9320
Post by: Plastic People
Hi all, its pretty quiet today, but the following is reported regarding the upcoming IG codex.
-Return of the Griffon mortar carrier and other "old units"
-New weapon options for Sentinels and a sprue recut with the new options added.
-Sentinels are said to be split into 2 diffent FOC options based on weapon loadouts (basically heavier armed ones won't be able to scout)
-New Sanctioned Psykers
-New Ratling Snipers
-May 2nd release for the codex and other initial offering.
I like the return of the Griffon tank back
1099
Post by: Railguns
So Sentinals with lascannons will compete with Leman Russes for heavy support slots? Sentinals must not be getting a new kit then. 
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
If the Setinels points value drops then Leman Russ for Sentinel Squadron may be a fair exchange. If by heavier weapons they mean Multi-melta and Lascannon options it'sll be ok, and quite thematic for my Drop troops.
1099
Post by: Railguns
Hopefully 3 Sentinals with heavy weapons will cost less than a kitted Leman Russ, as an incentive to use them over the much more durable Russ. If your army is going to use mostly men but you still need the firepower than some cheap sentinels to back you up would be nice.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
The rumor is plasma cannons an option.
10090
Post by: jacka da waka
Does any body know how manny griffons do you need to make a apoclypse template.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
They're three to a squadron and ten to a company IIRC if that helps. At least they used to be in 2nd edition.
7375
Post by: BrookM
The support sentinels will also most likely count as a fast attack choice. Somehow I doubt that those strutters will be thrown into the heavy support section, not when new tank variants are on the horizon.
see: Imperial Armour 3
1639
Post by: Flagg07
-Return of the Griffon mortar carrier and other "old units"
My fingers are crossed for some RT/2nd edition units like Beastmen, penal troopers and human bombs.
The rest doesn't really stand out for me. Hopefully they'll rethink the advisor's special rules and point costs and drop the large heavy weapon bases if we want to without anyone crying foul.
9736
Post by: Sha1emade
I really like the heavy weapons bases. They add allot of modeling possibilities to a guard army. I hope they stay. I do however agree that they should not be mandatory and should make note that it is acceptable to use them both ways. Why someone would want to not use them is beyond me. As I think they look silly without them IMHO but each to their own.
Just My 2 cents...
2776
Post by: Reecius
why would anyone not want to use the modeling bases for heavy weapons teams? well lets see,
-Two seperate models dont get hosed by blast and template weapons
-Easier to place models in cover
-Easier to store and trasport the models
-People like me have lots of old school heavy weapons teams, which are all two man teams on seperate bases.
I like the bases too for aesthetic reasons, but they arent that great gaming wise.
and why would they get rid of them? they have plastic molds built for them, it doesnt make any sense to make new plastic heavy weapon teams.
However, I am stoked about the griffon! That is a cool model IMO, plus very useful.
Also, they did not say that sentinal would be heavy support, just that more heavily equiped sentinals would be unable to scout. They could be taken in HQ or Fast as now, or who knows, maybe even as troops if they make a Enginseer special character llike the big mek with orcs.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
BrookM wrote:The support sentinels will also most likely count as a fast attack choice.
I agree, and this makes the most sense... I think the only difference would be Scout vs no Scout.
___
Flagg07 wrote:-Return of the Griffon mortar carrier and other "old units"
My fingers are crossed for some RT/2nd edition units like Beastmen, penal troopers and human bombs.
Same. Beastmen as Elites, please.
Penal Troopers / Human Bombs would be Conscripts w/ Demo Charges, and far more flavorful than the current Conscript unit.
Other old units could be Squats (longshot) and Exterminator (very likely).
The remaining question is whether we get FW stuff like Salamanders and Vanquishers.
9765
Post by: Illeix
yes, griffon and vanquisher, please
But would it be too much to ask for proper rules and pt values as well?
