Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Imperial Guard in 6th: Initial Analysis

Imperial Guard in 6th: Initial Analysis


The armies of the Imperial Guard have been so profoundly affected by the transition to 6th Edition rules that it is still taking time for all the changes to sink in.

I made an initial list of changes that affect the way Imperial Guard armies play and quickly got to 60 rules, of which about 40 are positive and 20 negative, but in the grim darkness of the far future nothing is quite that simple and as you’ll see many of these are rules that cut both ways.

I am splitting this into a series. This article is going to be an overview, I’ll go into the rules in a future article, and then a review of the units in the codex as they appear at the very start of this edition of the rules. Then if there is interest, I can start adding some new army builds I’ll be trying out in the run up to the State Masters and Australian Masters, which I have pre-qualified for by coming first in both using my beloved Guard last year, (assuming the interest isn’t exclusively from my potential opponents lol).

 

As go the Tanks, so go the Imperial Guard

With low statlines, poor armour and bad combat ability on the infantry, the vehicle changes affect Imperial Guard more than virtually any army in the game. Losing hull points on a rhino and having a MEQ squad tumble out is an inconvenience, but Guardsmen losing their chimera can be a tragedy. I believe the Hull Points rules are an excellent addition to the game, but combined with the new increased vulnerability to assault you need to be aware that the survivability of most vehicles has taken a severe knock.

Do not expect your chimeras and other AV12 tanks to last nearly as long as they used to, particularly when going forward towards objectives. Not being able to claim objectives while inside a transport is a problem for Guard, but perhaps not as big a disadvantage as it sounds once you realise the transports are likely to be dead by then anyway!

There is a definite up-side to the new damage table though, and it is most obvious when running the classic Imperial Guard gun-tanks: Glancing hits no longer cause your tanks to stop firing. They also don’t stop them moving or cause them to be immobilised, but that’s actually less of an issue how many times would you have preferred your opponent rolled higher and immobilised your Leman Russ in 5th edition rather than taking its weapon off or stunning it?

Gun-tanks that generally keep firing until they die are an improvement, and no one benefits more than Guard. As for their attrition from Hull Points, they way I look at it is since vehicles can’t contest objectives, a gun-tank that dies on turn 5 of a 6 turn game has been at least as useful as one that lives to the end but was stunned and couldn’t shoot in turn 2. If the tank in question is a Manticore with limited ammunition, then please dear opponent, spend some time glancing its armour off.

Vehicles remain extremely important under the new rules, and many Imperial Guard vehicles are better than ever. The new survivability issues just mean that we have to change which we use and how we use them.

This is a huge topic on its own I will explore the Armoured Vehicle rules in more detail in an article soon.

In the meantime you may wish to see my article Back to Basics: How Rhinos, Razorbacks and Chimeras work in 6th.

 

The Armour Gap Widens

 

What the new rules do really well is widen the gap between better and worse quality armour. The gap in survivability between a Marine and a Guardsman has widened significantly due to the drop in average cover saves, and the good old days of Guard reliably going to ground and being able to pretend they were also wearing nice fashionable power armour are over.

As a Guard player I don’t necessarily have to like this, but it is definitely better game design.

The same applies to vehicles, as the Hull Points rules and changes to the damage table mean there is a much more significant gap in survivability between different armoured vehicles than before, even before you add the impact that an almost inevitable drop in the volume of meltaguns is going to have.

The AV10 vehicles are significantly easier to kill than AV11 even before you add the fact that many have 2 hull points rather than 3, since small arms now are a real threat to them. Our own common AV12 vehicles are a more significant step up from AV11 for a similar reason (although not to the same degree since both ignore most small arms), and for armies like Space Marines there is a huge difference between the Razorbacks we saw flourish in 5th Edition and the Predators that are likely to have a renaissance in 6th.

And then you get to the good stuff. Leman Russes, especially the Demolisher, are back in an undisputed role as Main Battle Tanks. AV14 is un-stunnable by anything below a lascannon, and as long as you’re smart enough to stay out of assault ranges those guns will just keep on firing until the tank dies or the game ends.

The key thing is that in 6th Edition the gap between good and poor quality armour has widened, whether it is on infantry or a vehicle, and Guard players will do well to keep that in mind in their army design process.

