After perusing through various internet forums, I'm somewhat shocked to see how upset some people are about the new IG book. Most complaints being about the Vendetta and Chimera nerfs, which to me aren't unfounded, and help push the army back to it's intended mechanism.

When I think of an IG army, I think of wave after wave of guardsmen, and lots of heavy tanks. Thematically, I think this codex does a much better job of representing the true IG soul.

With Leman Russ tanks becoming slightly cheaper and the option to take a Warlord in a tank, with his squad counting as HQ, this allows for 15 Leman Russ tanks in a single force organization chart. While very hard to do under 2000 points, I can already see lists featuring at 10-12 Leman Russ variants at the 1999 point level becoming common place if you favor a tank heavy force.

If you played a blob style guard army before, it just got so much better. Better orders, better commissars, and PRIESTS!!! Throw in a line of bullgryns in front of your blob and you are going to have one of the most difficult to kill units in the game, that can get those sweet new order, benefit from a priest allowing them to reroll saves or wound rolls, and a commissar that makes sure your blob will hold true no matter what.

While the style of vendetta spamming and hiding veterans in a chimera and firing away might be gone, strong guard blobs and numerous roaming tanks is going to make for some strong lists.

Most of the coverage I have seen has been generally positive. Obviously there are some bad points, but it is far from widespread upset.

It's a mixed bag.

To start with, I've never understood why people think IG should just be a mass of infantry and a few heavy tanks. There are tons of mechanized and airborne infantry formations in the fluff background, hammering them to "better represent the true IG soul" is ridiculous. Especially after the 6E core rules changes to transports and vehicle survivability already massively hammered them.

Yes, if one plays a blob style army, you may be better off than before, but largely through a couple changes to HQ units. Those lists also require a much larger investment in terms of buying, building, painting, transporting, setting up and cleaning up all those infantry models that doesn't suit everyone.

Meanwhile, large numbers of units that really needed re-working or price cuts didn't really get what they needed (Heavy Weapons squads, Ogryn, Sentinels, Rough Riders), and units like Stormtroopers got reworked into "Scions" and still suffer the fundamental problems they had previously but are just cheaper through cutting their special rules. Most of the characters and several artillery units got outright removed, while others got unnecessarily nerfed, such as the basic Valkyrie, and what happened to the poor Hydra was very sad indeed. Meanwhile the Taurox is largely redundant and an unnecessary addition and the Taurox Prime has a price tag approaching that of many battle tanks after kit but worse than 35pt Rhino level survivability.

Some units got better, the Deathstrike surprisingly might actually be useable, footvets should actually work finally, and Armored Sentinels might actually have a use for once.

Meanwhile the new Wyvern is everything everyone ever complained about with IG Thudd Guns, but on a mobile AV12 platform and ignoring cover and without the need for HQ Ld bolstering and allied Psyker shennanigans.

So, effectively, the army got the CSM/Tyranid treatment, where the book is largely a sidegrade of the previous one with some give and take (some understandable and some completely incomprehensible) rather than a major reworking to the new mechanics of the edition (as Tau and Eldar got) or a moderate reconstruction resulting in a more coherent functioning of the army (as Space Marines got)

Well I think that all of the main styles of Guard list will be perfectly playable in the Codex, and most of them will be pretty effective. Mech still works fine, armoured got a buff, nothing wrong with airborne and infantry is pretty good. The only style that got hit would be artillery, which is still perfectly fine with FW additions and will be better after a DKOK update. The main codex never did artillery very well anyway, it has always been the domain of FW.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a mixed bag.

To start with, I've never understood why people think IG should just be a mass of infantry and a few heavy tanks. There are tons of mechanized and airborne infantry formations in the fluff background, hammering them to "better represent the true IG soul" is ridiculous. Especially after the 6E core rules changes to transports and vehicle survivability already massively hammered them.

Yes, if one plays a blob style army, you may be better off than before, but largely through a couple changes to HQ units. Those lists also require a much larger investment in terms of buying, building, painting, transporting, setting up and cleaning up all those infantry models that doesn't suit everyone.

Meanwhile, large numbers of units that really needed re-working or price cuts didn't really get what they needed (Heavy Weapons squads, Ogryn, Sentinels, Rough Riders), and units like Stormtroopers got reworked into "Scions" and still suffer the fundamental problems they had previously but are just cheaper through cutting their special rules. Most of the characters and several artillery units got outright removed, while others got unnecessarily nerfed, such as the basic Valkyrie, and what happened to the poor Hydra was very sad indeed. Meanwhile the Taurox is largely redundant and an unnecessary addition and the Taurox Prime has a price tag approaching that of many battle tanks after kit but worse than 35pt Rhino level survivability.

Some units got better, the Deathstrike surprisingly might actually be useable, footvets should actually work finally, and Armored Sentinels might actually have a use for once.

Meanwhile the new Wyvern is everything everyone ever complained about with IG Thudd Guns, but on a mobile AV12 platform and ignoring cover and without the need for HQ Ld bolstering and allied Psyker shennanigans.

So, effectively, the army got the CSM/Tyranid treatment, where the book is largely a sidegrade of the previous one with some give and take (some understandable and some completely incomprehensible) rather than a major reworking to the new mechanics of the edition (as Tau and Eldar got) or a moderate reconstruction resulting in a more coherent functioning of the army (as Space Marines got)

I agree that in some areas we were scorned by GW, especially in that units that we all wanted to see more play (rough riders, sentinals, etc), but some of units got some good buffs, especially some we all laughed at before *cough cough Priests cough*. The orders are still pretty good and yes some old ones were mixed up abit, yet some got buffed. Also IMHO mech got better with this new codex, especially with the tank commander, vets getting cheaper, LR's getting cheaper; but like I stated early GW gave and took at the same time, vendettas got hit and chimeras got an increased (by only ten but from an IG player who runs a gak ton of chimeras that gak stack up quick). I guess what I'm trying to say is yes in some aspects we have to take it with a grain of salt but are we as bad off as CSM/Nids? No, we more the middle ground alongside the SM realease. Some good, some bad and yes some ugly (Taurox Prime *shudders)

It's not too bad. It is however going to drive the race to the bottom in terms of allies, *cough* primaris to get prescience x 3 *cough*. Add to that orders that take away cover. Blobs already make a mockery of things and it will only get more disgusting.

The point reduction to armoured sentinels will pretty much guarantee you'll never see scout sentinels.

I agree that the IG mostly got cleaned up. Most of the changes were devoted to making awful units playable again, and they did a pretty good job of not throwing in a bunch of overpowered garbage. I don't think I could really hear much for complaints about the guard codex.

Chimeras weren't thundernerfed, they were just restored to a slightly cheaper, slightly better version that they were in the 3.5 codex. This was a change anyone could have expected. Meanwhile, I think vendettas got off light. Their loss of transport capacity was nothing more than a slap on the wrist, as most squads that were transported before were 6 models or fewer anyways. All they got was a bit of a price hike, which, once again, we all knew was coming, and wasn't unnecessarily draconian.

The only serious potential for cheese, I think, is going to be in allying guard in to other armies. Before, guard bore a rather substantial troops and HQ tax before you got to their good units. Now that's much less true. Now you can also take 6 russes and pask as part of a secondary detachment, which means we'll probably see people allying in ABGs.

As a stand-alone codex, though, it's just fine, and doesn't seem like it's going to be able to abuse allies too hard.

And scout sentinels still outflank, hit side and rear armor, and guaranteed get to fire before they get shot at.

I don't think the codex is all that bad. My complaints before the book even come out still stand:

1. We didn't get any cool new hotness.

That's obviously a personal thing, I'm sure some people love the Taurox (buahahaha). The only thing I really like is the Hydra, but the rules suck so my motivation to buy one is low. The Wyvern is ok but every time I look at it I can't help but think "I lost my Colossus for this?"

2. The removal of units. Really, even if the codex is awesome, I never support the removal of things, and we lost a ton of special characters and the 3 artillery tanks.

3. Simultaneously boosting vets and nerfing the Chimera. Chimera vets were taken too much previously, but by making them cheaper (by removing their kraks) and making the Chimera more expensive... they didn't actually make Chimera platoons any more appealing over Chimera vets. They reduced the number of special weapons that a Chimera vet unit can fire... but because they raised the cost of a regular infantry unit in a Chimera there's still no reason to take them.

Despite those points, I don't think the codex is terrible. No where near as bad as the Tyranid codex where entire chunks of the codex are blatantly obviously unbalanced. There's a couple of units that we'll probably never or rarely ever see taken, but overall I think there's a few viable builds which is nice.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
1. We didn't get any cool new hotness.

S10 AP1 10 inch blast with no cover that can be twin linked via primaris, pretty hot. The wyvern is also hot and when spammed will be broken as feth. 9 of them would be 36 small blasts a turn and the initial shot is twin linked, that's pretty hot. That's less than 600pts... pretty hot.


I will say though that codex really heavily incentives blobs.

If we hadn't lost half our artillery options, penal legionnaires, and hadn't had pysker squads and regular ogryn neutered, I would say this is the best codex GW has put out for 6th.

A lot of stuff has legitimate uses or niches, most models got a rules buff, price adjustment, or both, and a lot of units feel "right", for lack of a better word. Yeah the chimera and vendetta things suck, but it was needed. There was simply no way 5 guardsmen could have fired plasma or melts out of that chimera at the same time, and the vendetta having less transport capacity is a good compromise in my eyes to keep it cheaper.

As it sits now, its just pretty good. Had they kept penal legionnaires around and given them larger units, gave them and ogryn relevant price breaks, and kept artillery around, it would be like a 9/10. Unfortunately its just a solid 7 or 8 as it sits now

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Yeah the chimera and vendetta things suck, but it was needed. There was simply no way 5 guardsmen could have fired plasma or melts out of that chimera at the same time

I'm not so sure. Besides, the Chimera was hardly broken/overpowered/etc in 6E, there wasn't any good balance reason to nerf it.