123
Post by: Alpharius
JohnHwangDD wrote:BrookM wrote:The support sentinels will also most likely count as a fast attack choice.
I agree, and this makes the most sense... I think the only difference would be Scout vs no Scout.
___
Flagg07 wrote:-Return of the Griffon mortar carrier and other "old units"
My fingers are crossed for some RT/2nd edition units like Beastmen, penal troopers and human bombs.
Same. Beastmen as Elites, please.
Penal Troopers / Human Bombs would be Conscripts w/ Demo Charges, and far more flavorful than the current Conscript unit.
Other old units could be Squats (longshot) and Exterminator (very likely).
The remaining question is whether we get FW stuff like Salamanders and Vanquishers.
Please!
As much as I'd love to see it too (especially Beastmen!) there is NO way it is going to happen in the current GW environment!
You might as well wish for the return of the armory and to keep doctrines too!
695
Post by: Drake_Marcus
Why waste your time making new sanctioned psycher models? Brian Nelson did the current ones and they are brilliant sculpts. *sigh* What a waste of manpower.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Perhaps the pyskers are getting awesome new models?
131
Post by: malfred
Didn't psykers have cool models before? You just never saw them because of the rules?
10446
Post by: T_55
Surely with new Psyker models they will be making his rules actually better?
I've said it plenty of times as well, i'm praying for sentinels with two weapons!
6051
Post by: avantgarde
I remember a time when I thought new models = better rules.
Then C:CSM happened.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
It'll be nice to see Psykers that have more than one pose.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yes. They'll now have 2 poses.
BYE
278
Post by: Gabe
And still roll on a random table for their powers. Because that works so well for possessed, and is totally fluffy.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
It's hard to pose a dude in a robe. Robes aren't really the most versatile hunks of plastic.
7375
Post by: BrookM
JohnHwangDD wrote:BrookM wrote:The support sentinels will also most likely count as a fast attack choice.
I agree, and this makes the most sense... I think the only difference would be Scout vs no Scout.
Nay, the big difference being that the support Sentinels will either have missile launchers or rocket launchers most likely, giving people craving for light infantry armies more fitting indirect fire support other than mortars or that stray Basilisk.
Ten to one though the "die-hard IG experts" will decry these new support units as either:
- overpriced
- useless
- a waste of design resources
Maybe all of the above if really full of piss and vinegar. Which is always I guess.
Oh, wait! When GW officially announces the new Sentinel kit and shows off some nice pictures of it some runtflaps will tell you that the kit is overpriced, that they can easily create the variants their selves for less money and that everybody should do so as well. Emperor forbid you take the easy way out now!
123
Post by: Alpharius
Whoa!
Eat some breakfast or something!
6946
Post by: Dexy
What if one of the sentinal types joins the troop choice and the other stays fast attack, not like IG will ever use all 6 Troop slots in a FOC.
7161
Post by: Necroagogo
@ BrookM: 'runtflaps' isn't even in my trusty Profanisaurus. I take my hat off to you, sir!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@BrookM: To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather Guard got Beastmen over Plasma Cannon Sentinels. Or LP&CCW Conscripts. Or workable HtH Ogyns.
An extra weapon option in a largely shooty army adds very little to the army capability. But a bit of Kroot-level HtH would be nice to round things out a touch.
But if we're getting new Sentinels, I'll buy them.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Guard beastmen are unfluffy and stupid. They go directly against the current fluff of the game. The only reason they ever existed was because of a limited and bad old model range that also saw tyranid warriors using bolters and space marines using shurikan catapults. They should never see the light of day again.
As for the ratlings, how about we get some good human snipers before getting the stupid dungeons and dragons halflings with a bad looking minirifle.
10424
Post by: somecallmeJack
ShumaGorath wrote:Guard beastmen are unfluffy and stupid. They go directly against the current fluff of the game. The only reason they ever existed was because of a limited and bad old model range that also saw tyranid warriors using bolters and space marines using shurikan catapults. They should never see the light of day again.
