly worse than another option for specific targets 

Against specific targets sure but imo that's not strictly worse all the time, only some of the time. 

[Strasgard]

I’d like them take a fresh path with guard in general. In my anecdotal experience GW seems to struggle to balance guard both internally and externally.

 

We seem to flip from hoard guard (when infantry were cheaper) to overwhelming firepower to knock our enemies off (without having much board staying power imo currently).

 

I personally don’t enjoy meta’s that focus on spaming one type unit. Its boring for play & painting.

 

I’d love to see them come out with something to build on combined arms tactics. The current unit abilities are a step in the right direction (e.g. heavy weapon teams encourage to support nearby units from deepstrike), but units are not costed in a way to encourage this. I’d like to see more rewards for taking a variety of units such as tanks, infantry, and flyers all working in coordination. Imo that’d capture the spirit of the guard as their faction is based on a WWI / WWII British & US (German for Krieg) vibe.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Strasgard said:

I’d like them take a fresh path with guard in general. In my anecdotal experience GW seems to struggle to balance guard both internally and externally.

 

We seem to flip from hoard guard (when infantry were cheaper) to overwhelming firepower to knock our enemies off (without having much board staying power imo currently).

 

I personally don’t enjoy meta’s that focus on spaming one type unit. Its boring for play & painting.

 

I’d love to see them come out with something to build on combined arms tactics. The current unit abilities are a step in the right direction (e.g. heavy weapon teams encourage to support nearby units from deepstrike), but units are not costed in a way to encourage this. I’d like to see more rewards for taking a variety of units such as tanks, infantry, and flyers all working in coordination. Imo that’d capture the spirit of the guard as their faction is based on a WWI / WWII British & US (German for Krieg) vibe.

Well it’s a good thing that detachments are a thing now, because that may well happen in the codex.

 

but outside of detachments, rewarding a variety of units, also punished people who want to run an all armor, or all infantry army, which shouldn’t happen either.

 

there’s such a wide variety of reasons people come to the guard that it’s nearly impossible to balance everything so people can play their guard how they like in a balanced way.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I was just thinking a guard equivalent of a light scout helo could be interesting like a 40K version of a little bird.

 

 

M 20” minimum T6 Sv4+ W8 LD7+ OC 1

 

ability spotting aircraft

If this unit can see an enemy unit being targeted by an indirect fire weapon, that indirect fire weapon can reroll 1s on the to hit roll.

 

or something similar.

[Emperor Ming]

Prob with aircraft, is that its not really guard, its navy

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Prob with aircraft, is that its not really guard, its navy

And yet we still have access to aircraft…