 Crablezworth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
1. We didn't get any cool new hotness.

S10 AP1 10 inch blast with no cover that can be twin linked via primaris, pretty hot. The wyvern is also hot and when spammed will be broken as feth. 9 of them would be 36 small blasts a turn and the initial shot is twin linked, that's pretty hot. That's less than 600pts... pretty hot.

I'm going to refuse to play against 9 wyverns, and I play ABG. Three is bad enough, any more than that an the shooting phase is going to take a tediously long amount of time:

1: Work out initial hit location, with reroll.
2: Mark position and note how many hits.
3: Repeat for eleven more blasts, noting each hit location and number of hits separately.
4: Roll each blast's wounds separately, making sure not to mix them up. With rerolls.
5. Allocate each blast's wounds, starting with the first blast fired, working in firing order and using their specific hit locations.
6. Resolve all twelve pools, including look out sirs.

The multiple barrage rules are workable for three large blasts a turn, from manticores or basilisks. Working out 36 blasts in a turn, with rerolls on to hits and wounds, is just ludicrously tedious.

Please tell me I got something wrong, and that the sequence is far simpler than I think. I'm going off the FAQ:

Q: In a multiple barrage, do you determine all of the hits and
all of the Wounds separately for each blast, or do you resolve all
of blasts in one go? (p34)
A: Work out the total number of models hit by each
template, then proceed to allocate Wounds and remove
casualties as normal for the models hit by each seperate
template.

 Crablezworth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
1. We didn't get any cool new hotness.

S10 AP1 10 inch blast with no cover that can be twin linked via primaris, pretty hot. The wyvern is also hot and when spammed will be broken as feth. 9 of them would be 36 small blasts a turn and the initial shot is twin linked, that's pretty hot. That's less than 600pts... pretty hot.

I was talking more about actual new units/kits. The Deathstrike isn't new. The Wyvern is new, it seems like a good deal for a mortar but I'd like to review it a bit more before I say it's an awesome spammy unit. It's still only S4 AP6, so it seems rather situational to me... Venomthropes are going to hate it. But it's not like IG were ever starved for mid strength low to medium AP weapons.

New: Taurox, Hydra, Wyvern

Lost: Stacks of special characters, penal legions and 3 artillery tanks

The Taurox looks like gak.
AFAIK that's my only real issue...

There not so bad? Anything on foot now is dead, and unlike my Tau army i can MOVE while killing them too. I'm going to load up my Vets in Chimeras and Valkyries (They can have a single lascannon on them) and drop each team by a objective. Meanwhile buff these units with pretty amazing commands over the vox system while my multiple rocket pods just mow down anything that comes near my men. The Basilisk and deathstrike will stay behind a defense line hammering off rounds until pretty much I've taken most of the board.

With servo skulls and such i'm really looking forward to these buffs and i'm sure to invest in the regimental advisers now.

Yeah, wyverns are going to be insanely tedious to do all the rolling and rerolling for.

Thankfully, they're just multi-shot blast lasguns. It shouldn't take people too long to figure out that they're overrated.

But how did regular ogryn get neutered? They're virtually the same.

 Ailaros wrote:
It shouldn't take people too long to figure out that they're overrated.

Why would you say they're overrated?


Let's see, so it can't hurt toughness 8 models or vehicles with av11+ on the side. Still quite a bit out there it can hurt.

Because they're basically blast lasguns.

Their strength is super low, so they're only hurting infantry units, and their Ap is so bad, that infantry units are nearly always getting armor saves.

They're more accurate than usual, and you get four small blast templates, but their damage profile is the same as mortars (which no one took because they're too weak), which is roughly the same as frag-mode grenade launchers (which no one took because they're too weak - and they at least had a krak mode.

They make a lot of bark, but have very little bite. What's extra harsh is that they're blatantly unecessary, as you should already have lots of anti-infantry with FRF lasguns or chimera heavy weapons. Plus they have to compete against other anti-infantry options (like hellhounds) and against other anti-infantry options in their own HS slot (like cheaper, better punishers).

There's not a lot going for them other than that they have cool fluff.

 Ailaros wrote:
Because they're basically blast lasguns.

Lasguns are S3, aren't twin linked,don't have shred and don't deny cover saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
Their strength is super low, so they're only hurting infantry units

S4 with a re-roll to wound won't only be wounding infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
their Ap is so bad, that infantry units are nearly always getting armor saves.

You're not taking it for the AP, units in area terrain will go from a 2+ or 3+ cover save to whatever their armour save is, which is likely gak if they're baseline infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
They're more accurate than usual

They get direct hits over 50% of the time, that's incredibly significant,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
their damage profile is the same as mortars

No their weapon profile is not the same, mortas aren't twin-linked, don't deny a cover save and don't have shred.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
they're blatantly unecessary, as you should already have lots of anti-infantry with FRF lasguns or chimera heavy weapons.

I'm not entirely understanding the comparisson between a barrage weapon and a flashlight.

Yes, it's a bit better, but it's a bit.

It has shred, so what? It's still S4, which means you're still reaching for a 4's or worse to wound. Getting to reroll 6's to wound is still rolling 6's to wound, and anything that has that high of toughness is going to have a good armor save and just make a mockery of the wyvern.

It's more accurate, so what? You get a couple of extra hits. Hits that are worse than bolter hits.

It has ignores cover, so what? it's already shooting over a big pile of cover saves, which means it only works against area terrain and, being barrage, doesn't work against targets hiding in ruins. This leaves the only time it could even begin to be useful is against stuff in craters and forests, which is a minority of terrain. And even then, all you're doing is forcing them to take armor saves. There are lots of things that can hide in cover that also have good armor saves.

Ignores cover means that you make the save a little worse on a small band of units in a small band of terrain types. Extremely narrow niche, at best.

And not even nearly the best in this niche. You have other sources of ignores cover that are Ap5, and that are Ap4 (and even Ap3), plus orders. It's not even the best thing to take for this narrow niche.

Really, the best thing to compare the wyvern to is a 4x grenade launcher PCS. Yes, the wyvern is better, but not leaps and bounds better, and it's better than a GRENADE LAUNCHER PCS, which is widely recognized as one of the worst possible units a guard player could take.

The killing power is awful, which is very bad in general, but especially since it shares HS slots with things that have good killing power.

 Ailaros wrote:
. Plus they have to compete against other anti-infantry options (like hellhounds) and against other anti-infantry options in their own HS slot (like cheaper, better punishers).

Compete with hellhounds? What are you talking about?

Punishers aren't cheaper than 65pts and have a 24 inch range, how is that comparable to something with twice the range that doesn't even need to see the thing it's trying to kill?

Punishers are cheaper than they were before, not cheaper than wyverns. And they're still a lot better, and can handle a wider array of targets. Or you could take an exterminator, which is Ap4, so actually good at what it does (and can take anti-tank hull weapons to make it good against basically everything, unlike the wyvern, which is only hurt by things that a weapon somewhere between a lasgun and a bolter can hurt).

And yeah, it doesn't need line of sight. That's only useful if it's ever going to actually kill stuff that's completely out of line of sight. If you wanted to do that, though, you have plenty of options, like the basilisk, deathstrike, manticore, deepstriking scions, etc. etc.

And likewise, a wyvern definitely competes with a hellhound, but a hellhound is better because torrent auto-hits is better than extra-accuracy small blast. And it's Ap4 instead of Ap pointless. And it can take a multimelta, and is closed top, and has better armor, so it doesn't instantly disintegrate at the first angry stare like a wyvern.

Multiple barrage is only bad when the player doesn't know how to do it quickly if you ever played thud guns you will have figured it out now. The secret is to just roll them all and leave dice to mark the import stuff. I do hope they simplify the rules in 7ed though.

For the people saying artillery was removed. It wasn't as far as GW was concerned. They took a FW unit, put it into the codex, and then removed it from the codex but it is still in FW, with the exact same rules except some additional options. The problem is that many people play by special house rules which preclude these units. If you still want to use the artillery you have been using you can you just need to run them as forgeworld units now.

I love how deathstrikes became useful finally. Though they are not automatically their maximum blast (12" was the max) and in some ways the change to a blast marker was a nerf as before if you were within the range you got hit (ie multi level ruins protect units now). Still actually getting one launched is a big improvement.

While I will be rocking a Wyvern tomorrow (since I don't have any other use for my Griffon model), I think it does suffer from being a Heavy Support choice in a codex full of better HS choices. Are the points better spent on something like more pskyers? Sure. But what fun would that be?

The Wyvern is nasty. Hitting 4 time with shred will likely stack ~6 wounds per wyvern at 65 pts a pop you can easily get a unit of 3 which will be hard to kill considering barrage and 48" range.

Getting ride of cover saves and not just being barrage is very significant against stuff like Tau pathfinders and invisible units.

Stripping cover saves won't matter much since a lot of things are going to make their Invulnerable or armor saves. Ignores Cover is huge for AP2 shooting. It's underwhelming for AP6.

But it shoots AQUILAS! The shrapnel is little souvenir aquila ninjastars. It's too dopey not to use.

Sounds lame to me.

 Ailaros wrote:
Punishers are cheaper than they were before, not cheaper than wyverns.

You're the one making the comparisson..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
And they're still a lot better, and can handle a wider array of targets.

better doesn't mean anything, better at x for example would mean something. As for "can handle a wider array of targets" that's simply not true if you factor in, you know, having to see the thing you want to target. As for the whopping +1 bump in strength, congratulations, you can now hurt T8 and AV11... a massive boost indeed..

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Stripping cover saves won't matter much since a lot of things are going to make their Invulnerable or armor saves. Ignores Cover is huge for AP2 shooting. It's underwhelming for AP6.

But it shoots AQUILAS! The shrapnel is little souvenir aquila ninjastars. It's too dopey not to use.