As for the ratlings, how about we get some good human snipers before getting the stupid dungeons and dragons halflings with a bad looking minirifle.
QFT
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Shummy's on the money here. Beastmen and Penal Legionnaire Suicide Bombers are a thing of the past. People clamouring for them to return is akin to people wondering if the next Marine Codex will bring Marine Jetbikes back... or the next Guard Codex bringing Guard Land Speeders back.
It ain't happening. Some things just grow old and get replaced with shiny new model kits.
BYE
1228
Post by: redstripe
BrookM wrote:
Nay, the big difference being that the support Sentinels will either have missile launchers or rocket launchers most likely, giving people craving for light infantry armies more fitting indirect fire support other than mortars or that stray Basilisk.
Missile and Rocket Sentinels would be awesome. I'd buy them for a dollar.
7375
Post by: BrookM
If you really want beastmen go play traitor guard, Imperial Armour 6 has a nice list with nasty beastmen in it as an option.
752
Post by: Polonius
My worry right now is mostly for modeling purposes and the heavy weapon squads. I heard a rumor that they were thinking of bumping Heavy Weapon squads up to 10 men. If they do, I'm going to have to secure some more praetorian lasgun troopers, which aren't easy to find. I'd like to know if I should buy up a bunch of them, or if that's a false rumor. I suppose I could buy them, and turn them into more infantry squads if the rumor doesn't pan out, but with 13 full infantry squads (plus 4 tallarn and 50 catachan plastic conscripts), I'm not sure I really need more squads...
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
H.B.M.C. wrote:Shummy's on the money here. Beastmen and Penal Legionnaire Suicide Bombers are a thing of the past. People clamouring for them to return is akin to people wondering if the next Marine Codex will bring Marine Jetbikes back... or the next Guard Codex bringing Guard Land Speeders back.
They published doctrines for beastmen for use with the current IG Codex in White Dwarf. Just sayin'...
As far as fluff goes, I bet they could solve that problem pretty easily... by cutting and pasting the fluff from the old RT material.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
by cutting and pasting the fluff from the old RT material.
Which wouldn't stand up very well.
They published doctrines for beastmen for use with the current IG Codex in White Dwarf. Just sayin'...
Were they ever/are they legal?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
redstripe wrote:Missile and Rocket Sentinels would be awesome. I'd buy them for a dollar.
I'd bet GW will charge you a bit more than that...  ____ Polonius wrote:My worry right now is mostly for modeling purposes and the heavy weapon squads. I heard a rumor that they were thinking of bumping Heavy Weapon squads up to 10 men. If they do, I'm going to have to secure some more praetorian lasgun troopers, which aren't easy to find. I'd like to know if I should buy up a bunch of them, or if that's a false rumor.
I suppose I could buy them, and turn them into more infantry squads if the rumor doesn't pan out, but with 13 full infantry squads (plus 4 tallarn and 50 catachan plastic conscripts), I'm not sure I really need more squads...
I don't recall any rumor that SWS / HWS will go to 10 men. I suspect IG HWS (and SWS) will stay at 6 men. The big problem with going to 10 men is that it really requires a totally new HWS box and possibly more sprue for the extra 4 guys. That said, 200 Guardsmen are probably enough. Though I must confess that I'm sorely tempted to get another squad of Tallarns or metal Cadians just to round things out with more Veterans and such... But I'm really planning to wait for the Codex before buying any more Infantry. Besides, I'd have to reconfigure 2 or 3 figure cases to properly store and transport the additional models. ____ ShumaGorath wrote:
by cutting and pasting the fluff from the old RT material.
Which wouldn't stand up very well.
Yeah, because cutting and pasting the old Fluff never works for GW...  ShumaGorath wrote:
They published doctrines for beastmen for use with the current IG Codex in White Dwarf. Just sayin'...
Were they ever/are they legal?
