Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Simpler in that there are fewer options for certain things, therefore less to consider and go back and forth on. having 2 tanks in place of 5 or 6 might suck for people who own the models already, but it makes my job easier knowing I'm going to have 3 hydras and 3 wyverns instead of coming up with permutations of half a dozen other possibilities. I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but that's how I feel about it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities. .

Simpler how?

It just seems a lot more streamlined.

In general I find the book less streamlined. You have to flick back and forth through the Codex more now than you did before.

Except for that handy reference section on the back. Orders, rules, and model and weapon statlines. The only thing to flip back and forth on is the occasional rule NOT in the back.

VanHallan wrote:
Simpler in that there are fewer options for certain things, therefore less to consider and go back and forth on. having 2 tanks in place of 5 or 6 might suck for people who own the models already, but it makes my job easier knowing I'm going to have 3 hydras and 3 wyverns instead of coming up with permutations of half a dozen other possibilities. I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but that's how I feel about it.

Yeah, that doesn't really sound all that simpler to me. Previously you had "Ordnance Battery" and there were 4 tanks in it... what's complicated about that? The Ordnance battery worked exactly the same as flame tank squadrons did and still do and exactly the same as Leman russ squadrons did and still do. If you can figure those things out, you could figure out the different Ordnance tanks pretty easily.

Dude, I'm just stating what i think. If you don't agree with my definition of simple, what difference does that make to you or I? You want to debate over my opinion for what purpose?

BTW the outflanking style is not completely dead. You can take a big blobb and stick Cypher in it to give it infiltrate (and therefore outflank).

I overall really like it. The only things I miss about the old codex are Al'Raihem, Marbo, and Yarrick's Reroll to wound on ogryn. Overall though I now feel that I can pick just about any unit and have a use for it. Even the PBS can hand out prescience whereas before they had a one trick pony that usually didn't work. The only thing that is just WTF why for me is the Hydra...why did it get worse?

Blobbs have some benefits but honestly 20 man conscript + priest units and HQ tanks are just as good or better and MSU still has some major advantages and vets with infiltrator doctrines and carapace got straight up cheaper.

The only playstyle that got nerfed down to impossible is the old aircav style. Though honestly that already didn't work as it was too easy to table. Now you take some platoons to hold for the first turn.

 Smokeydubbs wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities. .

Simpler how?

It just seems a lot more streamlined.

In general I find the book less streamlined. You have to flick back and forth through the Codex more now than you did before.

Except for that handy reference section on the back. Orders, rules, and model and weapon statlines. The only thing to flip back and forth on is the occasional rule NOT in the back.

If you're making an army and don't already know all the special rules for each and every troop, you have to flick back and forth more.

If you already know all the rules pretty well, already have an army list and just need a reference during a game, then yeah, there's the reference sheets in the back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VanHallan wrote:
Dude, I'm just stating what i think. If you don't agree with my definition of simple, what difference does that make to you or I? You want to debate over my opinion for what purpose?

No need to get your knickers in a twist, just commenting on the fact I don't think most people would equate losing 3 ordnance tanks with "simpler" when the same complexity in the same form still exists elsewhere in the codex. The reason I asked the question in the first place is it seemed odd anyone who has read both new and old codices would call one simpler than the other... they're all seem much the same for a newbie to understand IMO.

If you don't like discussion about things perhaps an internet forum is the wrong place for you.

Look to the here and now, and not the past...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Smokeydubbs wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities. .

Simpler how?

It just seems a lot more streamlined.

In general I find the book less streamlined. You have to flick back and forth through the Codex more now than you did before.

Except for that handy reference section on the back. Orders, rules, and model and weapon statlines. The only thing to flip back and forth on is the occasional rule NOT in the back.

If you're making an army and don't already know all the special rules for each and every troop, you have to flick back and forth more.

If you already know all the rules pretty well, already have an army list and just need a reference during a game, then yeah, there's the reference sheets in the back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VanHallan wrote:
Dude, I'm just stating what i think. If you don't agree with my definition of simple, what difference does that make to you or I? You want to debate over my opinion for what purpose?

No need to get your knickers in a twist, just commenting on the fact I don't think most people would equate losing 3 ordnance tanks with "simpler" when the same complexity in the same form still exists elsewhere in the codex. The reason I asked the question in the first place is it seemed odd anyone who has read both new and old codices would call one simpler than the other... they're all seem much the same for a newbie to understand IMO.

If you don't like discussion about things perhaps an internet forum is the wrong place for you.

I'll discuss things with you all day long, if you want to discuss something. You asked how I think its simpler, I told you how. 2 options is less than 4 last time i checked. To me that is simpler. If you don't think so, cool. I gathered that from the fact that you asked the question in the first place. But I gave you an answer, and you post 'well its not simpler.' I'm not going to discuss definitions of words with you, it is dumb.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
Thing is all my lists are dead now.