The ignores cover means lighter units can't rely on cover saves better than their own, which in many cases can be pretty huge. Eldar Pathfinders in Ruins? Guess they get to roll their 5+ armor for those 13 wounds instead of that sweet, sweet 2+ cover. Blob platoon went to ground in area terrain? Welp, no 3+ cover for them, they get to roll with that 5+ armor.

Granted it's certainly not as powerful as if it were AP2, but there'll be a lot of units that will feel it.

 Ailaros wrote:
Punishers are cheaper than they were before, not cheaper than wyverns. And they're still a lot better, and can handle a wider array of targets.

If you're kitting the punisher strictly for anti-infantry killing? then the range of targets is only negligibly larger and the range far shorter. If you're multi-kitting the Punisher with say Lascannons and multi melta sponsons or something, the Wyverns are going to be way more cost effective for the role and your tank will have to do more to justify its cost while not being as capable as it's otherwise specialized role and merely potentially possible of doing something else as opposed to being competent at it. The Wyvern, point for point, will deliver more average wounds, and do it at a significantly longer range, than a Punisher will. And with the Punisher starting at the price more than twice that of a Wyvern (and quite possibly ending up at the price of 3 after upgrades), the Wyvern can fit in a whole lot of hurt.

Or you could take an exterminator, which is Ap4

Which, against targets in cover where the AP4 would matter, is going to be less effective than the Wyvern and against targets in the open the Wyvern is generating a lot more raw wounds (point for point) so the sheer number of hits is likely to make up for that AP4.

so actually good at what it does (and can take anti-tank hull weapons to make it good against basically everything, unlike the wyvern, which is only hurt by things that a weapon somewhere between a lasgun and a bolter can hurt).

You take an Exterminator when you need a generalist tank. If you're running Wyvern's they're obviously anti-infantry wound generators and little else, but you're probably building your list around that. Same part of the above applies, and an Exterminator is basically never going to generate a larger number of wounds against infantry than equivalent points of Wyverns will and will have to spend time not doing the jobs the Wyverns will to make use of its other capabilities.

And yeah, it doesn't need line of sight. That's only useful if it's ever going to actually kill stuff that's completely out of line of sight. If you wanted to do that, though, you have plenty of options, like the basilisk, deathstrike, manticore, deepstriking scions, etc. etc.

All of which cost significantly more, two of which have limited ammo, and all of which are much more likely to have other targets that their capabilities will be required against.

And likewise, a wyvern definitely competes with a hellhound, but a hellhound is better because torrent auto-hits is better than extra-accuracy small blast. And it's Ap4 instead of Ap pointless. And it can take a multimelta, and is closed top, and has better armor, so it doesn't instantly disintegrate at the first angry stare like a wyvern.

A Hellhound's frontal armor and HP count are no better than that of the Wyvern's. A hellhound has half the range of the Wyvern. A Hellhound has to move about the board a whole lot more and face a whole lot more enemy fire from more angles while a Wyvern can sit in the back without needing to expose the weaker sides. A Hellhound is twice the cost of a Wyvern. For the same price as a Hellhound, you can get two AV12/10/01 OT'd 3HP tanks and 8 S4 Shred/Ignores Cover/Twin Linked 48" Barrage Small Blasts instead of one AV12/12/10 3HP tank with an S6 AP4 Torrent Flamer.

Also something to note, against T3 targets, S4 w/Shred is actually more effective than the Hellhound's S6 is (which comprise the majority of units the Hellhound is usually tasked with eliminating) while being similarly slightly less effective against T4 targets (most of which the Hellhounds AP4 doesn't matter against).

The Wyvern is highly situational, much like a Hydra, and should be thought of as such. Usually you'll want one or the other in your army, rarely both. Magnetize, Magnetize people.

In my small FLGS of 4 players, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Chaos Daemonettes (with 4+->2+invuls) a Wyvern is a waste and will never be useful enough to bring so I lement the loss of the Medusa and Colossus for the mediocrity of the Basilisk. I will not give FW money to use vehicles I already have in the past.

If I were to shoot the Wyvern at Space Wolves, I'd get about 8-10 hits, 6-7 wounds and maybe 2 dead space wolves which is pathetic compared to 4 dead space wolves from the colossus. Yes 2 Wyverns will get the same results with more durability but $130+ is a joke.

*edit for Crablezworth a Punisher cannon and will strip HPs off of flyers, especially with a little prescience, it will also lay down more unsaved wounds against 2+SV models. Both of these things are much more common for me to see then: Guard or Tau or Eldar troops in cover.

 Ailaros wrote:
Or you could take an exterminator, which is Ap4, so actually good at what it does

And what might that be?

Astra millitarum has the power to go toe to toe with some of the biggest contenders. For example, Leman Russ can shut down Riptides (Both Kinds I believe - They struggle to deal with AV14 definitively) so the codex is more than "not so bad", it's actually going to be at the very, very least, top of second tier, but it's most likely to contend with tau.

As for flavour, the codex captures the old guard dex and adds new units without hurting the old ones. It's a shame things like Marbo and Bastonne had to go, but if it were for the sake of a reasonable and balanced codex not filled with overpriced (bastonne, harker) Low ability characters or unreasonably effective (Marbo) automatic S8AP2 blasts, It can't all be bad.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Astra millitarum has the power to go toe to toe with some of the biggest contenders. For example, Leman Russ can shut down Riptides (Both Kinds I believe - They struggle to deal with AV14 definitively) so the codex is more than "not so bad", it's actually going to be at the very, very least, top of second tier, but it's most likely to contend with tau.

You do know the riptide can assault the gak out of a leman russ pretty badly right? That's not a struggle.

It has to get there, first.

Support your armor with infantry, like any good commander should, and the Riptide can assault the Russ all it wants. It's then going to get plasma/melta'd the ever-loving gak out of by those infantry blobs.

 Ailaros wrote:
Meanwhile, I think vendettas got off light. Their loss of transport capacity was nothing more than a slap on the wrist, as most squads that were transported before were 6 models or fewer anyways. All they got was a bit of a price hike, which, once again, we all knew was coming, and wasn't unnecessarily draconian.

Aren't you the guy who says that Vendettas are awful? Remember all your posts about how they show up late, can't stay on the table, and just get shot down by interceptor fire? Shouldn't you be outraged about how GW nerfed a terrible unit and made it even more useless? Or is this your concession that you were only talking about how Vendettas were bad to persuade people not to use a unit you thought was unfair?

And scout sentinels still outflank, hit side and rear armor, and guaranteed get to fire before they get shot at.

Just as long as you don't encounter any interceptor fire when you outflank. You know, that thing that you claim makes Vendettas useless.

 Psienesis wrote:
It has to get there, first.

It can deep strike, often without scattering and occasionally with friends...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Meanwhile, I think vendettas got off light. Their loss of transport capacity was nothing more than a slap on the wrist, as most squads that were transported before were 6 models or fewer anyways. All they got was a bit of a price hike, which, once again, we all knew was coming, and wasn't unnecessarily draconian.

Aren't you the guy who says that Vendettas are awful? Remember all your posts about how they show up late, can't stay on the table, and just get shot down by interceptor fire? Shouldn't you be outraged about how GW nerfed a terrible unit and made it even more useless? Or is this your concession that you were only talking about how Vendettas were bad to persuade people not to use a unit you thought was unfair?

And scout sentinels still outflank, hit side and rear armor, and guaranteed get to fire before they get shot at.

Just as long as you don't encounter any interceptor fire when you outflank. You know, that thing that you claim makes Vendettas useless.

I ask for evidence that the wyvern is overrated (what that really means) and I get more adjectives. Aileros would have to come out and make some kind of direct argument like "there are better anti-infantry barrage units in the codex" or something along those lines.

The wyvern, like the thudd gun or the thunderfire is a freakin wound machine and it's incredibly cheap. In my opinion it seems undercosted, hell the the thunderfire is probably too cheap too. Thing is, you can take 3 and still only use up 1 heavy support slot so I don't even see how the wyvern is in conflict with a leman russ.

Especially now that you can take those Leman Russess in your HQ.

Does it strike anyone else odd that you can get the exact same unit, Tempestus Scions, as Troops in one Codex, MT, but as elites in another, AM, and yet you can ally them together to get Scions in both slots?

I play thudd guns can attest that even calculating 12 TL small blasts a turn can be tedious. But most people dont really care about making sure to resolve each blasts individually. If I roll a direct hit, I just take whatever is the highest amounts of hits I could get from my previous chains. If it scatters, just flip from the intial blast. Resolve wounds and just remove starting from the first blast hole.

If you actually remove from each blast's hits/wounds you will be there all day, either way, that unit is probably screwed.

for the wyvern, are you able to let the first one hit, then just let each blast either land on top (if hit) or if it scatters can it just touch the original blast in the direction shows on the dice?

Or is that a different rule?

You see where the first hits. Then you just roll the scatter die for each blast. On a hit you can choose to place the blast within or on the edge of any previous blast. On a scatter you have to scatter on the edge of the 1st blast.

Also TL effects every blast.

TuddFudders wrote:
You see where the first hits. Then you just roll the scatter die for each blast. On a hit you can choose to place the blast within or on the edge of any previous blast. On a scatter you have to scatter on the edge of the 1st blast.

Also TL effects every blast.

I thought so, it wont take that long then really.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I thought so, it wont take that long then really.

Oh, it really will. One of them is bad, but a full squadron of them is hell. Remember that since a "hit" result can touch ANY previous template you have to keep them all in place so you can see what the legal area is. Better hope you have a dozen spare 3" blast templates. And then also remember that wound allocation is per template, so you need to mark the center point of each of them until wound allocation is done so that you know exactly which model is the closest one.

I am rather disappointed with the codex , a lot of points shuffling , some new rules which make units still bad , removed units and chimervendetta points nerf . If this was the first codex in 6th or last in 5th , it probably could be viewed as ok . But now when it has to play against demons, eldar and necron it just doesn't cut it . There are no riptides , no seerstars , no units that say I make you win games. It is a lot like playing old IG codex ,only with the option to take armored company . If only our LR were comperable to riptides or there were ways to buff them against flyers/melee.

