Anyone else find the unit load out of Guardsmen really bloated for no reason?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Vankraken**

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

Vankraken wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Vankraken wrote:
The issue isn't that there are a lot of options, the issue is that the options lack meaningful decision making due to the options being either unimportant, poorly balanced with defacto auto picks, and/or options that lost their mechanical purpose and so they don't have a way to differentiate themselves from other similar options. A lot of this came from 8th editions gutting of the core rules where things like area of effect, cover saves, USRs, and the all or nothing AP system made weapons have more niche purposes. Most of those things are still gone with only USRs sorta making a return while the current armor/cover/AP has the very problematic issue of "AP good, more AP more good" compared to the older edition situation where most weapons had a niche (it was just the points cost was too uniform, especially for melee weapons).

GW has it's head so far up it's own rear due to being so scared about making rules that don't exactly match the bits options in their kits (and they don't seem to let the rules writers have much say regarding what actually ends up on the sprues) and shying away from complexity as if previous edition army building was on the same level as calculating the moon landing. It's just painful to see GW identify pain points of previous editions and making the entirely wrong decisions to "fix" them.

It's always been "AP good, more AP more good", but at least low ap does something to everything now. The old all or nothing approach is part of what made plasma the go to due to proliferation of marines and the fact that a grenade launcher etc would tickle them at best, meaning against some opponents it was essentially worthless, whereas no matter if it was 5 or 10 points more it didn't matter, plasma was going to win.

The thing that made the old AP system work to an extent was that certain APs were useful against certain units. Hot shot lasguns where ideal vs 3+ saves like power armor but basically worthless vs terminator armor but higher AP weapons had some combination of high cost, downsides (gets hot), and/or low volume of fire. Pre 8th, shooting plasma against Boyz in cover was a huge waste of points efficiency as your very expensive plasma veteran guard, grey hunters, scions, etc would of been better served shooting at something where that point investment into good AP would provide more benefit. The new system just makes it so having AP degrades the armor save and the cover save just improves the armor save. So unless your shooting at units with no saves at all with some AP weapons then your rarely wasting the value of the AP on your weapons. While that seems like it makes everything useful, you end up with easy to calculate "best weapon" and so you don't need anything else besides the mathhammered optimal option(s). The old system gave weapons niches that they where optimal at doing and made the calculation of where to apply your firepower factor in more aspects of the battlefield situation instead of most of the calculations being made during the army building process. It wasn't a great system, it felt somewhat nonsensical, BUT it did make a lot of options useful in certain situations and helped avoid making one option good for everything... unless GW did something stupid like make a high volume of fire, AP2, auto glance + immobilize vehicles on a 6, wounds based on the enemy save weapon that countered basically everything except low/medium toughness units with cardboard or t-shirt saves.

As for plasma spam, maybe in 5th and before plasma was the go to option but 6th and 7th was a lot of grav spam for marines, melta being the best anti vehicle option, and plasma being the MC/Elite infantry killer. I know for my Scions and Tau loadouts, I had some command squads and crisis suit teams using all plasma but I also had need for teams of melta/fusion blasters and also CIB units for the Crisis Suits. For the Tau, most of the crisis suit weapon options where quite viable but options like burst cannons, flamers, and to a lesser extent the AFP weren't really needed due to Tau's abundance of small arms fire that could get ignore cover due to markerlights. That said for a Farsight Enclave army, those redundant options would be potentially useful given that they tend to not run any regular infantry.

Also wasn't plasma spam really big in 8th? I really remember Plasma being super popular in 8th compared to 7th.

Unless you're list tailoring you take the best all-comers option, which yes shooting boyz in with plasma cover is a waste, but shooting mega/nobz/kanz/dreads is not and something you still need. Plasma, melta and grav - all able to bypass AP3, wound marines on a 3+ at worse and can hurt vehicles, that's not a coincidence and also why it would never be grenade launchers unless plasma was so stupidly expensive it was easier to get the same value out of an equivalent number of flamers/lasguns etc.

So I'd argue in the older AP system it was easier to have a "best" answer than the current one.