The Player Gap Widens

 

This is just a speculation, but I think the armour gap is likely to have a secondary effect on the player gap with Imperial Guard at tournaments. It is probably too early to say whether IG have been weakened or strengthened in relation to the other armies in the new rule book, but in my opinion Imperial Guard have become more complicated to use and harder to play well.

Look at 5th Edition tournaments and you will frequently see a few IG players at the top of the table, but a larger amount propping up the bottom of the results. Ignoring the legends of the ‘unbeatable’ Leaf Blower (a glass hammer army that became a synonym for overpowered after it was allowed to go first against players who didn't use reserves ten times in a row), an codex that either did very well or was destroyed has just got even more reliant on player skill in 6th edition.

The fate of the Imperial Guard will now often come down to how well the player can manage to take distant objectives without showing the opponent’s guns the 75% of each of their common vehicles that is AV10 rather than AV12, and manage to keep infantry alive in a ruleset that has lower cover saves and the ability of opponents to focus fire on any squad members that won’t get cover at all.

I believe Imperial Guard will be powerful in 6th, but it is no longer an army that I’d recommend to new players. The rewards for skilled play are great, but the penalties for mistakes have never been harsher. Just being honest about it, new players are better off with the more forgiving Marine armour and statlines and vehicles that don’t have AV10 sides.

But if you can get the hang of playing Guard in the new rules, you’ve a great future in 6th edition.

Is the Imperial Guard still the strongest army in the game?

 

No. It’s far too early in the new edition to really judge how the rules will interact with all the codexes and we will need results from a wide range of tournaments… oh forget it, it’s probably Necrons lol.

Get over it though, in my opinion Imperial Guard had a brief moment in the sunshine as the best army in 40K before Space Wolves moved into at least equal first position, and then had a relative decline as other powerful codexes were released in 5th Edition, a series of FAQs bit, the effect of one of the best psychic powers in the game (Weaken Resolve) was reduced by runic armour and reinforced aegis etc, and a genuine decline in options as DH/SOB allies were removed.

If it is any consolation, some opponents will still believe IG are ‘Totaly Over powerd11!!’ after playing the 'Purge the Alien' plus 'Hammer and Anvil' combination mission, just as some did in the last edition after playing the ‘Spear Head: Annihilation’ that played into IG’s strengths and avoided its weaknesses. In five out of six missions your opponent has no reason to think IG are overpowered.

But you’ll always have Purge Hammer.

Is the Imperial Guard still the best army in the game?

 

Yes! We are the Imperial Guard.

Hate to break both of their two hearts, but 8 foot tall SpessMarinz will never have the same underdog appeal as the desperately out-matched normal humans of the far distant future that Gamesworkshop had the audacity to design as a shooting army and arm with lasguns.

IGFTW.

Friends with Benefits

 

The Imperial Guard get truly excellent ally options. I’ll make a prediction that players who’ve invested time and money in large guard armies might find reassuring:

Whatever else happens in this edition of the rules, the ally options will keep your Guard army viable.

A quick glance at the illegible jenga game that is the allies chart shows nobody has as many friends as IG; it’s quicker to list all the armies we cannot ally with, the Tyrannids and… that’s all.  Necrons would be desperate allies, but every other army in the game is at least an ally of convenience.

I’ve seen a lot of die-hard IG players mention Allies as if it is a bad word, but they are now a part of the game and shouldn’t be written-off as WAAC out of hand. I think the 40K universe is rich and varied enough and the players are creative enough to supply a justifiable background story and ‘fluffy’ reason for most alliances, and this could have a very interesting impact on the game.

Comments (55)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Looking forward to the next article
Rules 1-43 of "reasons why Guard benefit from 6th"

Vendettas.
10 replies · active 666 weeks ago
Seriously, this. Vendettas were good last edition, but their vulnerability to enemy shooting (and inability to reserve without losing most of their firepower) meant that they often didn't get to do much more than soak firepower and zoom around the table.

In 6E, however, they are a metagame-defining unit; if your army doesn't have a way to deal with AV12 flyers, your army isn't viable in tournaments- it's that simple. Their low cost and high firepower, combined with the lack of effective AA in the game (realistically, only another Vendetta or Lootas have any chance of killing a one without volleying several units into it consecutively) make it one of the best buys in any codex. In fact, it's good enough that several armies are willing to ally basically just to get one.
Saw a double FOC list last night with 6 Vendettas, 6 Chimeras and a Manticore at 2000 pts.
That's two five-man command(?) squads with plasma guns,
Two ten-man squads with plasma guns,
And two ten-man squads with melta.