Makumba wrote:
I am rather disappointed with the codex , a lot of points shuffling , some new rules which make units still bad , removed units and chimervendetta points nerf . If this was the first codex in 6th or last in 5th , it probably could be viewed as ok . But now when it has to play against demons, eldar and necron it just doesn't cut it . There are no riptides , no seerstars , no units that say I make you win games. It is a lot like playing old IG codex ,only with the option to take armored company . If only our LR were comperable to riptides or there were ways to buff them against flyers/melee.

Im no competitive player, but looking at the orders combined with psykers and so on I think it will be ok. Nothing mega amazing, but at the end of the day, its codices that are mega amazing that causes the problems you mention.

plus there are all the allies that can provide buffs to our shooting and so on if the ones in the codex arent enough.

I agree the codex isnt much to be excited about from a casual point of view as well, but I do think we arent that badly treated.

It gets dicey when you remember that HQs can be tanks, Heavy Support can be something else.

I don't know many Space Marine armies that'd turn down the chance to take Leman Russes and Wyverns or whatever.

Oh and all the Divination stuff.

Again, the army on it's own is really good. It starts getting dicey when you start adding in Allies, Formations, Detachment of imperial knights etc.. etc..

But why take the AM psykers at all. I can get the same divination from Inqusitors and get servo skulls and pseudo interceptor. And that is of course allies , but other good armies can take them too. Just the fact that I can take allies , which isn't so easy with my army going over 100pts up in points , doesn't put AM at the level of eldar/tau or tau/tau or demon/csm. The codex doesn't give the stuff that was important to all good armies in this edition . Fast cheap troops,cheap anti air that is add to units and doesn't require specialisation in to only AA , powerful divination or telephaty casters . All we got was cover ignoring on an order.

It's the ML2 (at 75) that makes them so good by the way. You get the roll and you get the main power and it doesn't take up an FOC. Being able to manipulate the FOC and take allies is really good and really flexible especially when allying in with Imperial Knights.

Everyone is all "well I could always get a inquisitor". Yeah, you could now you can have a Imperial Knight Army with Tanks, Anti Air, Psykers, and troops where as before when you allied etc.. you had to kind of select : Do I take up heavy support with Anti air or with Tanks. It kind of effectively removes this. That's where it gets kind of abusive. It's almost like they were like what's the best way we could make it so that Imperial Guard would be an amazing ally for other forces.

I'm not a Imperial Guard player or a Imperium player, but given the choices now and the ability to manipulate FOC you can just pretty much take the best from 2 armies plus detachments.

It's all about manipulation of the FOC , and taking advantage of shoring up weaknesses through Ally.

It seems to be a less entertaining version of its former self. Certainly not Tyranid class, but not Eldar either.

Slightly unrelated, but has anyone else noticed how similar the new stormtroo..er... uh... "Tempestus Scions" look to the officers of the Principality of Zeon from the mobile suit gundam series? Real "original material" there gee dubs.

So, how did the Ogryns and Bullgryns get handled? This weeks WD tells all about how awesome and great those Bullgryns are, but are they?

StarHunter25 wrote:
Slightly unrelated, but has anyone else noticed how similar the new stormtroo..er... uh... "Tempestus Scions" look to the officers of the Principality of Zeon from the mobile suit gundam series? Real "original material" there gee dubs.

How so?
EDIT: Okay I kinda see where you're coming from but i don't think it's a copy... That look is hardly unique.

It's the ML2 (at 75) that makes them so good by the way. You get the roll and you get the main power and it doesn't take up an FOC. Being able to manipulate the FOC and take allies is really good and really flexible especially when allying in with Imperial Knights.

Inq don't take an ally slot either . Coteaz does cost 100pts , but he is an auto include in to any army that can take him and other inq can be as cheap as 65 too , 70+ with servo skulls . And what is important the inq casters do not get shot in the head , if they peril .

This weeks WD tells all about how awesome and great those Bullgryns are, but are they?

The shield ones cost too much for a cover unit. Both units are like tyranid warriors without synaps bubble for other units. If they costed 20pts less, they would be playable.

It's almost like they were like what's the best way we could make it so that Imperial Guard would be an amazing ally for other forces.

That is like telling a csm player , he should be happy , that his codex is good for one thing , being a helldrake tax for codex demons.

It's all about manipulation of the FOC , and taking advantage of shoring up weaknesses through Ally.

But at best this new AM codex didn't change a thing and at worse made taking ally harder , because of points hike on core units.

I am perfectly happy with the codex in terms of what it's added/changed. Very few things got objectively worse, and most things that were apparently bad got better.

Where I do take issue is with the stuff that has been outright removed. We have no way of outflanking units without one random Warlord Trait, SITNW is gone, most artillery is gone and Penal Legion are gone. Several characters were removed for no reason.


So it's great, as a codex, and perhaps less good as a replacement for the 5th Ed codex.

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

 Klerych wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

They were cool.
Not necessarily any good but they've been a pretty cool part of 40k for a while.
The Last Chancers were badass.
Again an iconic unit.

Kierych and me come from a place where being "cool" is not enough to be cried about.

Although it is not like it would have been bad , if GW fixed penals to be good. Just let them blob up and give an option to switch las for las pistol/ccw . Wouldn't make them awesome , but at least they would have had a niche of their own.

 Klerych wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

I suppose it is partly because I set myself a sort of self-appointed task to find a use for every unit in the IG codex somehow, and they were the only one I could never get to work, so I was hoping the new codex would help there. Other than that, they were a cool unit fluff-wise, and always fun to use in friendly games. Also, it's a case of a unit being removed for no reason, which annoys a lot of people, including me.

 purplefood wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

They were cool.
Not necessarily any good but they've been a pretty cool part of 40k for a while.
The Last Chancers were badass.
Again an iconic unit.

I got more of a mercenary vibe than a prison soldier vibe from them.
I don't think prisoners would be allowed to choose how they fight or their equipment.

Conscripts represent the use of prison soldiers imo.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

They were cool.
Not necessarily any good but they've been a pretty cool part of 40k for a while.
The Last Chancers were badass.
Again an iconic unit.

I got more of a mercenary vibe than a prison soldier vibe from them.
I don't think prisoners would be allowed to choose how they fight or their equipment.

Conscripts represent the use of prison soldiers imo.

They don't get to choose per say...
It's more like they nicked it...

barnowl wrote:
Does it strike anyone else odd that you can get the exact same unit, Tempestus Scions, as Troops in one Codex, MT, but as elites in another, AM, and yet you can ally them together to get Scions in both slots?

No, because in one army(Militarum Tempestus) it is a deployment of the Tempestus Scions by themselves with a Tempestus Scion Command Squad(or a Commissar Lord as the case may be) leading the force.
In the other army(Astra Militarum) those same Scions are deployed as an auxiliary asset to an AM force proper.

 purplefood wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

They were cool.
Not necessarily any good but they've been a pretty cool part of 40k for a while.
The Last Chancers were badass.
Again an iconic unit.

I got more of a mercenary vibe than a prison soldier vibe from them.
I don't think prisoners would be allowed to choose how they fight or their equipment.

Conscripts represent the use of prison soldiers imo.

They don't get to choose per say...
It's more like they nicked it...

That's even sillier. Aren't the prisoners heavily surveyed? I don't think the warden would let them take their stolen weapons to the battlefield.

In short, when I think of Penal Legionnairies, I think of this




The 5th ed rules, with it's it's small units of 10 men, the fact they can have varied skills and the fact they can infiltrate, makes me think more of these guys

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

They were cool.
Not necessarily any good but they've been a pretty cool part of 40k for a while.
The Last Chancers were badass.
Again an iconic unit.

I got more of a mercenary vibe than a prison soldier vibe from them.
I don't think prisoners would be allowed to choose how they fight or their equipment.

Conscripts represent the use of prison soldiers imo.

They don't get to choose per say...
It's more like they nicked it...

That's even sillier. Aren't the prisoners heavily surveyed? I don't think the warden would let them take their stolen weapons to the battlefield.

In short, when I think of Penal Legionnairies, I think of this

I agree that's a perfectly fine way to view them. Not all Penal Legions are run the same way and in an extended conflict they may be forced to scavenge what they can.
The commanders probably don't care, as long as their duty to the Emperor is done.

 Klerych wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

Because they were a cool unit, with a distinct feeling and good background/fluff behind it.

People did not use them mostly because they were not enough cost-efficient. Veterans (and big blobs) were far too better.

Problem: Penal Legion not working.
Solution A: Fix the problem. Balance it against Veterans, thus allowing players to field something different.

The Good: Happy customers.

The Bad: It takes a small effort.

Solution B: Destroy the option. A unit is not working? Out of the Codex and forget it. After all, who cares about variety, background or coolness?

The Good: Easy and fast.

The Bad: People always complain when units are taken from the Codex.

If this codex were Imperial Guard: version 1.0, then I'd probably love it a lot more than I do. Given it's IG: Version 5.0 (I think?), it makes it harder to see units getting cut and rebalances (or in GW's case, unbalances) that you don't like.

Have people still not worked out why units are gone? It's because there were no models for them, this should not be a shock...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Have people still not worked out why units are gone? It's because there were no models for them, this should not be a shock...

There was a model for Marbo.

 purplefood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Have people still not worked out why units are gone? It's because there were no models for them, this should not be a shock...

There was a model for Marbo.

There were models for several of them.

I want this to be an example to all those who said that people complained as badly with the nid codex as they did with all the others. Its a lie.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Have people still not worked out why units are gone? It's because there were no models for them, this should not be a shock...

Versus...



Vendetta only had a FW model...same as the Medusa, Colossus, etc. And, while the Griffon doesn't currently have a model, it used to:

I'm a guard player. That means keeping up with the guard rules as they change over time. Hate it, or love, it doesn't matter. If I didn't get the new codex, I wouldn't be a guard player.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
I'm a guard player. That means keeping up with the guard rules as they change over time. Hate it, or love, it doesn't matter. If I didn't get the new codex, I wouldn't be a guard player.