Worst case, they count as Kroot Mercenaries which were Chapter Approved / fully legal back in 3E.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Doesn't really require a new sprue.
Heavy Weapon Squad box would be three HW sprues, three HW crew sprues (total 6 guys) plus a single Cadian sprue (4 guys). That's 10.
BYE
8696
Post by: thekyle1231
ShumaGorath wrote:Guard beastmen are unfluffy and stupid. They go directly against the current fluff of the game. The only reason they ever existed was because of a limited and bad old model range that also saw tyranid warriors using bolters and space marines using shurikan catapults. They should never see the light of day again.
Speaking of beastmen, does anyone have a picture of them?
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
ShumaGorath wrote:
by cutting and pasting the fluff from the old RT material.
Which wouldn't stand up very well.
Which you obviously haven't even read so you don't even know what you're talking about...
They published doctrines for beastmen for use with the current IG Codex in White Dwarf. Just sayin'...
Were they ever/are they legal?
I think that they were Chapter Approved back in 3rd edition, but I don't really feel like digging up the White Dwarf at this time.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
It was the abhuman one right? I don't remember there being an Abhuman Doctrine for Beastman.
BYE
7375
Post by: BrookM
I can't remember there being beastmen in the Abhuman issue. I'd dig the relevant issue up to check but GW did away with their WD archives on their site, making it quite a task to sift through all those issues..
14
Post by: Ghaz
U.S. White Dwarf #302 (March '05) page 68. New Skills and Drills doctrine: Beasts (aka, Homo Sapiens Variatus). For +30 points a Conscript Platoon gains +1 WS and the Furious Charge ability.
10392
Post by: Paul Atreides
I find these rumours very possible. But they are talking about heavyer sentinels, do they not refer to support sentinels (Imperial armour 3) with missile launchers?
666
Post by: Necros
I don't own any sentinels, I won't unless they improve them better than just giving them new weapons. An extra point of armor maybe, or maybe make em like biovores & zoanthropes where you can take up to 3, but they don't have to stay together. I used to love taking warwalkers with my old eldar army but they were so fragile they rarely did anything, they'd always be dead on the 2nd turn if not the 1st.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
H.B.M.C. wrote:It was the abhuman one right? I don't remember there being an Abhuman Doctrine for Beastman.
You remember correctly the article in UK WD#303 (last White Dwarf I bought!) specifically stated that they were not beastmen. Beastmen were equal to Ratlings and Ogryns in RT and had acouple of cool models.
For the record the White Dwarf Abhuman doctrines were less than well balanced and not overly well thought out (much more so than the ones in the Codex).
9892
Post by: Flashman
Ratlings definately need new models and a new name wouldn't hurt either...
2776
Post by: Reecius
I for one hope the rumors of 10 man heavy weapons squads is true, it stinks for people with custom or rare models but in gaming terms it is needed. A 6 man squishy IG squad with overpriced heavy weapons is no kind of win.
10123
Post by: BoxANT
I also hope that they bump SWS/HWS to 10 man squads.
With the current state of v5 (hard to limit LOS to fragile squads), 6man guard squads are extremely hard to keep alive. In addition, they also give up a KP.
Having a 10man squad for them would give them a little bit more survivability. It would also convince me to take SWS, as they would become better choices than Platoon Command squads (1 less KP and 5 more bodies).
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
I hope they bring back Tarantulas and Rapiers. Ratlings need a boost...hell..every elite slot needs a boost...and I shouldn't have to pay 25pts for a Lascannon in a 10 man squad...we should get free heavy bolters and ML's in our squads like marines do. That rule pisses me off.
Capt K
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Which you obviously haven't even read so you don't even know what you're talking about...
Because wikipedia articles are so hard to read.
506
Post by: the_trooper
If you want beastmen backed by lasguns, play a renegade army.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
Beastmen are NEVER going to happen. The same with squats. Current fluff places any mutants firmly in the Chaos camp...!