Well I used to always start with Marbo and a squad of vets led by Harker with demolitions and 3 melta guns. It worked great in pretty much every game I played. Had an assassination unit and a line breaker that played hell with enemy armor. Now? Marbo and Harker are on leave getting their nails done at a spa (both of my models are the Lt Kara Black variants from Studio McVey for those confused).

So I've been trying to adapt. I've repicked up Creed (minus Kell) and have been playing around with my combined arms force from before learning about the awesomeness of Harker and Marbo. Just try it out at small points levels as you make changes and work your way up. Start at 1000 and go from there. It's proven good for me thus far.

 BoomWolf wrote:


Because "just a guard blob with fearless" is somehow a BAD thing!?


Honestly, I put "unsure" in the poll, because I dislike it, as an OPPONENT. the new AM is superior to the old IG in almost every way, with the exception of nerf to the OP unit.

Clearly you haven't looked at trying to build a mechanized IG army with the new book...

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler.

There's more special rules, more orders, etc to keep track of (not a bad thing but definitely not more simple), plus *tons* of potential psychic stuff to think about now, and lots of FOC shennanigans. Hell, even the HQ options are weirder, for instance, in the old book you could buy a CCS as a whole carapace for 20pts, now you have to buy it for the 4 vets in the squad at 2ppm, the company commander has to buy it separately at 5pts, and the advisors can't get it at all. Now the Chimera's got these weird lasgun arrays in exchange for reduced fire points that are weird to work with, there's now another Platoon option in Elites, etc. There's a lot in this book that got a whole lot less simple.

For some reason I just like the idea of having a Hydra/Wyvern option for ordnance. One option for anti-air or anti-infantry without having 40000 possible combinations of tanks to pick from that you can't even buy from GW anyway.

And the Hydra got an unwarranted meganerf, while the Wyvern is likely to be a headache for everyone to deal with, for the IG player because it'll be super awkward to resolve, for the opponents because it's ridiculously powerful at muppet-mowing for 65pts.

The other tanks you could buy from GW, just not off the shelf in a closet-sized retail store.

Conflicted. Hydra got an unwarranted nerf, Wyvern feels like a headache, Chimera special rules are.... intriguing, and mechanized is odd. On the one hand, much of it got cheaper. On the other, the Executioner is personally ruined for me, artillery is almost entirely removed to FW (meaning I have to find the most recent rules again), the demolisher still sucks, and they still didn't really make sponsoons on a Leman Russ Battle tank worth it. Oh and the Taurox is redundant. Several units that needed buffing still didn't get it. Perhaps most negatively, a lot of special characters got removed (I miss mass flank and send in the next wave) and fluff for other regiments was torn out (which is stupid in a codex to represent the most diverse fighting force out there).

Besides that, tons of buffs everywhere.

 Vaktathi wrote:
the Wyvern is likely to be a headache for everyone to deal with, for the IG player because it'll be super awkward to resolve, for the opponents because it's ridiculously powerful at muppet-mowing for 65pts.

Agreed, wyverns scare me, especially in 3's. They're very good putting a respectable amount of wounds on enemy units for their points, cover be damned.

The only ordnance tanks you could buy from GW were the Manticore/DS and the Basilisk before this book....

Is here really no more marbo? That saddens me.

 Blacksails wrote:
What I like are that the playstyles I have played in the past are still viable, if not more. The Russ price drops were good, and the HQ units (commissars, priests, psykers, orders) all helped foot playstyles.

What I don't like was that the units that needed help, largely didn't get it and didn't really open up any options that were unusable before.

There's good and there's bad, but I don't think the book really opened up too much.

I mourn the loss of the fluff for other regiments though.

*Edit* Also, stormtroopers got platoons...why not rough riders? Would be so awesome.

When they make a plastic roughrider/roughrider command kit, then roughriders will get platoons.

 ansacs wrote:
BTW the outflanking style is not completely dead. You can take a big blobb and stick Cypher in it to give it infiltrate (and therefore outflank).

Yeah, but it's nowhere NEAR where it was before. Before you could have al'rahem outflank 142 dudes (plus independent chartacters), and outflank another 50, or a squad of three vehicles with creed, and a squad of vets with harker, and some penal legionnaires (for whatever reason), and a fistful of scout sentinels, and (if you go far back enough) some fliers if you didn't like sentinels. Heck, you could even throw ratlings in there.

In 5th ed, you could play an all-reserves army where everything outflanked. Now, the only way you can do even ONE unit outflanking (unless they're those sentinels or ratlings) is by being lucky with your warlord trait, or else doing some allying.