Excluding grav because it was a terrible decision to include that into the game as it was. Plasma wasn't great vs heavier vehicles due to being Str 7 so you couldn't hurt AV14 and only slowly chip away at AV13 while auto cannon type weapons where better than plasma for taking out vehicles. Melta lacked volume of fire and was short range so shooting melta at elite infantry got kills but it didn't have the volume of fire to take out squads while putting the shooter in a probably dangerous position. Melta vs a vehicle was extremely powerful and a squad with all meltas could take down just about any vehicle if it can get close enough. Each are good at bypassing armor saves but the mechanics of melta is quite different to plasma which tended to make them target different things with their secondary priority targets having more of an overlap. Again using the Tau Crisis Suit weapons as an example, each weapon was good at certain things and there wasn't really a "spam this" above all other things option. If the meta of those editions had more competitive light infantry armies then the need for things like flamers, grenade launchers, and heavy bolters would of been more worthwhile. Ive seen first hand how AP stacked armies can struggle to chew through blobs of boyz.

Also again the cover system made targeting matter a lot as cover saves threw the cost effectiveness of good AP weapons out the window sometimes as light infantry could have better cover saves than their default armor saves. Usually ignore cover was on AP poor weapons and tended to have moderate volume of fire (or blast/templates) while strong AP weapons didn't usually get cover ignoring (Tau being able to apply ignore cover to high AP and/or high volume of fire weapons made them so oppressive to many factions). The current AP system makes high AP also negate cover because cover just changes the save by 1.

**Wyldhunt**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Meta shifts will make entire factions, let alone weapons, obsolete. That goes without saying.

Meta shifts *can* make those things obsolete. Not every shift is a death sentence for a given option's viability. That's the main bit of nuance I'm trying to emphasize.

But 40k has never really embraced the idea of basic troops being close ranged AT units, unless those troops are Space Marines, or one of the various space Elf groups. The one with free Melta pistols on their troops.

That being said, while technically capable of doing a good job, putting your points/strategy behind a single wound trooper that has a 2/6 chance of doing on average 3 damage to a single target within 12", is asking a LOT of that unit. At that point, you're no longer "Holding the line" which I would argue was the point of that unit in the first place. To hold the objective and force your opponent to waste turns removing it. If it's going tank hunting, it's no longer doing that. It's better to just have a Sentinel with a LasCannon do pot shots from 48" away. That actually has a better chance of achieving it's goal. Being that it will still be alive the turn after it shoots.

Respectfully, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. Lots of armies can mix some amount of anti-tank threat into their troop/battleline units and have done so to different levels of effectiveness in different editions. The fact that ranged attacks have an inherent advantage by virtue of being easier to deliver or that specialist units are better at killing tanks (depending on faction/unit/edition) doesn't mean that the slightly less cost-efficient anti-tank abilities of other units are inherently worthless. Just because a battle sister squad with a meltagun is less good at killing tanks than an exorcist doesn't make that meltagun worthless.

Also, I feel compelled to point out that "holding the line" really shouldn't be assumed to be the job of every troop choice.

Also, I feel compelled as a space elf player to point out that in addition to fusion pistol harlies, haywire grenade wyches were a terror in their time, blasters were 12" weapons once upon a time (iirc), and even storm guardians were okay short-ranged AT once upon a time (with their double fusion gun + singing spear warlock sergeant combo.)

**The_Real_Chris**

Kanluwen wrote:

My dude, we're talking about the Infantry Squad. Y'know, the thing I copy-pasted in the spoiler? The thing that LITERALLY DOES NOT HAVE A KIT?

In my fantasy world GW release a box with the old cadians in - 5 old bodies, the HWT, and the old command squad (with the redone extra sprue that existed for a few weeks), and calls it PDF or something. All the options you can dream off. No extra development work. 1 SKU.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Name one that doesn't have power armored troops. Not trying to pick a fight, but honestly, the non-astartes (Counting the midget Astartes here) don't all have amazing options to be TAC for their troop lists. The humble guard units do have the option, but it's not the point. You can't sacrifice your best Obsec units going tank hunting when you have perfect capable Tanks, planes, Bigger Tanks, BIGGEST TANKS, and AT weapon teams standing by. Why devote your troops to that task? I get it's Your Dudes, and you do you how ever you wanna do, but loading up your IS with AT seems, odd.