Umm, yeah, we heard you in the other thread... and again when you quoted Ailaros... let me repeat my response:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
I'm a guard player. That means keeping up the guard rules as they change over time. If I didn't get the new codex, I wouldn't be a guard player.

Yeah we heard it when Ailaros said it and you quoted it several pages back

If you didn't get the new codex, you could still be a guard player... just not a guard player who plays with the latest rules. One doesn't preclude the other unless your opponents won't let you play with old rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:

This weeks WD tells all about how awesome and great those Bullgryns are, but are they?

The shield ones cost too much for a cover unit. Both units are like tyranid warriors without synaps bubble for other units. If they costed 20pts less, they would be playable.

It seems to me the problem with Bullgryns is that they not only give your units a 4+ cover save.... they give any enemy unit you want to shoot at with said covered unit a 4+ save as well.

Bullgryns would make more sense in an army like Tyranids, Orks, any assaulty army really or any units that ignore the enemy cover saves, so you don't care if the enemy gains a 4+ cover save from the Bullgryns as you benefit from the 4+ save more than they do.

That doesn't really describe IG where giving a 4+ save to the enemy is just as bad as getting a 4+ save is good, potentially sometimes worse.

Still, they're better than Tyranid warriors, who with T4 have way too many things that cause them instant death.

barnowl wrote:
Does it strike anyone else odd that you can get the exact same unit, Tempestus Scions, as Troops in one Codex, MT, but as elites in another, AM, and yet you can ally them together to get Scions in both slots?

No. That was possible two books ago. Take the Grenadiers and Stormtroopers doctrines at the same time and you could have up to three units of stormtroopers in each of troops and elites. In both cases there are slight fluff differences.

 Raxmei wrote:

barnowl wrote:
Does it strike anyone else odd that you can get the exact same unit, Tempestus Scions, as Troops in one Codex, MT, but as elites in another, AM, and yet you can ally them together to get Scions in both slots?

No. That was possible two books ago. Take the Grenadiers and Stormtroopers doctrines at the same time and you could have up to three units of stormtroopers in each of troops and elites. In both cases there are slight fluff differences.

That is FOC manipulation in the same book. I had expected something more like IK or LoTD rules were the unit is still an Elite or LoW and just gets a special rule to be warlord and scoring.

 Raxmei wrote:

barnowl wrote:
Does it strike anyone else odd that you can get the exact same unit, Tempestus Scions, as Troops in one Codex, MT, but as elites in another, AM, and yet you can ally them together to get Scions in both slots?

No. That was possible two books ago. Take the Grenadiers and Stormtroopers doctrines at the same time and you could have up to three units of stormtroopers in each of troops and elites. In both cases there are slight fluff differences.

I think its possible. You can take MT Scions as Primary or Allied detachment = they can use their own orders and are troop. And you can take AM Scions which use AM orders (and not their own) and are elites. But its IMO messy and unnecesary to take both.

 Klerych wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
... and Penal Legion are gone.

Out of pure curiosity.. any idea why do people mourn the Penal Legion? I know you are not in this post, just saying that they're gone, but I never understood why would anyone(again, not you) miss them and I'd really want to.

They were a nice, fluffy unit. I did take them a few times to try to sneak in a outflanking Linebreaker for the lols. It also seemed rather sad how the unit went from the Dirty Dozen to Schaeffer, Kage, and a squad to just a squad with some wonky rules and was hoping they might get a new iteration in this book.

I always wanted to make a Savlar-like army using their profile as the base for Guardsmen rather then regular infantry to represent a much more unruly and Hive Gang-style kind of Guard army, but they were way too over-costed, became redundant compared to Commissar blobs, had no frag grenades back when FC meant something, wonky rolls for their rules and couldn't even take a flamer.

Guys relax all the stuff that got cut out that you miss like penal legion, special characters, etc will be available later via data slate as an additional purchase.

That's actually not very comforting...or even confirmed for that matter.

And you can tell that some things aren't coming back.

One of the things that they summarily removed from the codex was outflanking. Nobody but scout sentinels can do it anymore. Not Al'Rahem, not creed, not harker. Even if they brought penal legionnaires back, they wouldn't have outflanking, because no one does anymore.

But without outflanking, what was the point of penal legionnaires? A single special rule isn't enough to resurrect them, especially since they don't have models and weren't that popular.

It seems like penal legionnaires are gone for good. At least, until next codex.

 Ailaros wrote:
And you can tell that some things aren't coming back.

One of the things that they summarily removed from the codex was outflanking. Nobody but scout sentinels can do it anymore. Not Al'Rahem, not creed, not harker. Even if they brought penal legionnaires back, they wouldn't have outflanking, because no one does anymore.

But without outflanking, what was the point of penal legionnaires? A single special rule isn't enough to resurrect them, especially since they don't have models and weren't that popular.

It seems like penal legionnaires are gone for good. At least, until next codex.

Outflanking you say? What about the 1/6 of games where D3 units get it?

It's a 1 in 6 chance.

Meanwhile, creed, harker, al'rahem, penal legionnaires, and stormtroopers, valkyries, and vendettas all lost it as a standard upgrade. The kind you had a 6 in 6 chance of getting.

I know, I'm just saying that it wasn't "summarily removed"
-TG

If FW makes the heavy vehicles that were taken away...doesn't that mean you can still use them?

 poppa G wrote:
Sounds lame to me.

Unfortunately, I agree with this.
I wanted to like it. But the more I thought about it, the less I liked it. It's str is just too low for me.

Maybe spamming them might help?

Johnnytorrance wrote:
If FW makes the heavy vehicles that were taken away...doesn't that mean you can still use them?

In theory? Yes.

As a practical matter however, many stores/clubs/events do not allow FW stuff and many individual players have a stick up their butts about FW in general.

For the record, I like the TauRocks model. (I hate the name however. I'll spell it like that for the rest of my days)

I think the AM ability to put down enough pie plates to wipe out and enemy army on turn 1 it a bit much though...

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
For the record, I like the TauRocks model. (I hate the name however. I'll spell it like that for the rest of my days)

I think the AM ability to put down enough pie plates to wipe out and enemy army on turn 1 it a bit much though...

Do many people pronounce it Tau? I have never heard it as anything other than Taw.

Besides the character drops
And rough riders
AM is a kick-ass dex

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Besides the character drops
And rough riders
AM is a kick-ass dex

And the loss of three arty units.
And the units that weren't buffed that still really need help.
And the units that were nerfed that didn't need to be.
And the lack of fluff/generally bad fluff.

There's definitely some good stuff going on in the book, but I don't think I'd call it kick-ass. I like that Russes were improved overall, as I'm a treadhead, but that doesn't make it a great codex in my eyes.

To each their own, but having a codex that can compete at top tier does not necessarily make it a good codex or kick-ass codex.

Pretty surprised at the hate for the Wyvern. In this current day and age of 40k there is a lot of T3 on the table (behind Aegis Lines, mostly), and even though it will give them an armor save there is still a lot of re-rollable-wounds-on-3 dice to be had from a couple of these things.

Tau, Eldar, the gigantic Nid units we see cropping up, other Guard armies, and even Daemons (the troops, anyway) will probably take a lot of wounds from these things. I could see them being effective just by sheer volume of saves.

Though I also suspect next edition a rules change to barrage to make them faster to roll, but that is pure speculation.

Also surprised how many people are mad about penal legion. Never seen one fielded in 9 years of play, didn't think anyone would miss them.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Pretty surprised at the hate for the Wyvern. In this current day and age of 40k there is a lot of T3 on the table (behind Aegis Lines, mostly), and even though it will give them an armor save there is still a lot of re-rollable-wounds-on-3 dice to be had from a couple of these things.

Tau, Eldar, the gigantic Nid units we see cropping up, other Guard armies, and even Daemons (the troops, anyway) will probably take a lot of wounds from these things. I could see them being effective just by sheer volume of saves.

Though I also suspect next edition a rules change to barrage to make them faster to roll, but that is pure speculation.

I don't think there's a lot of hate for the Wyvern. There's hate for the fact the Wyvern replaced 3 perfectly good artillery tanks that we already had. There's dislike of how long it takes to do a 4-12 shot TL barrage. Personally I'm not a fan of the model itself (it looks like the most arse-about way to do an artillery vehicle), but that's just personal preference.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
(...)
Also surprised how many people are mad about penal legion. Never seen one fielded in 9 years of play, didn't think anyone would miss them.

That´s easy. Just apply the same reasoning to another Codex.

Let´s get the CSM Codex. At this point, the only units you´ll see are Cultists, Heldrakes and a cheap Sorcerer/Lord, or a DP. So imagine GW releases a new Codex: CSM with only 5 units, getting rid of everything "nobody uses". For twice the price.

If a unit is not working, they should fix it, not just erase it. Many people liked the background of the unit and would have fielded it if it were able to compete with Veterans.

People want more things with every Codex, no less.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
For the record, I like the TauRocks model. (I hate the name however. I'll spell it like that for the rest of my days)

I think the AM ability to put down enough pie plates to wipe out and enemy army on turn 1 it a bit much though...

Do many people pronounce it Tau? I have never heard it as anything other than Taw.

I've been pronouncing it "Tore-ox".

I'd like to get the new codex...overall it seems to be received positively. My only gripe so far though is the axing of the non-Cadian/non-Catachan characters (...and MARBO) - it just lost some of the flavor that made the IG, err, AM a bit more diverse. And where in the hell is Schaeffer and The Last Chancers?!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
For the record, I like the TauRocks model. (I hate the name however. I'll spell it like that for the rest of my days)

I think the AM ability to put down enough pie plates to wipe out and enemy army on turn 1 it a bit much though...

Do many people pronounce it Tau? I have never heard it as anything other than Taw.