Vendettas make this sick.
Precisely this - It costs 130 points - roughly the same as other decent Anti tank mounted on vehicle chassis - Psyflemen, AutoLas Preds and the like, except now they blow all of those out of the water - Dettas can kill them, they can't kill Dettas

The way I see armies in 6th now - they can either deal with fliers, or they can't (And no, your one quad gun does not mean you can deal with fliers).

The worst bit is when you bring along your fliers, and your opponent brings along no flier defence - then whines for the whole game as you start torching all his tanks/precious terminators with impunity
willydstyle's avatar

willydstyle · 666 weeks ago

Let me know when nids can bring flyer defense. They can't even bring a quad gun.
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

I am pretty sure that is now. Nids can fire Gun Emplacements, but not Emplaced Weapons - you can see where the confusion comes from. Gun Emplacements need to be manually fired since they can't autofire, while emplaced guns have autofire (BS2) but have the options to be fired manually. (see the third page of the Nid FAQ) http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProduct...

Tyrannids can manually fire the Icarus Lascannon and the Quad-gun. They tcan't manually fire the Twinlinked version of the Lascannon, the heavy bolter or the fragstorm.
Discospawn's avatar

Discospawn · 666 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure that's the kind of rules lawyering that will make people roll their eyes and not play with you. Arguing that a Gun Emplacement and an Emplaced Gun are not the same thing seems like the worst possible solution to an unfortunate FAQ ruling.
Actually it's a bit unclear- Gun Emplacements are a separate type of terrain under the Battlefield Debris listing, but Emplaced Guns seem to be part of the buildings they are attached to and there's no indication that they can be targeted/destroyed separately. If this understanding is correct, then Nids _can_ fire Emplaced Guns (but not Gun Emplacements.)

However, the similarity of language makes for a distinct possibility that they are the same. If so, the Bastion/G.I. Joe Playset lose pretty much all of their value.
A single quad gun, does not make sufficient anti-flier
I don't remember ever saying that it did. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times that it isn't.
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

I don't play nids and I do use flyers, so nobody rolls their eyes at 'ruleslawyering' for one's disadvantage :)

They do appear to be different under the rules, intentionally or not.
"I’ve seen a lot of die-hard IG players mention Allies as if it is a bad word…"

I lol'ed at this. Many IG armies only exist because of the (old) allies rules! Nobody other than the most determined, fanatical WWII enthusiast would have played guard in 3rd and 4th without a significant amount of allies. It was only when allies were finally removed that most IG forces became "armies."
Matt looking forward to your next article, been struggling to find anywhere an in depth analysis of guard in 6th. One big question I have which is slightly obscure is your take on camo netting. As far as I can tell a squadron of any vehicles counts as one unit and the new stealth rule says "Cover save bonuses from the Shrouded and Stealth special rules are cumulative (to a maximum of a 2+ cover save).". So does netting for the 3 models in a battery or squadron now give a 4+ save to the unit as a whole if you get it for all? So for a leman russ squadron you pay 60pts for a 4+ cover save for all models, more importantly that's the same price for a hellhound squadron and goes some way to negating the low armour they have. I can't find anything to say I'm wrong and saving those glances 50% of the time for only 60pts would be epic.
13 replies · active 666 weeks ago
In the context of the sentence that you pulled from the rule book it's talking about that Shrouded and Stealth are cumlative with each other, not with additional occurrences.
Ahhh, I can see that, but I still think the wording is ambiguous, you could interpret it as multiple units with the rules are cumulative as well as units that have models with both rules. If you have a unit with stealth joined by an IC with stealth, why wouldn't they get stealthier? The fact that it specifically states to a maximum of 2+, led me to believe that the stack could be more than 1 of each. Although it could be talking about the two stacking already in cover. Anyway as I said it is very ambiguously written and could be interpreted the way I have. If you are right, in which case if you buy one camo net would you not therefore have a 6+ cover save for all three models in the unit? why would you buy more.
I could see both inerpretations to that, but I guess it matters which way they used the "and" in the sentence. On that note I thought it just saved some points on camo netting, but like you said it does have two different interpretations. Btw what is the page number for that maybe there is some clue in the sentence before or afterward to help clear things up (although I doubt it since it is gw).
Or anyone with a non-English version of the book could possibly share what it says (perhaps it's not ambigious in another language).
Alastores's avatar

Alastores · 666 weeks ago

-shrugs-. I would tend to go with common sense argument in the case of camo-netting on tanks.