EDIT: Sorry, someone posted, and I should have made mine a reply. This is directed to Wyldhunt.

**JNAProductions**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Name one that doesn't have power armored troops. Not trying to pick a fight, but honestly, the non-astartes (Counting the midget Astartes here) all have amazing options to be TAC for their troop lists. But the humble guard units don't really. You can't sacrifice your best Obsec units going tank hunting when you have perfect capable Tanks, planes, Bigger Tanks, BIGGEST TANKS, and AT weapon teams standing by. Why devote your troops to that task? I get it's Your Dudes, and you do you how ever you wanna do, but loading up your IS with AT seems, odd.

EDIT: Sorry, someone posted, and I should have made mine a reply. This is directed to Wyldhunt.

Storm Guardians don't have Power Armor.

**Haighus**

As a proud commander of a mechanised Steel Legion army, I can confirm Guardsmen can be used aggressively and have been able to be used aggressively in most editions of the game. They tend to die horribly but they're cheap and plentiful. Holding the Line has its counterpart in Send in the Next Wave.

**Dudeface**

JNAProductions wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Name one that doesn't have power armored troops. Not trying to pick a fight, but honestly, the non-astartes (Counting the midget Astartes here) all have amazing options to be TAC for their troop lists. But the humble guard units don't really. You can't sacrifice your best Obsec units going tank hunting when you have perfect capable Tanks, planes, Bigger Tanks, BIGGEST TANKS, and AT weapon teams standing by. Why devote your troops to that task? I get it's Your Dudes, and you do you how ever you wanna do, but loading up your IS with AT seems, odd.

EDIT: Sorry, someone posted, and I should have made mine a reply. This is directed to Wyldhunt.
Storm Guardians don't have Power Armor.

Melta pistols on harlequins as well for a more extreme example.

**Wyldhunt**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Name one that doesn't have power armored troops. Not trying to pick a fight, but honestly, the non-astartes (Counting the midget Astartes here) don't all have amazing options to be TAC for their troop lists. The humble guard units do have the option, but it's not the point.

EDIT: Sorry, someone posted, and I should have made mine a reply. This is directed to Wyldhunt.

Well, in addition to the storm guardians, kabalites, and harlequins that I just mentioned...

My buddy's 7th edition ork truk rush list got a lot of mileage out of truk boyz smashing up tanks with their power klaw nobs (and even normal boyz could glance things to death in melee). IIRC, neophyte hybrids were using their various power tools to carve up vehicles for a while. Khorne has historically been pretty comfortable charging rhinos to death. One of necrons' iconic gimmicks for a long time was that their gauss weapons could glance vehicles on 6s, so you had an incentive to get your warriors with their rapid fire gauss flayers up close to double tap. Genestealers were troops and quite good at shredding vehicle in melee in the past

I think that covers every xenos faction except tau and LoV?

You can't sacrifice your best Obsec units going tank hunting when you have perfect capable Tanks, planes, Bigger Tanks, BIGGEST TANKS, and AT weapon teams standing by. Why devote your troops to that task? I get it's Your Dudes, and you do you how ever you wanna do, but loading up your IS with AT seems, odd

You've got it backwards. I mainly play space elves. My troops aren't durable enough to waste time standing around on objectives *not killing* things. Nor are they durable enough to get a ton of use out of obsec; if I end my turn standing on the same objective as an enemy unit, those guardians/warriors are probably about to die before my command phase. I need them to be contributing to my offense. And in an army full of fragile units like dark eldar, spreading yoru anti-tank threat out across lots of warrior squads in boats has been common practice since 3rd edition, even if ravagers and scourges are technically better at killing tanks.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Storm guardians have a wargear option, that gives the entire squad a 5++ right?

And Harlequins? Really? That's what we're comparring to Guard IS Squads? Sure. They have a 4++.

Both have fate dice, which is kinda irrelevant, but guard don't get Invulns, or fate dice.