The only loss that isnt fluffy is Al'rahem. Ogryns can have commissars,priests and Primaris Psykers and can move around in dedicated transports. Yarrick is fantastic. Orders are great. and the wyvern... omg .... this is a monster.

and power of the machine... what is not to like!??!?

Ogryn did, unfortunately, bulk up to "very bulky" now. They're not going anywhere in squads bigger than 3 unless you're not taking characters with them.

I can see guardsmen getting into fun marine bike lists as allies. Sentinels are now cheap as chips and can carry weapons bike marines get green with envy over.

Your wyvern is godlike

Not to mention your tanks and infantry are all solid.

Ig are now the most promising "allies" army as they have tools to benefit every army. If the New guard codex was a sammich, it would be a pb&j cause there's always room for it

 lilgammer123 wrote:
I just got the new IG dex and their is a lot I don't enjoy such as most special characters gone (Marbo, Rahem, Chenkov, Kamir, and Bastonne), units gone(colossus, griffon, penal legion)

Most of those special characters, and penal legion, were never included in army lists; trimming unused units prevents a bloated codex multiple editions in the future. The loss of colossus/griffin is sad, though.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
most units that needed a boost go unchanged or worse (sentinels, rough riders, hydra, and ogryns), opponent chooses who commissar kills one-third of the time

Rough riders have the option to take two meltas again (and krak grenades default), which makes them a nice anti-tank unit. The new rules of deciding summary execution is better 2/3 of the time, imo.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
ogryns and bullgyns are so expensive (price and point wise), and the mentally ill looking taurox?

The price of a model, and how pleasing it looks does not affect IG variety and play styles.

Ultimately, no, I don't agree. I very much like the new codex.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
I just got the new IG dex and their is a lot I don't enjoy such as most special characters gone (Marbo, Rahem, Chenkov, Kamir, and Bastonne), units gone(colossus, griffon, penal legion), most units that needed a boost go unchanged or worse (sentinels, rough riders, hydra, and ogryns), opponent chooses who commissar kills one-third of the time, ogryns and bullgyns are so expensive (price and point wise), and the mentally ill looking taurox. Its not all bad of course but the regiment barrier is gone, so is, the variety, and no more different play styles. Of course there will be variety in models and paint but they now count as the same as any other regiment, no more regimental doctrines. Do you agree?

Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Rahem is awesome. I didn't understand why they did that. I suppose it was just too confusing for some people. However you might end up with his abilities anyways if you roll the right Warlord Trait, more or less.

Chenkov was stupid expensive and the whole idea of endless scoring units was... I dunno. Who even used the guy in actual tournies? No one.

Kamir is a loss. I dont understand that one, but Bastonne is another "not loss" you mention.

Now that the Death Strike does what it does..are you really going to take a colossus? Just saying. And Griffons were good for twinlinking the rest of the battery but on their own were no great loss.

I think half the examples you gave are irrelevant and the other half inconsequential. I also dont agree that Ogryns et al got worse. You have to look at these units in the perspective of their actual deployment with Psykers and other characters. It's not as if the designers are stupid enough to think you wont notice that Divination is going to get used, they orders will be coupled with it and that certain units are going to be dirty good with those adjustments!

And now that Leman russ's are reasonably priced you will see more styles. You will actually see armored corps. You will actually see an effort at a melee attributed force. You're going to see blobs. You're going to see airforces and you will see (effectively) special weapons MSU. It's all going to happen.

I like it but I miss Marbo. The Vendetta increase scares me as a Necron player --- How much will my Night Scythes go up? 40pts each?

VanHallan wrote:
I'll discuss things with you all day long, if you want to discuss something. You asked how I think its simpler, I told you how. 2 options is less than 4 last time i checked. To me that is simpler. If you don't think so, cool. I gathered that from the fact that you asked the question in the first place. But I gave you an answer, and you post 'well its not simpler.' I'm not going to discuss definitions of words with you, it is dumb.

Honestly I'm still not sure what you're getting your knickers in a twist about...

You: I think this codex is just MUCH simpler.
Me: Why?
You: Because they removed things like Ordnance tanks.
Me: I disagree with your opinion that removing Ordnance tanks makes the codex MUCH simpler.
You: Gets huffy that I disagreed with you.

Umm, ok.