1478
Post by: warboss
BoxANT wrote:I also hope that they bump SWS/HWS to 10 man squads.
With the current state of v5 (hard to limit LOS to fragile squads), 6man guard squads are extremely hard to keep alive. In addition, they also give up a KP.
Having a 10man squad for them would give them a little bit more survivability. It would also convince me to take SWS, as they would become better choices than Platoon Command squads (1 less KP and 5 more bodies).
you mention a guard squad and survivability in the same sentance? surely you jest. the only way guard special squads survive is by denying LOS which is harder to do in this edition. i'm hoping the wish/rumor of platoons instead of squads granting a VP is true (including for command platoons).
752
Post by: Polonius
the_trooper wrote:If you want beastmen backed by lasguns, play a renegade army.
Except that the only current lists for renegades are the not legal lists in Imperial Armor, and the IG codex. Given that IG, for years in 4th edition have had legal beastmen with the abhumans doctrine, it's really not that ridiculous to think they've include them in the main rulebook. The fluff has long distinguished between stable abhumans like Ogryn, ratlings, beasts, etc. and the more chaotic instable mutants of the Lost and the Damned.
661
Post by: Leggy
ArbitorIan wrote:Beastmen are NEVER going to happen. The same with squats. Current fluff places any mutants firmly in the Chaos camp...!
So we get all your psykers and navigators now? YAY! Good luck trying to beat us without warp travel. Evolution is Tzeentchs bitch!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Technically navigators aren't a mutation but a separate species all together.
10123
Post by: BoxANT
warboss wrote:BoxANT wrote:I also hope that they bump SWS/HWS to 10 man squads.
With the current state of v5 (hard to limit LOS to fragile squads), 6man guard squads are extremely hard to keep alive. In addition, they also give up a KP.
Having a 10man squad for them would give them a little bit more survivability. It would also convince me to take SWS, as they would become better choices than Platoon Command squads (1 less KP and 5 more bodies).
you mention a guard squad and survivability in the same sentance? surely you jest. the only way guard special squads survive is by denying LOS which is harder to do in this edition. i'm hoping the wish/rumor of platoons instead of squads granting a VP is true (including for command platoons).
So a 10 man squad doesn't have more survivability than a 6 man squad?
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
6 man squad...10 man squad...LOL. It doesn't matter. With all the "ignores cover" weapons out there now....6 guys...10 guys all die just as easily.
Capt K
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Reecius wrote:I for one hope the rumors of 10 man heavy weapons squads is true, it stinks for people with custom or rare models but in gaming terms it is needed. A 6 man squishy IG squad with overpriced heavy weapons is no kind of win.
If they are priced fairly, and move to Troops as Scoring, they will be just fine. Not awesome, but fine.
168
Post by: foil7102
Who else thinks that IG is still going to blow after the new codex comes out? None of the rumors so far have been earth shattering? Its not like when the marine dex was going to be released and we kept hearing tibits about game changing units. Plasma cannon sentinals? meh, new ratlings? storm trooper squads? All with no mentioned hypothetical rules. Hey play guard, not only are they the most expensive army in the game to collect, but painting them is a rock solid bioch, and their rules suck to boot.
5344
Post by: Shep
Robin is certainly up against the wall here.
5th edition has been absorbed. The people who looked at the rumored rule book and said, easy cover saves and run are going to make 5th ed an assault-centric game have been proven correct (I wasn't in that camp) at least for now.
"shoot only" armies haven't been created yet. They chose to stay away from 'shoot only' for space marines and I love that choice. the new space marine book is so much more aggressive than lists made out of the 4th edition dex. I like aggressive for marines.
So now the FNG has to design an army, that has no assault potential at all, and can win against bloodcrushers, nob bikers, assault termies, and lash. If you make the army just slightly too shooty then guard opponents will never touch dice other than to save or test, the codex will be universally reviled. Make it slightly lacking in shooting power, and we end up with 5 more years of unbearable, underpowered crap.