"One tank with camo on it is hard to see. Therefore, if we have THREE TANKS they are even harder to see!".

Yeah, RAW rules and all, but still.

On the 'would you just need one camo' - not sure, but wouldn't it just mean that one tank was in cover, and so therefore focus fire come up?
Yea the realities of it are pretty rubbish, why would one tanks camo nets give stealth to the rest, but when has common sense ever prevailed, it is a game after all and there are always flaws in the rules. One would assume by the rules a single IC that has a camo cloak confers stealth on the unit, again not exactly realistic. But its not really the camo net your talking about, it just gives stealth to the model, stealth gives a +1 cover save and the rules clearly state any model with stealth gives it to the whole unit. This is why I would assume it stacks and if they all have camo nets they get 3 added to their cover save, other wise why buy 2 more camo nets if you get no benefit.
There are plenty of pieces of worthless wargear between additions and some that have always been bad buys even in the eddition they were in. For example in 5th you could have bought camo netting for one tank and shared it with the others the same way. The only reason you would buy more than one model the cloaks is because if one of the vehincles gets shot down then you had a back up (not worth it imho)
"A unit with *at least one model* with this special rule counts it's cover save..."
(Emphasis mine.)
The rules clearly state that one or more Stealths only give the benefit once. Stealth and Shrouded are cumulative with each other, not with themselves, that that "at least" would not be there.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

@BUFFER "Anyway as I said it is very ambiguously written and could be interpreted the way I have. If you are right, in which case if you buy one camo net would you not therefore have a 6+ cover save for all three models in the unit? why would you buy more."

Check the Imperial Guard codex for the answer.

The entire squadron may take:
Camo Netting.......... 30 points per model

There is no option to only give one vehicle camo netting. Leman Russes have the same option at 20 points per model, again with the caveat it is the entire squadron that takes it.
Thanks Matt and the others who have replied, I was kind of hoping they had made it more worthwhile as I think it would be cool to model on my Basilisks but as people have clearly pointed out it isn't as I thought it might be, shame as it seems overpriced.
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

@Buffer "Cover save bonuses from the Shrouded and Stealth special rules are cumulative (to a maximum of a 2+ cover save).". So does netting for the 3 models in a battery or squadron now give a 4+ save to the unit as a whole if you get it for all? "

Unfortunately not.
Stealth page 42 BRB
"A unit that contains at least one model
with this special rule counts its cover
saves as being I point better than
normal. "

"At least one model" makes it clear that having more than one model doesn't improve the effect. It does combine with Shrouded, and with other bonuses like cover from fortifications or for infantry the bonus from going to ground, but you never get more than +1 from the Stealth rule.
And thank you as well Matt I knew I wasn't crazy when I thought it didn't work.
I have to agree that allies seem to be the future for Guard armies as a whole (as actually most armies in fact). I'm looking forward to see what you might suggest using in the allies department though. Generally I've been thinking one of Space marine codexes since you could get up to 4 additonal troop units (or possibly 6 if you take stern guard in regular space marines) that are alot more durable than the basic guardsmen and add a preadator or vindicator to run along side the Leman Russ. Also if you really need another flyer the Storm Talon and Storm raven are available, or physic defense you really can't go wrong with a Rune priest. With so many options it's kind of hard to choose who to take as you are giving up something else.
Cover saves might have gone down but you've also now got the option to take your own cover in the form of the Aegis defence line
Enjoyed the article, really looking forward to the series.

As I primarily play guard, i've really enjoyed branching out into a number of other armies sitting on the shelf with guard allies, or guard + ally.
Thank you for your insights, and I'm looking forward for the next article too!
I bought some guard as allies as soon as I read the new rules. They are great for the amount of troops they can bring to hold backfield objectives, as well as bringing serious firepower. Being able to bring Lehman Russ Demolishers along with a Coteaz list is pretty sweet.
My buddy plays IG. With full strength blasts even when center is off enemy vehicles, Russes should be lots of fun and hard to get rid of if you can keep the enemy at range. If you have good cover, out of site basilisks could be fun. Masters of Ordinance in both HQ squads.