If you think removing 3 tanks and replacing them with 1 tank and removing a bunch of special characters makes the codex MUCH simpler, ok, you're entitled to your opinion... and I'm entitled to feel your opinion is wrong

Whilst I miss the special characters and penal legionaries in particular, as well as lament the nerf to hydras, overall I really do like the new codex. Reallt can't wait for the FW unit updates to come out inline with the AM stuff now. I'm also glad rough riders are still in the codex full stop- hopefully this means they will have their own plastic kit (along with mandatory mini-dex) in the near future, what with not having any models available to buy at all anymore. I don't care if they are considered bad, they seem to have gotten a little better (for smaller units at least) in the new codex, so I'm going to try and make my Savlar chem-riders anyway. Would have been cool for them to allow Commissars to take a rough rider mount though.

helotaxi wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

If there were a US source for the FW books that might be a consideration but paying shipping from the UK with the postal rate and variable exchange rate has pretty well ruled that out for me. Not to mention the piecemeal arrangement of the rules within the FW books making it so you need half a dozen books to get all the rules you need for a single army. The price of the models I can mostly stomach but needing an $85 (current exchange rate plus shipping) book to field a single model that I want to use is beyond what I can accept.

The DKoK siege regiment list is currently available as a free download from FW's downloads page: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/fwDownloads

I guess my main issue is space magic and religious zealotry are all well and good for the 41st millennium but it seems sad to me that those are the only options for much synergy. I can make veteran forward sentries, who have performed reconnaissance on countless worlds but for some reason can't help call down artillery. Somehow a sentence blurted out by a commanding officer makes a 50 man unit have the efficacy of veterans or are all of a sudden able to target whoever they want in a unit and entirely circumvent how normal wounding works. Just seems like a bridge too far. The allies factor is just depressing, sluts, the lot of'm.

 Jancoran wrote:


Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Auto-include? He was amusing but hardly an auto-include. He certainly didn't make routine appearances in most tournament lists.

Now that the Death Strike does what it does..are you really going to take a colossus? Just saying.

Yes, because the Collossus can fire more than once and, more importantly, can fire on the first turn.

And Griffons were good for twinlinking the rest of the battery but on their own were no great loss.

They were great anti-infantry units, particularly for smaller games where heavier artillery wasn't cost effective. They are a pretty big loss. The Griffon has also had about the most ridiculous treatment by GW of any IG unit, being a codex unit in 2E/3E blackbook list/3E and 5E books but not in the 3.5E and 6E IG books.

You have to look at these units in the perspective of their actual deployment with Psykers and other characters. It's not as if the designers are stupid enough to think you wont notice that Divination is going to get used, they orders will be coupled with it and that certain units are going to be dirty good with those adjustments!

who knows what the designers think, they're certainly not consistent in such observations, if they exist.

And now that Leman russ's are reasonably priced you will see more styles. You will actually see armored corps.

*some* Russ tanks are more reasonably priced, but many of the units you'd naturally take with them either got more expensive, less effective, or both (e.g. Chimeras, Hydras, Valkyries, Vendettas, etc)

You will actually see an effort at a melee attributed force. You're going to see blobs. You're going to see airforces and you will see (effectively) special weapons MSU. It's all going to happen.

You saw blobs before, you saw airforces before. There's not anything new about that. You probably won't see melee forces beyond a couple random "Because I can" armies as ultimately CC IG still isn't (and really shouldn't be) viable. Special Weapons MSU lost as much as anything it gained through orders and divination through the increase in costs and decrease in effectiveness of transport options.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Auto-include? He was amusing but hardly an auto-include. He certainly didn't make routine appearances in most tournament lists.

Also I don't really see the logic of auto-include = should be removed from codex. If that were the case then Wave Serpents need to be removed from the next Eldar codex and Vendettas should have been removed from this guard codex.

The three redeeming things that stop this dex from being a complete and utter clusterfeth are:

Russes (both the points reduction and the ability to take them as HQ choices)
Divination
New orders

Other than that, the codex is a clusterfeth. Nobody asked for Wyverns, they removed a ton of cool artillery options, nixed a bunch of amazing special characters, nerfed the Chimera (of all things that they could have nerfed...the Chimera? Really?), nerfed the Hydra, and basically ballsed up all of the variety the dex ever had.


In 5th edition, you had a TON of variety: foot guard, Mech guard, etc.. I played a foot-mech hybrid null deployment IG army that is literally impossible to play now because of 6th edition rules. Null deployment was awesome and, unlike gunlinehammer, actually took a fair bit of finesse to run well. When you ran it well, it was brutal. A bunch of Psyker buffed Russes running ape gak behind a blob sounds boring by comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mythra wrote:
I like it but I miss Marbo. The Vendetta increase scares me as a Necron player --- How much will my Night Scythes go up? 40pts each?

Hopefully more. That unit is undercosted by about half. The flying bakery has always been fething stupid TBH.

Generally speaking the book look spretty good. The loss of units was a bit head scratching, but a this point not unprecedented. My guess is that the old metal models didn't get any money in the budget so they got axed. The Ordnance Battery was largely axed because FW makes and sells the models and their rules in the Imperial Armour books and GW seems to be backing off of borrowing from them again.

Hmmm.... Is this the Tyranid codex all over again? I am sure I have read some of these replies when the Nid codex came out 4 months ago.

Deja vu?