If he gets help (I'm sure he's getting help) and he gets it right, then my money is on this... people will look at the codex and see its ability to shoot, and it WILL be able to shoot... And they will say, "thats too much shootiness, its unbeatable" since almost everyone still makes assumptions about shooting being relevant in 5th edition. Once the first test lists go through their trials, we'll all see that it is a lot of shooting, but thats what you need to compete, with no modifiers to leadership for shooting morale tests, 4+ cover, defender reaction moves, and locking in number of attacks before casualty removal... they are going to have to be tabling armies to get massacres.
I'm betting on 'sternguard-esque' stormtroopers, deploying out of deep striking or fast skimmer valkyries with either a 'score as an elite' or troop status, being the new FOTM. Back 4+ units of that up with 6+ leman russes and a source of long range heavy weapons in bunches, not even from a heavy support slot... I bet we could easily see a new top tier army from the most unlikeliest of places.
If Robin fumbles... there might be a Vostroyan tank company and 200+ painted vossies on ebay...
I wait with baited breath.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Robin is getting help, from Jervis. *ding ding diiiiiing!*
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
foil7102 wrote:Who else thinks that IG is still going to blow after the new codex comes out?
Its not like when the marine dex was going to be released and we kept hearing tibits about game changing units.
My expectation is that IG will be adequately competitive as a mid-tier army with multiple non-Doctrines builds in their new Codex. I don't expect more than that, yet will be *very* satisfied with this as the final result.
The Marine dex is a solidly mid-tier Codex, without any game-changing units as far as I'm concerned. It has many sexy expensive options, but it still boils down to 10-man Bolter squads with Rhinos or Pods. Restoring things like the Griffon and Exterminator, along with adding Support Sentinels and Tank squadrons will be a nice change of pace, but I fully expect Guard to revolve around Platoons and Pie.
____
Shep wrote:So now the FNG has to design an army, that has no assault potential at all, and can win against bloodcrushers, nob bikers, assault termies, and lash.
people will look at the codex and see its ability to shoot, and it WILL be able to shoot... And they will say, "thats too much shootiness, its unbeatable"
I'm betting on 'sternguard-esque' stormtroopers, deploying out of deep striking or fast skimmer valkyries with either a 'score as an elite' or troop status, being the new FOTM. Back 4+ units of that up with 6+ leman russes and a source of long range heavy weapons in bunches, not even from a heavy support slot... I bet we could easily see a new top tier army from the most unlikeliest of places.
I like to think there will be some counter-assault capability, similar to how SM have Assault Squads. Not a lot, but (re-)usable and fairly-priced.
People will say that regardless of whether it's true or not. How long ago was it that Lash was declared to be unbeatable?
I think that fast-moving Storms will be a competitive option, but not the only option.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Well if things don't work out, there's always my Lost and Damned list that I can fall back onto. 
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I hope for a marine esque rebuild. That doesn't mean free guns or special characters. It means much expanded unit options but a strong central theme. I want a lot of second tier armies and a few that could arguably be first to come from the book. As happened with the marine book. Nothing that screams cheese and easy(er) wins like lash or nob bikers.
I like to think there will be some counter-assault capability, similar to how SM have Assault Squads. Not a lot, but (re-)usable and fairly-priced.
I don't really believe that that's possible outside of a bump in the guard statline or a weird set of new units. More reasonably priced ogryn or rough riders could make the attempt but they are both thoroughly suicide units (the roughriders especially). I would like to see guard have a greater ability to respond to assault with firepower, whether that means stormtroopers with tons of plas/shotguns or vets with the same. The only problem with guard shooty counterassault now is that its overly expensive, the good guns just cost too damn much.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
By counter-assault, I'm specifically thinking of:
- Ogryns w/ CCWs
- Rough Riders w/ Lances
- Beastmen (please?)