I know orders weren't super used in 5th, but could be lots of fun with giving two lasgun shots at 24 inch while moving as snap shots. You can also twin-link heavy weapons teams and have them move and snap fire when they couldn't before. Chimera is also more reliable for troop delivery when compared to a rhino since they're immune to S5 fire from the front, but I think flyer options will be more popular for competive play.

Might also be fun to have platoon command squads with plasma guns and medic since AP2 is becoming more popular.

Challenges will still suck for guard, but it might be fun to throw away cheap sergeants in sacrifice against enemy combat IC's to reduce overall damage to the IG squad.
1 reply · active 666 weeks ago
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

"I know orders weren't super used in 5th" --- What is this heresy!!!

Guard players should have been playing Movement Phase, Orders Phase, Shoot Phase, Assault Phase in every game! Orders are so good I'd frequently use them even if no enemy models were on the board ("Move move move" to block board edges or "INCOMING" before deepstrikers or reserves arrived).

If you are playing Guard, drill yourself into always looking for potential places to use orders before starting to shoot.
carldooley's avatar

carldooley · 666 weeks ago

personally, I've started using sniper rifles in my PCS, even moving and firing, the possibility of directed fire via snap shots should be FAQed so it isn't quite as abusable.
1 reply · active 666 weeks ago
Will Smith's avatar

Will Smith · 666 weeks ago

It doesn't need to be FAQ'd - you can't do it, says so in the rulebook.
Realisticly, snap shots should only net you a few more kills by the end of a game. The extra shots are nice, but anything you do actually kill should be considered a bonus. Really... 6's to hit, then you need to wound or penetrate, then saves/damage table makes for very low probabilities of doing much damage. Shooty armies now become more interesting because you don't have to be so static. Nothing worse in 5th ed than having to reposition a heavy weapon team and waste a turn in the hopes of lining up a better shot your next turn and hoping that tank or MC doesn't move out of sight on the next opponents turn. Shooty armies that were gun line style before can now actually use movement as a tactic instead of your entire strategy being based on initial positioning. It makes for more dynamic battles instead of repetitive games.
um guys, TWIN LINKED MANTICORES seriously they'll solve any problem.
1 reply · active 666 weeks ago
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

If you are referring to the Prescience power, it is from Divination so not a native guard option unfortunately.
Agree very much in relation the player gap and armor gap sections.

Good article Matt :) .
labmouse42's avatar

labmouse42 · 666 weeks ago

Allies are awesome because they let you shore up your weakeness.
As was said in the 3++ podcast, you don't need to rush your chimeras up if you have allies.

I find SW make a good match.
Drop in a few drop pods to grab objectives with your 8' tall objective holders, and then stick a rune priest with a blob to give them divination re-rolls and ATSKNF. It makes for a very shooty, if static deathstar.

(The base divination power also lets you re-roll misses for overwatch and in assault.)
1 reply · active 666 weeks ago
The Guard had few weaknesses that they couldnt shore up themselves as they have everything marines have, and then some.
So allies would be a somewhat wasted effort. (Unless having the best shooting and best combat around is your thing)
two things:
SW allies - holy #$%^. ATSKNF, orders on a 10, counterattack (if one guy gets it, the whole squad does) to your blob squad, negate psychic powers (including buffs), throw presience on the blob. craziness. I can't think of anything better.

aegis line - 2+ cover on their turn, get back in the fight (on leadership 10) to continue your normal turn. silliness. and since the line is basically a must take (cause it's great for IG), you might as well grab the gun while you're there.

obviously vendettas, manticores, russes, medusas and hydras (even with the nerf) still have some good uses too, and grav chute for emergency plasma/det packs/objective scoring/denial is nice too.

I'd say guard got a lot better. but not chimera vet spam IG. air cav, foot blob, and the HS types though. allying SW or some DW terminators doesn't hurt either.
Derreavatar's avatar

Derreavatar · 666 weeks ago

Well a librarian costs 100 points, as much as 20 guardsmen, so it is not so much a deal. On averages 50 guardsmen at range 24 with 1rf2rf and librarian kill 50*2*0.75*1/3*1/3=8.33 MEQ , 50 guardsmen with orders and 20 vanilla actually kill (50x2+20)*0.5*1/3*1/3=6..67.
Yes , you gain ATSNNF, which is good, but sniping the poor librarian will not be difficult and then you're screwed.Also , i think challenges actually favor IG, you are plenty of sergeants who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the emperor, and so keep at bay super characters for 1 turn. Such a wasted Abaddon!! Maybe it's better to keep small squads now that we see less kill point based missions?
Chickenwire's avatar