EDIT:

WE are WAAAAAY Off topic here. So I'll just say whatever. You win, I'm wrong. Whatever I said, you win.

Now. Is the guard as a faction bloated or no?

**JNAProductions**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Storm guardians have a wargear option, that gives the entire squad a 5++ right?

And Harlequins? Really? That's what we're comparring to Guard IS Squads? Sure. They have a 4++.

Both have fate dice, which is kinda irrelevant, but guard don't get Invulns, or fate dice.

EDIT:

WE are WAAAAAY Off topic here. So I'll just say whatever. You win, I'm wrong. Whatever I said, you win.

Now. Is the guard as a faction bloated or no?

You asked for no Power Armor. That's what you got.

And Guard's bloat is primarily datasheet bloat-you don't need a half dozen Leman Russ datasheets, for instance.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

JNAProductions wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Snipped

And Guard's bloat is primarily datasheet bloat-you don't need a half dozen Leman Russ datasheets, for instance.

So which would you cut?

The Executioner? The Punisher? I don't think there needs to be a Melta and a Plasma LRBT. Same could be said about the Baneblades. There just needs to be two, the standard and the Shadowsword.

**Dudeface**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Storm guardians have a wargear option, that gives the entire squad a 5++ right?

And Harlequins? Really? That's what we're comparring to Guard IS Squads? Sure. They have a 4++.

Both have fate dice, which is kinda irrelevant, but guard don't get Invulns, or fate dice.

EDIT:

WE are WAAAAAY Off topic here. So I'll just say whatever. You win, I'm wrong. Whatever I said, you win.

Now. Is the guard as a faction bloated or no?

I mean, where are you looking? I'd say no, but you're looking in 10th ed rules that don't have sly Marbo in them which is in the same rules source as the guard infantry squad.

**PenitentJake**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm so sick of people in this hobby brushing past the new hobbyist concern. Space Marines are pushed as the starter friendly army, because they are not complicated. The Assault Interceptor Spru doesn't come with 12 different options that confuse a new player. It comes with 5 dudes, swords, and pistols. You can't screw it up. It doesn't matter what color you paint them, they still get the same options.

That is the standard for No bloat. Where do we put the goal line for "Most bloat? I would say the Infantry Squad box, but I am not familair with xenos or chaos troop boxes.

Look dude, GW did enough to cater to new players by making unit profiles match what's in the box and creating the Combat Patrol game mode. Some Dakkanaughts may not post as if they care about the new player, but GW has certainly done enough to demonstrate that they do.

And you may not remember this, but even those concessions to new players are some of the biggest complaints about the current edition. People upset that squads can't duplicate heavy/ special choices because the box only comes with one of each, for example. How often have you heard Drukhari players complain about not being able to triple up on blasters (and IMHO, justifiably so)?

Trying to convince this community that less options is good? A long shot outta the gate brother. Surely you must see this?

**Wyldhunt**

...You were the one who brought up harlequins (the guys with the fusion pistols) and pointed out that they were good at close-ranged tank hunting.

And I assure you, a 5++ invuln does not make storm guardians into a squad of tanky boys that you leave out in the open expecting them to tank shots.

Harlies are very specifically in 10th edition weirdly good at tanking shots if you combine them with Yvraine, which is why I didn't include them as an example of squishhy troops. They are, however, expensive and short-ranged, so holding them back isn't really an option.

Not trying to drag you into continuing the discussion as you've ceded the point, but it's hard not to address those parting comments.

Guard as a faction bloated? Ehhh. A little, but not too badly. Most of their units have a niche without *too much* redundancy. Like, some of those russ variants surely don't see much play, and I haven't seen a devil dog in a while, but oh well.

I think the more relevant issue we've been poking at is that some of the options they do have either don't execute on the concept very well or else have had their niche removed over time. For instance, snipers are theoretically perfectly distinctive from the other infantry squad special weapons to have a niche, but in practice, they lack the volume of fire or individual power needed to actually perform their job of killing characters. And the grenade launcher could be fixed a hundred different ways but currently doesn't really do anything that other options don't do better.