I've been pronouncing it "Tore-ox".

Weather or not it's pronounced Tore-ox, or Tau-Rocks. It's spelled like Tau_rocks. And I shall make fun of that 'til the end o' time

I've always been pronouncing it tore-ox, the same way I pronounce taurus tore-us.

The fact Taurox has Tau in it didn't really occur to me until someone pointed it out, I just saw a mutation of Taurus, lol.

 da001 wrote:

 Fenris Frost wrote:
(...)
Also surprised how many people are mad about penal legion. Never seen one fielded in 9 years of play, didn't think anyone would miss them.

That´s easy. Just apply the same reasoning to another Codex.

Let´s get the CSM Codex. At this point, the only units you´ll see are Cultists, Heldrakes and a cheap Sorcerer/Lord, or a DP. So imagine GW releases a new Codex: CSM with only 5 units, getting rid of everything "nobody uses". For twice the price.

If a unit is not working, they should fix it, not just erase it. Many people liked the background of the unit and would have fielded it if it were able to compete with Veterans.

People want more things with every Codex, no less.

Agreed, penal legion had great potential with scouts and stubborn. Give them their abilities as doctrines, like vets, ws4, and reduce the price. Also, allow the overseer to take wargear.

 Crablezworth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
1. We didn't get any cool new hotness.

S10 AP1 10 inch blast with no cover that can be twin linked via primaris, pretty hot. The wyvern is also hot and when spammed will be broken as feth. 9 of them would be 36 small blasts a turn and the initial shot is twin linked, that's pretty hot. That's less than 600pts... pretty hot.


I will say though that codex really heavily incentives blobs.

Ironically, said Wyverns are a pretty good hard counter to said blob squads.

da001 wrote:Let´s get the CSM Codex. At this point, the only units you´ll see are Cultists, Heldrakes and a cheap Sorcerer/Lord, or a DP. So imagine GW releases a new Codex: CSM with only 5 units, getting rid of everything "nobody uses". For twice the price.

But that's absurdly claiming that there are only a few units everyone brings and then literally no one else ever brings any of the units.

Penal legionnaires weren't a slightly underpowered unit that vapid netlisting didn't include, but lots of other people used them. Penal legions were a unit that practically nobody used, and those who did, didn't use them often, and I never saw an army based around them. They were a unit that ACTUALLY wasn't taken that often rather than a specious argument that no one took them because GT players didn't use them.

overall its not bad.
except for kicking the hydra around too much and the thing that really irks me is the lack of the Colossus, Medusa, and Gryphon. BUt I suppose people won't complain if I just use the old dex just for those. otherwise that's 4 whole units gone....

THe only thing that disappointed me besides the arty and hydra was the lack of adding more Russes like the Laser Destroyer or thunderer to the codex. Oh well, no one complains if I bring the imperial armor book anyways.

It's not surprising to me that the internet that discounted Ogryns in the previous edition are still deriding current Ogryns.

Ogryns were pretty good before. Their one problem, which was a pretty enormous one, got solved in this codex since I can now add a 25 point, non-entire HQ slot, man to them to raise their LD up to great.

Yes, this codex was mostly points shuffling and re-balancing, but it all trended for the positive.

The only drawback I find in it is the loss of several of the special characters (Marbo excluded, because he had to go). Losing Al'Rahem, Chenkov, and Kamir was a pretty bad deal.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The only drawback I find in it is the loss of several of the special characters (Marbo excluded, because he had to go). Losing Al'Rahem, Chenkov, and Kamir was a pretty bad deal.

Not to mention, why even keep harker if you're gonna make him pointless? I would have rather had a re-named marbo than a harker whose balls have been removed.

 Ailaros wrote:

da001 wrote:Let´s get the CSM Codex. At this point, the only units you´ll see are Cultists, Heldrakes and a cheap Sorcerer/Lord, or a DP. So imagine GW releases a new Codex: CSM with only 5 units, getting rid of everything "nobody uses". For twice the price.

But that's absurdly claiming that there are only a few units everyone brings and then literally no one else ever brings any of the units.

Penal legionnaires weren't a slightly underpowered unit that vapid netlisting didn't include, but lots of other people used them. Penal legions were a unit that practically nobody used, and those who did, didn't use them often, and I never saw an army based around them. They were a unit that ACTUALLY wasn't taken that often rather than a specious argument that no one took them because GT players didn't use them.

Perhaps, but at the end of the day the reasoning is the same: if something is broken, and a new version of the Codex is out, it should fix it. Instead, we are getting less units & options with each Codex. That´s not cool. In my opinion, at least.

 TheSilo wrote:
(...)
Agreed, penal legion had great potential with scouts and stubborn. Give them their abilities as doctrines, like vets, ws4, and reduce the price. Also, allow the overseer to take wargear.

^This. It is not that difficult to fix a unit. And once it is fixed, there is no reason for not seeing Penal Legion armies.

The same go for named characters and artillery units.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Not to mention, why even keep harker if you're gonna make him pointless?

Snuh? Is your copy of the codex different than mine? Harker isn't pointless.

Somewhat different, but pretty far from pointless.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Not to mention, why even keep harker if you're gonna make him pointless?

Snuh? Is your copy of the codex different than mine? Harker isn't pointless.

Somewhat different, but pretty far from pointless.

Eh, what? If you don't think he's pointless there's a pretty good chance I actually have a different codex to yours.

Because all I see is that you'd spend a ridiculous amount of points on giving one sergeant a fancy heavy bolter.

Thud wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Not to mention, why even keep harker if you're gonna make him pointless?

Snuh? Is your copy of the codex different than mine? Harker isn't pointless.

Somewhat different, but pretty far from pointless.

Eh, what? If you don't think he's pointless there's a pretty good chance I actually have a different codex to yours.

Because all I see is that you'd spend a ridiculous amount of points on giving one sergeant a fancy heavy bolter.

Exactly, he used to benefit the squad by letting them outflank, now he's just a really expensive rending relentless heavy bolter. He's the price on an old chimera and does nothing for the squad.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Thud wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Not to mention, why even keep harker if you're gonna make him pointless?

Snuh? Is your copy of the codex different than mine? Harker isn't pointless.

Somewhat different, but pretty far from pointless.

Eh, what? If you don't think he's pointless there's a pretty good chance I actually have a different codex to yours.

Because all I see is that you'd spend a ridiculous amount of points on giving one sergeant a fancy heavy bolter.

Exactly, he used to benefit the squad by letting them outflank, now he's just a really expensive rending relentless heavy bolter. He's the price on an old chimera and does nothing for the squad.

So everyone is clear, only 1/9 shots will be a rending shot (2/3 hit, 1/6 are 6 to wound). He costs as much as 5 heavy bolters. He costs as much as a Taurox with a tl-autocannon and heavy stubber. He is no where close to being worth it. He's T3, 1W.

Harker doesn't confer relentless to his squad. How is he at all useful?

 TheSilo wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Thud wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Not to mention, why even keep harker if you're gonna make him pointless?

Snuh? Is your copy of the codex different than mine? Harker isn't pointless.

Somewhat different, but pretty far from pointless.

Eh, what? If you don't think he's pointless there's a pretty good chance I actually have a different codex to yours.

Because all I see is that you'd spend a ridiculous amount of points on giving one sergeant a fancy heavy bolter.

Exactly, he used to benefit the squad by letting them outflank, now he's just a really expensive rending relentless heavy bolter. He's the price on an old chimera and does nothing for the squad.

So everyone is clear, only 1/9 shots will be a rending shot (2/3 hit, 1/6 are 6 to wound). He costs as much as 5 heavy bolters. He costs as much as a Taurox with a tl-autocannon and heavy stubber. He is no where close to being worth it. He's T3, 1W.

Harker doesn't confer relentless to his squad. How is he at all useful?

Stick him on a large base and he's a Heavy Bolter Heavy Weapons Team for Catachan!

Expensive and pointless are not synonyms.

Thud gets a pass since he's Norwegian. The rest of you should know better about how language actually matters.

Sure, but what is the point to him? Just to get another heavy bolter in a squad?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Expensive and pointless are not synonyms.

Thud gets a pass since he's Norwegian. The rest of you should know better about how language actually matters.

Even in Norway we have the Googles, so I managed to look it up. It told me pointless means "without force, meaning, or relevance."

Seems to me like that describes Harker pretty well.

Unless, of course, you'd like to actually string an argument together instead of just acting like a condescending prat.

 Ailaros wrote:
Sure, but what is the point to him? Just to get another heavy bolter in a squad?

Largely, that's kind of what it looks like at the moment. I'd use him as a Heavy Bolter Weapons Team just to get utility out of the model though.

So, that means that the best you can probably do with him is...

Vets - harker, heavy bolter
Chimera - 2x heavy bolters, heavy stubber

That way you put down 12 S5 shots (three with rending), and 3 S4 shots. Sounds like a lot of dakka...

... but it is all rather lightweight. Furthermore, it costs 195 points.

For that price you can nearly afford a squad of vets and a punisher...

 Ailaros wrote:
So, that means that the best you can probably do with him is...

Vets - harker, heavy bolter
Chimera - 2x heavy bolters, heavy stubber

That way you put down 12 S5 shots (three with rending), and 3 S4 shots. Sounds like a lot of dakka...

... but it is all rather lightweight. Furthermore, it costs 195 points.

For that price you can nearly afford a squad of vets and a punisher...

Yeah, if Relentless conferred to the whole squad I could see the point but as it stands....meeeeeeeh.

AM seems quite strong from here, both by itself and when allying in others. Let's see what it gets:

-Amazing access to psykers. Really they field more and better psyker support than Thousand Sons, and they tecnically hate psykers!

-Great support. Stealing PotMS from marines to give to your tanks, flexible command squad additions, orders, the aforementioned psykers, priests are cheap and amazing, comissars....you name it.

-Tank commanders! Now you don't even have to bother with infantry HQs if you don't want to.