Chickenwire · 666 weeks ago

The huge Alphastrike potential of the Vendetta is gone. If you rely on Vendettas to do your Antitank Firpower, it is way to late to have them enter on T2/T3. Even then they can only provide firepower for 1 turn if used as a flier. In my games i was forced to use them as Skimmers many times. My regard for them is not as high in 6th edition.
1 reply · active 666 weeks ago
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

Correct about the alphastrike. It was a relevation to play my first game without them starting on the table; losing the effect of 9 twinlinked lascannons really takes the wind out of a shoot phase's sails!

You should be able to get more than 1 turn of shooting out of them in flier mode though, particularly as they are still Scouts and can still outflank, giving them a run across the table. You just have to plan your moves in advance with a lot more care than in the past - just one area where the skills gap is going to open.
Ezekielbrodie's avatar

Ezekielbrodie · 666 weeks ago

Hey Matt,
Nice article. I firmly believe IG will be in the top 3 of power level and general utility as both a primary army and an ally unless anything is drastically altered by GW in the coming months (read: bulk flyers for other armies). The sheer volume of shenanigns available (see, for 3 examples, Jacobus+deathblob, Guarddar St6/7 spam, or Guard+Necron/BA/SM airforce) will mean good things and make it, at least initially, difficult to come up with the cookie cutter builds that were the mainstay in 5th ed (and which I can only assume I'll see you playing at ATC in a few weeks ;) ). I also agree that Chimeras will continue to be the way forward ouside of more durable allied Troops. There just is no way around it.
I think we'll be seeing a lot of 3 Vendetta + 3 HS slot (pick anything with a template) + some durable troop armies for a while at least. Certainly my initial lists are pretty similar to 5th ed lists in that it's still Vendettas, Manticores and lots of melta dudes in Chimeras. We'll see how that goes in the long run.
2 replies · active 666 weeks ago
Ezekielbrodie's avatar

Ezekielbrodie · 666 weeks ago

To give further credence to my above comment, I just ordered about $800 worth of IG / FW models, and I have well and truly shelved the footdar. They served me well in 5th against majority expectation but I will wait for a new codex. If you can't beat them, join them.
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

Exxxxxxxxcellent, come over to the dark side.
Your timing in jumping codex from eldar could hardly be worse, but at least you'll be playing a good honest army for a change.
derreavatar's avatar

derreavatar · 666 weeks ago

well he's not selling his army he's putting it on the shelves , so if we have a new eldar OP codex he has just to dust them :D
derreavatar's avatar

derreavatar · 666 weeks ago

question: is it possible to use the Act of faith power of the Canoness if she is attached to an IG guard blob??? they whould gain favored enemy.. oh the pain!! also, saint celestine is now ain IC, and so could be attched to the mob giving it Fearless, which is not bad..
derreavatar's avatar

derreavatar · 666 weeks ago

no it's not possible, error of mine, both IC and unit must have act of faith. However, Celestine is still a very good IC!!
Ezekielbrodie's avatar

Ezekielbrodie · 666 weeks ago

Derreavatar: As I mentioned above, run the numbers on Jacobus and Celestine attached to 50 guardsmen with Krak grenades and PW sergeants, oh and a bunch of hidden priests with Eviscerators. It gets expensive (can clock up 800 points if you add lots of priests) but damn if that isn't a scary deathstar with FnP and huge numbers of attacks.

Matt: Dark side indeed. Look forward to catching up at ATC.
derreavatar's avatar

derreavatar · 666 weeks ago

the problem is , they are a lot of people and so it will be difficult to have them all attack with pile in moves of 3" , unless you keep them thigthly packed and so risk being obliterated from blasts & templates.. Also are very vulnerable to bolter fire.. however, jacobus+50guardsmen+straken= pain !!! And is also scoring!! :D I
1 reply · active 666 weeks ago
Matt-Shadowlord's avatar

Matt-Shadowlord · 666 weeks ago

And suffers one huge new disadvantage in 6th Edition; all 50+ men can only claim one objective. For a unit that used to be able to snake around all the objectives on most boards, this is something to keep in mind as a vote against it.

Jacobus probably makes up the lost ground though :D

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...