**JNAProductions**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Snipped

And Guard's bloat is primarily datasheet bloat-you don't need a half dozen Leman Russ datasheets, for instance.

So which would you cut?

The Executioner? The Punisher? I don't think there needs to be a Melta and a Plasma LRBT. Same could be said about the Baneblades. There just needs to be two, the standard and the Shadowsword.

I wouldn't cut them.
I would put them on one datasheet.

You don't need a different rule for each turret.

**BertBert**

The new player argument is difficult, because being new doesn't necessarily mean being adverse to having multiple options and/or granularity.

It's mostly pertinent in the context of new players who immediately want to skip to learning and playing an optimized build, which is only a certain subset of players.

One can call it bloat from the perspective of someone who only cares about viable/optimized builds (because to them 9/10 options are non-starters to begin with), but there is another side to the coin where people are happy to have their dudes be a specialized regiment with a doctrin to rush in and bring their flamers or meltas to bear. It could even be as simple as really liking the design of grenade launchers and including them for that reason.

In an ideal world, all those weapon options should have their place in the context of the army, depending on how you construct your other elements, but the issue is GW is failing to do provide this framework, either due to bad point values or lack of differentiated point values altogether. The goal is to fix that issue and not to delete options.

**JNAProductions**

BertBert wrote:
The new player argument is difficult, because being new doesn't necessarily mean being adverse to having multiple options and/or granularity.

It's mostly pertinent in the context of new players who immediately want to skip to learning and playing an optimized build, which is only a certain subset of players.

One can call it bloat from the perspective of someone who only cares about viable/optimized builds (because to them 9/10 options are non-starters to begin with), but there is another side to the coin where people are happy to have their dudes be a specialized regiment with a doctrin to rush in and bring their flamers or meltas to bear.

In an ideal world, all those weapon options have their place in the context of the army, depending on how you construct your other elements, but the issue is GW is failing to do provide this framework, either due to bad point values or lack of differentiated point values altogether.

To be fair, it's not JUST points. While I do believe points are the first choice for balancing, rules need to change too, sometimes.

**BertBert**

JNAProductions wrote:
it's not JUST points. While I do believe points are the first choice for balancing, rules need to change too, sometimes.

Absolutely, these are interdependent.

**JNAProductions**

BertBert wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
it's not JUST points. While I do believe points are the first choice for balancing, rules need to change too, sometimes.

Absolutely, these are interdependent.

Yee.

And the reason, for anyone curious, as to why points should be utilized first, is that points are basically just a list building thing.
It might adjust what units or wargear you take, but in-game, they have basically no effect. Whereas rules changes can make it harder to play, by increasing mental overhead.

**Kanluwen**

JNAProductions wrote:

And Guard's bloat is primarily datasheet bloat-you don't need a half dozen Leman Russ datasheets, for instance.

Unfortunately, yeah you do. Frankly other armies should get more vehicle options too.

Looking at you, Onagers.

**waefre_1**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
waefre_1 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
One thing I always wondered, why have a missile launcher, AND a grenade launcher?

Because one was Assault and one was Heavy. If you can't understand why that might matter, perhaps you should take the opportunity to learn?

If GLs had a missile launcher profile with shorter range they'd be more worth taking. Or indirect fire so they could synergize with the mortar.

Agree on an indirect fire mode being good for GLs, but I'd rather they get extra utility (ie smoke grenades or something) than a boost to the weapon profile. Back when upgrades cost points, boosting the profile would've almost necessitated a boost in cost, and GLs being cheap was part of their niche.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JNAProductions wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Snipped

And Guard's bloat is primarily datasheet bloat-you don't need a half dozen Leman Russ datasheets, for instance.

So which would you cut?

The Executioner? The Punisher? I don't think there needs to be a Melta and a Plasma LRBT. Same could be said about the Baneblades. There just needs to be two, the standard and the Shadowsword.

I wouldn't cut them.
I would put them on one datasheet.

You don't need a different rule for each turret.