-Wyvern: It's not helldrake-level broken, but it's quite good. It puts a LOT of wounds on stuff, and if you have a psyker handy (and you will), you can reroll the hits AND the wounds, ever time. On average it will kill 2 MeQs and change each turn, but averages don't tell the whole story. It's a great way to make the enemy start making saves early and often.

-Scale. Fielded as Allies, AM lets you bring 6 heavy tanks into play. As a stand-alone army, it gets almost ridiculous. You can make armored battalions, airborne spam, human waves, combined forces, artillery divisions, all fielding lots of whatever your favorite thing is.

Now for the negatives:

-Vendetta nerf: As other said, this was badly needed. Now it takes some actual investment to be able to kill any other flyer in the game in a single turn. It's still great, just not the auto-include-two-of-them it was before.

-Missing stuff: Sad, but it's a trend. GW basically had a meeting and said "let's stop paying these hippie writers we have to write more models for us to make, and get them to plug the models we're already making. Less expenses that way!" Makes me fear for my Baron Sathonyx when Dark Eldar get their book.

-

This might have been covered in a previous thread but has anyone seen anything about Vostroyan Firstborn and whether they will be updated any time soon? getting their own mini-codex spinoff perhaps?

Cheers

I wouldn't say he's worthless. Yes, he doesn't add much to the army and he costs far more points than he's worth.
His real use is the possibilities for conversions!

 MWHistorian wrote:
I wouldn't say he's worthless. Yes, he doesn't add much to the army and he costs far more points than he's worth.
His real use is the possibilities for conversions!

Spoiler:

Guess he's a sexual tyrannosaurus?

 Ailaros wrote:
So, that means that the best you can probably do with him is...

Vets - harker, heavy bolter
Chimera - 2x heavy bolters, heavy stubber

That way you put down 12 S5 shots (three with rending), and 3 S4 shots. Sounds like a lot of dakka...

... but it is all rather lightweight. Furthermore, it costs 195 points.

For that price you can nearly afford a squad of vets and a punisher...

No one balks when someone says they build their army and fill the last <100 points up with doodads, until it's a doodad the internet dislikes.

This next point does not include Ailaros since he only claimed Harker had low value.

For those of you claiming Harker has no value (which is what pointless means), you consider two armies that are made up of exactly the same units, except one had 40,000 more Harkers to be exactly equal armies.

I never said he was amazing. I made what I thought to be an non-contentious point that his value was above zero.

DarknessEternal wrote:No one balks when someone says they build their army and fill the last <100 points up with doodads, until it's a doodad the internet dislikes.

It's kind of crummy, though, if the best reason to take harker is because you have 55 points to blow and have nothing else to spend them on.

DarknessEternal wrote: you consider two armies that are made up of exactly the same units, except one had 40,000 more Harkers to be exactly equal armies.

Hey, I'm the one that's supposed to make silly analogies!

The new Codex shed variety and function, and offers very little to compensate. Overall, it's a slight nerf in overall effectiveness, and a bit of a slap to the face to anyone who had gone to the trouble of converting up artillery tanks, or who ran a build that hinged on the abilities of one of the cut special characters.

Is it the end of Astra Militarum/Guard? No, but it's a boring book, and the disdain that it receives is largely justified.

I'm pleased with the power level of the codex relative to its peers, and, leafing through some of the fluff, it seems to be of a slightly higher quality than the 5th edition's. So on the whole, I'm pleased.

But I agree that that there is no "positive" spin you can put on the removal of special characters and units. Reduced options is *always* a bad thing, regardless of their necessity or effectiveness. The Imperial Guard "world" got a little bit smaller, and that's sad.

I wouldn't say the codex is nerfed . They do force people away from playing with more then two vendettas and force to play more blob and either ally for divination , or own psykers for divination . GW also forces us to use more russes then we did in the last codex. We sure aren't as good as eldar or tau , but there are the no cover orders which are nice for 1-2 turns and we make some wicked ally for a Knight army. I think sob or marines could like a big blob and some russes as anchor unit too .

Priests are nice and bring extra plasma guns with them.

The only problems is points , if vendettas didn't go up in points or if there were other ways to get AA , we could bring on all the cool stuff like good armies. Right now we have to play either with vendettas and have a lot less points for stuff or without them and hope we will never face flyers or av 13+ stuff.

Makumba wrote:

The only problems is points , if vendettas didn't go up in points or if there were other ways to get AA , we could bring on all the cool stuff like good armies. Right now we have to play either with vendettas and have a lot less points for stuff or without them and hope we will never face flyers or av 13+ stuff.

Did you really just argue that the Vendetta is the only cost-effective anti-AV13 in the entire Codex?

Now my english is not the best or even good, but am sure that should be said was and not is . It was the only cost effective anti av13+ in the entire codex. Right now there are no optimal anti av13+ options for IG.

You have to be trolling.

Uh, the army that can take 4 drop melta squads per elites slot? S10 ordnance in heavy support? Meltaguns in transports in hq and troops? Fast melta tanks and outflanking lascannons in fa? Some of it may be less hilariously cheap than 3 tl lascannons for 130 pts, but the guard still have maybe the best ant-tank in the game

I'm very, very disappointed that rough riders are nerfed to the point of not even fluffy games. I couldn't care to much about marbo, even though it would've been nice to "Counts-as" as assassin with him. But i suspect he'll come flying back with a catachan dex

While the new models are interesting, I don't understand the doubling down on Ogryns. They didn't make them astoundingly better, except they can grant better cover saves. Given to do that it makes them crazy pricy, but it's there.

Just seemed like a missed opportunity to make something like rough riders into a dual kit and adding a speed element to the army versus some tubbynators that don't do a whole lot.

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
I'm very, very disappointed that rough riders are nerfed to the point of not even fluffy games. I couldn't care to much about marbo, even though it would've been nice to "Counts-as" as assassin with him. But i suspect he'll come flying back with a catachan dex

No supplement has given us new characters, just ways to make "count-as" through wargear.

DarknessEternal wrote:Marbo excluded, because he had to go

I don't even know what to say to this.

DarknessEternal wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Not to mention, why even keep harker if you're gonna make him pointless?

Snuh? Is your copy of the codex different than mine? Harker isn't pointless.

Somewhat different, but pretty far from pointless.

He costs 55 points, so he is therefore not "pointless." He does, however, add almost nothing but an incredible overpriced heavy bolter to an army that has an almost infinite amount of better options to take in place of him.

You used to at least be able to use him to get a 2+ cover save and outflank/infiltrate, but the new codex writers apparently decided to tape a blinking red goal light to his face and make him way less sneaky. He is, in a less literal sense of the word, pointless.

ThunderFury wrote:I'm very, very disappointed that rough riders are nerfed to the point of not even fluffy games.

Rough riders actually got better with this codex. At least they got their proper +S and +I back again. The only way they're worse than the original, non-FAQ print is that they're no longer Ap2, but that describes power weapons in general these days.

The problem with rough riders is 6th edition more than it is with rough riders. They probably could have used a boost, risking that they would become overpowered in 7th undoes a bunch of what 6th did, but that was probably a pretty low risk.

It is interesting, now, though, how they compete with mechvets for being a way to quickly deliver a pair of special weapons somewhere.

-Loki- wrote:You have to be trolling.

Makuba trolling? I knew there was a reason he was on my ignore list.

TheKbob wrote:I don't understand the doubling down on Ogryns.

Especially since they also reduced the number of artillery pieces in the process.

I suppose at least it's adding in new units, instead of making it just a straight loss.

DarknessEternal wrote:Yes, this codex was mostly points shuffling and re-balancing, but it all trended for the positive.

Which is really all I wanted. All I wanted from them was to just not screw it up. The old guard codex was good, and I didn't want Ward to come in and decide it needed to go in an entirely different direction and ruin everything.

Keep things the same, with perhaps shoring up some of the worse units. Which is pretty much what I got, over all.

He's the same price he used to be but doesn't benefit the unit he's taken for other than adding another gun better than a lasgun. The reason I say he's pointless (not refferring to his cost) is that before, there was a point in taking him in a vet squad, now there is no point and the cost remains the same. If you enjoy muscular looking men I suppose there would be a point, or benefit in taking him. I don't share that perspective.

As much as I personally dislike it, the AM codex is a great codex if you run lots of tanks or blobs of infantry. The new rules can be used to make very powerful formations of each.

But as someone who ran a combined arms force, and actually used Penal Squads, as well as three of the SCs who got dropped (Marbo, Al'Rahem, and Mogul Kamir) I don't have a very high opinion of it. I do think that a player new to the game who is intersted in IG would be satisfied with the potential power output of the army, provided they went with a blob or tank build.

 Crablezworth wrote:
He's the same price he used to be but doesn't benefit the unit he's taken for other than adding another gun better than a lasgun. The reason I say he's pointless (not refferring to his cost) is that before, there was a point in taking him in a vet squad, now there is no point and the cost remains the same. If you enjoy muscular looking men I suppose there would be a point, or benefit in taking him. I don't share that perspective.

I thought playing an army of buff men was half the reason to play Catachan.

And yes, he lacks a real "point" for his points cost to be put into a unit. I'd rather slap Storm Bolters on everything than take him honestly.

Don't forget Sentinels. They're viable now.
Oh, and Deathstrikes. They're usable too.
Manticores are still awesome.
Also Vendettas and Valks.

Sounds a bit more than tanks and blobs.

There is very little in the book I'd consider "not viable": Rough Riders, Harker, Executioners without Prescience support...and probably Straken.

Otherwise the book is looking pretty good overall. Some of the restrictions went away (Ogryns can roll with Priests now for instance), points decreases over most of the book helped make more variations of things viable and generally I feel this book has some good stuff in it, it's just a matter of finding the new balance.

Then again I feel that a codex deserves a good shakedown and people get some games in before we decry it as horrible so take that with salt.

The loss of units is never good, and while I get some of it (the FW stuff that should have been ported over in full or not at all) the characters doesn't make as much sense.