I mean, that's what we used to have (haven't picked up the 9e dex on principle, but 8e Codex Russes were a single datasheet, and IIRC that's how it was in the 5e and 6e dexes as well). We don't even need to remove the extra rule per turret, just tie that to the weapon options ("For 0 points, this unit may switch to $turret_choice. If it does, it gains $turret_rule."). IMO the only turret that has a real argument for straight removal is the Eradicator, since that one's niche was Ignores Cover and that ain't a thing no more, but the lore behind it was "not-so-depleted uranium shells", and there's plenty of room to keep the Eradicator and shift the bonus to "-1T on target" or something.

**Jarms48**

My issue isn't the amount of options, it's just how the options still remain unbalanced between each other. For example:

- Plasma is still king.
- Next option is Melta or Grenade Launcher. Melta suffers due to not having its strength increased in relation to all the vehicles also going up, so it's more of a heavy infantry killer like plasma. Grenade Launcher suffers from still being unreliable damage thanks to D3 damage.
- Regular Flamers are bad. Autohit is nice, but D6 shots still cripples them. Especially when half the other factions simply get better Flamers.
- Sniper Rifles are still bad. Simply for the fact you need to Hit and Wound to use Precision. At BS 4+ and S4 that's not reliable, sure there's circumstances you can get 2+ by remaining stationary and getting Take Aim but you're still sacrificing a better weapon that could have done far more reliable damage.

What I'd do to fix it:
- Melta rule should include an increase to Strength as well as Damage at half-range. So Melta 2 would be +2 Strength and Damage. Making it more effective against vehicles.
- Grenade Launcher should just get flat damage 2. So it's actually a bit more reliable against heavy infantry.
- Flamers: Should be 2 D3 or D6+1. They need some reliability.
- Sniper Rifles: Need something like Anti-infantry 4+. I'd suggest Devastating Wounds but that's a terrible rule and a 6-7 point model shouldn't be stripping off 2 mortal wounds on any character.

**Wyldhunt**

Jarms48 wrote:

What I'd do to fix it:
- Melta rule should include an increase to Strength as well as Damage at half-range. So Melta 2 would be +2 Strength and Damage. Making it more effective against vehicles.

That works. Or just raise their strength. I don't think it would be gamebreaking if they were just S14 even at 12". Drukhari are doing it with heat lances, and it seems fine. I guess maybe 24" range form multi-meltas might be a bit concerning?

- Grenade Launcher should just get flat damage 2. So it's actually a bit more reliable against heavy infantry.

Doesn't that just push them further into direct competition with plasma though? I feel like the grenade launcher needs something a bit more unique in its favor. Ignores LoS would be pretty fluffy. The smoke grenade suggestion is cool if you can get it to work. Long-range use of the grenade strat maybe? Idk.

- Flamers: Should be 2 D3 or D6+1. They need some reliability.

That would work. Or even a flat value. Flamers should probably have blast as well. I don't hate the idea of letting flamer models overwatch for free when their unit is charged either. Makes it both of an offensive anti-horde weapon and a defensive anti-melee weapon. Lots of directions you could go with this. More than the loss of the teardrop template being a thing, I think they've really suffered from the switch in AP systems and cover saves no longer being a thing. The main point of flamers back in the day was that they could strip away protection from units that relied on good cover saves. Rangers were happy to tank plasma shots, but you get one flamer near them...

- Sniper Rifles: Need something like Anti-infantry 4+. I'd suggest Devastating Wounds but that's a terrible rule and a 6-7 point model shouldn't be stripping off 2 mortal wounds on any character.

I feel like snipers are the trickiest of the bunch. Unless you're something like a vindicaire, snipers in 40k aren't really allowed to be one-shot-one-kill weapons. Most sniper units are whole firing squads of riflemen trying to take out characters en masse. So a lone sniper in an infantry squad is trying to do the job normally performed by entire units of ratlings. I guess if you're spamming infantry squads and putting snipers in all of them, you end up with a sort of distributed sniper unit with lots of ablative wounds, but it's still awkward. Maybe leave these as-is but have them grant some other benefit to their unit? Free overwatch during the movement phase for lasguns in a squad that contains a sniper? Some sort of movement penalty if the sniper lands a shot? Let snipers act as "spotters" if the game ever gets a spotting mechanic? Not sure. If I had to drop a gun option from the infantry squad, it would probably be these.

**PenitentJake**

Maybe a sniper rifle temporarily turns off leader effects if the leader is damaged by a shot?

**ccs**

Precision just needs a simple expansion.
Allow the sniper player to select the model wounded - character or otherwise.
That way models carrying specific weapons/gear could be sniper out.

**kurhanik**

Haighus wrote:As a proud commander of a mechanised Steel Legion army, I can confirm Guardsmen can be used aggressively and have been able to be used aggressively in most editions of the game. They tend to die horribly but they're cheap and plentiful. Holding the Line has its counterpart in Send in the Next Wave.

Quoted for truth, I think the old mantra of the guard was to take 3 of anything you needed to use - one to die, one to miss, and one to make the hit. If anything with free weapon upgrades and chimera getting fire points back I'd think aggressive guard would be easier this edition than it has been in awhile.

Older editions it was playing the balance of screening units, units for long range fire support, and aggressive line pushers all armed in vastly different ways since equipment cost points. You'd take naked guardsmen for screens, might have a lascannon as the only upgrade in a long range unit, and might take a flamer and a heavy bolter (fairly cheap and with 3 shot's even hitting on 6s you could at least do a few hits on the move), or a plasma gun and an autocannon (both s7) /a single meltagun,for example in a more aggressive unit. You'd also see Chimera working as firebases loaded with special weapons firing from comparative safety.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Storm guardians have a wargear option, that gives the entire squad a 5++ right?

And Harlequins? Really? That's what we're comparring to Guard IS Squads? Sure. They have a 4++.

Both have fate dice, which is kinda irrelevant, but guard don't get Invulns, or fate dice.

EDIT:

WE are WAAAAAY Off topic here. So I'll just say whatever. You win, I'm wrong. Whatever I said, you win.

Now. Is the guard as a faction bloated or no?

I mean its not wrong, but the bloat is not from the weapons they have, but the fact that there is what, 4 datasheets for generic guardsman - each with very specific loadout requirements and special abilities. Older editions just used the one sheet and either used that as is and all army functions were part of your fluff alone (5th-7th), had specific factions that gave a specific buff/playstyle to lean into (8th, most of 9th), or let you pick and choose from a list of options to customize up your army and make it fairly unique (the glorious 3.5 dex, which for all its faults was probably the most interesting codex the army got).

**a_typical_hero**

ccs wrote:
Precision just needs a simple expansion.
Allow the sniper player to select the model wounded - character or otherwise.
That way models carrying specific weapons/gear could be sniper out.

This is okay for single snipers and super frustrating when going against sniper units.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Problem with making guard weapons stronger is the ripple in the pond effect. You make Grenade launchers D2, then do all grenade weapons become D2? Do Stick Bombs? Do Allarus Custodian Grenade Launchers? Auto-Launchers? Primaris Grenade Launchers? Frag Storm? I mean, if you make it JUST guard, that's pretty rough.

I think keeping it at it's current profile but changing blast rules makes more sense.

I do think Sniper weapons should be be like Sly Marbo's Ripper pistol. Auto-wound on hit. All sniper weapons.

I don't think we can ever fix melta now, that Genie's out of the bottle. They've got too many modern dedicated Melta units designed around the modern style of melta rules. You change the rules, you basically have to invalidate or reinvent the entire unit.

Same with Plasma. Hell Blasters, and those jetpack plasma ones, inceptors?

The one thing I could see getting a "Guard specific shakeup" is making the range on their HWT's +12" when "fixed" (Not having moved in the last turn). This would effectively make them better at their primary purpose, and keep them from being OP, or game breaking.

**Gadzilla666**

kurhanik wrote:
[(the glorious 3.5 dex, which for all its faults was probably the most interesting codex the army got).

So true, for so many armies. Sigh.

**Haighus**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
[(the glorious 3.5 dex, which for all its faults was probably the most interesting codex the army got).

So true, for so many armies. Sigh.

The more I find from the 3rd (and early 4th) ecosystem, the more I think Andy Chambers was the best lead designer for 40k. That paradigm was peak for me.