My only guess there is there was an issue getting the molds for them refreshed or the dev team didn't have the kind of time they needed to really do anything interesting with the characters.

You can still use executioners without prescience. Yes, it's more dangerous, but that's why they lopped 50 points off the price tag.

 Ailaros wrote:
You can still use executioners without prescience. Yes, it's more dangerous, but that's why they lopped 50 points off the price tag.

And one bad turn of shooting later enjoy your slagged tank. Even worse if you take the plasma-sponsons.

If they could buy and Ivul at least they could potentially negate Gets Hot, but as they are I wouldn't run one unsupported unless Pask was in it just so I could use the Large Blast instead (only risking 1 Hull Point a shot instead that way).

It would have to be a pretty damned bad round of shooting. You'd have to roll 3 1's, and then you'd have to roll a 1-3 three times in a row. The chance you blow yourself up in a single round of shooting is .027. Put another way, this happens, on average once every 37 times you shoot the main weapon.

You'll probably have this happen like once or twice a year with regular play.

And you're forgetting, vehicles already have a save against gets hot.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
You can still use executioners without prescience. Yes, it's more dangerous, but that's why they lopped 50 points off the price tag.

And one bad turn of shooting later enjoy your slagged tank. Even worse if you take the plasma-sponsons.

1 in 532 isn't exactly dangerous considering the firepower it puts out.

Oh, no, you're right, it's cubed. But wait, that's once every 1754 times you shoot, and that's not right. Why am I derping so badly today?

Honestly, I'm not sure I did that right, but regardless the odds are pretty silly. People still use Psykers despite the (comparatively) massive 1/18 risk of Perils of the Warp.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
You can still use executioners without prescience. Yes, it's more dangerous, but that's why they lopped 50 points off the price tag.

And one bad turn of shooting later enjoy your slagged tank. Even worse if you take the plasma-sponsons.

1 in 532 isn't exactly dangerous considering the firepower it puts out.

Right, but a "bad round" can come after already losing a couple hull points resulting in you wrecking yourself too.

I just have trouble putting something on the table that help kill itself I suppose.

I do like the model though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just have trouble putting something on the table that help kill itself I suppose.

That is just what Imperial plasma is like, you pay for it's power with either points or blood. Personally, I like getting powerful weapons by risking my own men's lives. It seems very Guard-like to me. Just one of those things that comes down to personal preference I suppose.

 Trickstick wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just have trouble putting something on the table that help kill itself I suppose.

That is just what Imperial plasma is like, you pay for it's power with either points or blood. Personally, I like getting powerful weapons by risking my own men's lives. It seems very Guard-like to me. Just one of those things that comes down to personal preference I suppose.

I'm playing a game tomorrow and I'll be rocking three executioners.

The only reason being my other Russes are vanilla or demolishers, and I'm not a fan of how Ordnance works against them.

I'll report back my findings. Only bringing one divination slave too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
You can still use executioners without prescience. Yes, it's more dangerous, but that's why they lopped 50 points off the price tag.

And one bad turn of shooting later enjoy your slagged tank. Even worse if you take the plasma-sponsons.

1 in 532 isn't exactly dangerous considering the firepower it puts out.

Right, but a "bad round" can come after already losing a couple hull points resulting in you wrecking yourself too.

I just have trouble putting something on the table that help kill itself I suppose.

I do like the model though.

By that logic you shouldn't ever play anything that's got a Leadership value, because you might run off the table (yes, even Fearless thingies).

 Trickstick wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just have trouble putting something on the table that help kill itself I suppose.

That is just what Imperial plasma is like, you pay for it's power with either points or blood. Personally, I like getting powerful weapons by risking my own men's lives. It seems very Guard-like to me. Just one of those things that comes down to personal preference I suppose.

Fair enough. I'm still really used to playing Sisters where when I start losing my Exorcists things go downhill as that's my only real long ranged shooting that can effectively threaten things. Guard have a lot more options so I sometimes struggle to get my head around that.

Omg everyone fails at math.

Perils of the warp = 1/18 attempts

Executioner gets hot = 1/6 per shot, lose a hull point 1/12 shots fired. 3 shots per turn, average 0.25 hull points per turn. Way more dangerous than perils of the warp. Won't kill the tank outright, but will likely damage itself at least once per game, 50% chance to do two HPs in a 6 turn battle.

Gets hot is more dangerous than perils of the warp.

In a single round of shooting without sponsons:

Chance of inflicting:

0 HP = 77%
1 HP = 21%
2 HP = 2%
3 HP = 0.06%

With sponsons:
0 HP = 64.7%
1 HP = 29.4%
2 HP = 5.3%
3 HP = 0.5%

Over the course of 4 turns of shooting without sponsons:
0 HP = 35.2%
1 HP = 38.4%
2 HP = 17.2%
3 HP = 7.2%

Over the course of 4 turns of shooting with sponsons:
0 HP = 17.5%
1 HP = 31.2%
2 HP = 27.6%
3 HP = 23%

So if you take a plasma tank with or without sponsons, most games you are going to inflict at least some damage on yourself (unless the enemy kills you first). If you take sponsons, if you fire 4 turns in a game, you have a 1 in 4 chance of killing your own tank even if your enemy does nothing, lol.

There's a reason a lot of people stopped taking plasma sponsons previously, they're quite risky.

 TheSilo wrote:
Omg everyone fails at math.

Perils of the warp = 1/18 attempts

Executioner gets hot = 1/6 per shot, lose a hull point 1/12 shots fired. 3 shots per turn, average 0.25 hull points per turn. Way more dangerous than perils of the warp. Won't kill the tank outright, but will likely damage itself at least once per game, 50% chance to do two HPs in a 6 turn battle.

Gets hot is more dangerous than perils of the warp.

You might want to notice that what we were talking about was the odds of the tank blowing itself up in one round, not the odds of losing a hull point. In other words, it's not math that's being failed at, it's reading comprehension.

The chance of it blowing itself up in a single round of shooting is obviously pretty low and hardly worth worrying about, but I reckon doing 1-2HP damage to your own tank over the course of a game is pretty bad for a model that costs 155+pts.

An executioner, if equipped with plasma sponsons, should kill itself over a 7 turn game if it fires each turn, on average.

I can't think of any other unit that is as much of a danger to itself. Ridiculously punitive.

It's only 35 shots over 7 turns, it'd need 36 to on average do 3 HP. /nitpick

 Vaktathi wrote:
An executioner, if equipped with plasma sponsons, should kill itself over a 7 turn game if it fires each turn, on average.

I can't think of any other unit that is as much of a danger to itself. Ridiculously punitive.

The entire "gets hot" rule is stupid IMO, I'm hoping it gets changed in 7th edition. On a vehicle, at absolute WORST, it should be "can't fire next turn as weapon cools". What sort of idiot designs a vehicle that can absorb heavy fire more safely than it can fire it's own guns, then what sort of idiot decides he's going to get in that vehicle and ride to war


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's only 35 shots over 7 turns, it'd need 36 to on average do 3 HP. /nitpick

It actually has a 56.7% chance of destroying itself in 7 turns of firing, so you're more likely to kill yourself than not

 Ailaros wrote:

ThunderFury wrote:I'm very, very disappointed that rough riders are nerfed to the point of not even fluffy games.

Rough riders actually got better with this codex. At least they got their proper +S and +I back again.

What do you mean by this?

RR's in 5th and 6th both have the same stat-line, and the weapon has the exact same affect.

The only difference between 5E and 6E RR's is that the 6th edition ones cost more.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
An executioner, if equipped with plasma sponsons, should kill itself over a 7 turn game if it fires each turn, on average.

I can't think of any other unit that is as much of a danger to itself. Ridiculously punitive.

The entire "gets hot" rule is stupid IMO, I'm hoping it gets changed in 7th edition. On a vehicle, at absolute WORST, it should be "can't fire next turn as weapon cools". What sort of idiot designs a vehicle that can absorb heavy fire more safely than it can fire it's own guns, then what sort of idiot decides he's going to get in that vehicle and ride to war

I was really hoping they'd ditch it entirely instead of making it even worse. It made sense when plasma guns were 5pts at the dawn of 3rd edition. Now? They serve no legitimate gameplay purpose, especially as most of the time weapons seem to be costed without thought to GH being included.

Aye, really regretting giving my Executioner plasma Sponsons.

I think you need to read some 40k novels. Your statement on how imperial guard works is cleary derived from codex artwork.

IG actually works very similair to soviet mechanized armor doctrine. What this codex does is nothing more than market the new models.

I must grant you this though, its not a bad codex ruleswise. And personally I like the fact that priests, psykers and commissars all have become more usefull.

My chimera will now become mobile command vehicles for my command squads and I still refuse to buy the Taurox. Its a crowdcontrol vehicle and shouldn't have a place on a 40k battlefield.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
Omg everyone fails at math.

Perils of the warp = 1/18 attempts

Executioner gets hot = 1/6 per shot, lose a hull point 1/12 shots fired. 3 shots per turn, average 0.25 hull points per turn. Way more dangerous than perils of the warp. Won't kill the tank outright, but will likely damage itself at least once per game, 50% chance to do two HPs in a 6 turn battle.

Gets hot is more dangerous than perils of the warp.

You might want to notice that what we were talking about was the odds of the tank blowing itself up in one round, not the odds of losing a hull point. In other words, it's not math that's being failed at, it's reading comprehension.

I was referring to your comment: "Honestly, I'm not sure I did that right, but regardless the odds are pretty silly. People still use Psykers despite the (comparatively) massive 1/18 risk of Perils of the Warp."

The threat from perils of the warp is less than the threat from gets hot, which would be the opposite of "comparatively massive." Both rules remove one wound or one hull point.

 aliusexalio wrote:
...I still refuse to buy the Taurox. Its a crowdcontrol vehicle and shouldn't have a place on a 40k battlefield.

It is more of an MRAP than a crowd control vehicle.