- Conscripts w/ LP&CCW
Guard would stay crap in actual HtH.
4532
Post by: CapNCaveman!
Noob to 5th edition here...what in the Emperor's Name is this "lash" thing you speak of ?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Lashwhip. Its a chaos psychic power that is central to one of the more powerful army builds in the game. It allows a targeted unit to be moved 2d6 inches at the chaos players discretion. It is used to pull units foreward for assault, clumped together for blasts, or away to prevent assaults. It's also very cheap points wise and is very hard to counter.
4532
Post by: CapNCaveman!
Wow...that's...pretty broken.
thanks for Splainin!
1478
Post by: warboss
i don't mind if the standard guardsmen stay average since that's what i expect. what i hope is that the IG will stop dropping VPs like popcorn at the movie theatre. i hope for a few characterful units like rough riders and ogryns to OK at assault but i'd be most interested in not having them so overcosted (which they are IMO). also, i think they should bring back the guard tank upgrade where your crew bails out and you only get half points (or no VP) until you kill them.
4977
Post by: jp400
It would be nice to grab some of those old dust covered models off my shelf and play with them again, however that doesnt excite me any. At this point im just going to wait until the dex comes out before I make my decision. In the mean time ill continue working on my Chaos army and my friends Marine army.
What I hope for:
1: Across the board Point Drop
2: Reworked Tank Rules.
3: More USEABLE units (new or old I dont care)
4: KP fix
5: Some Psykers that dont totally blow balls.
221
Post by: Frazzled
BrookM wrote:Robin is getting help, from Jervis. *ding ding diiiiiing!*
That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
168
Post by: foil7102
SHep wrote:If he gets help (I'm sure he's getting help) and he gets it right, then my money is on this... people will look at the codex and see its ability to shoot, and it WILL be able to shoot... And they will say, "thats too much shootiness, its unbeatable" since almost everyone still makes assumptions about shooting being relevant in 5th edition. Once the first test lists go through their trials, we'll all see that it is a lot of shooting, but thats what you need to compete, with no modifiers to leadership for shooting morale tests, 4+ cover, defender reaction moves, and locking in number of attacks before casualty removal... they are going to have to be tabling armies to get massacres.
This is why I am so scared. The amount of shooting that Guard need to be competitive is a level that GW would never allow. Have you done the math on a las/ plas squad double tapping a blood crusher? Compare points level vs effectiveness. It is ridiculous. Don't even get me started on nob bikers, or heck even just plague marines. GW will give IG a bump, but I am afraid it will not be near what they need.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think foil7102 is right to be worried. Guard are about the hardest list to balance and still make interesting. Especially now that tanks are so damn static.
If you up the number of guys the army starts to get in it's own way a lot. If you make the guns better it's too radical a change. If you allow more ordinance it becomes an almost one dimensional army.
I like ShumaGorath idea of shooty counter assault, but it will have to be either templates or low AP fire for it to work.
My main fear is that they will go the easy route of making guard all about tanks, with the men just there to die. That wouldn't be fun for me to play.
506
Post by: the_trooper
Polonius wrote:the_trooper wrote:If you want beastmen backed by lasguns, play a renegade army.
Except that the only current lists for renegades are the not legal lists in Imperial Armor, and the IG codex. Given that IG, for years in 4th edition have had legal beastmen with the abhumans doctrine, it's really not that ridiculous to think they've include them in the main rulebook. The fluff has long distinguished between stable abhumans like Ogryn, ratlings, beasts, etc. and the more chaotic instable mutants of the Lost and the Damned.
Current fluff says that beastmen are found on daemonworlds.
Also, I tend to run armies I enjoy playing. I go to tournaments every few months. I play 40k every week. IA lists are more than welcome at the FLGS I frequent. I'm yet to have anyone say no, but then again, I don't play against 'sperging mouth breathers.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Shep wrote:So now the FNG has to design an army, that has no assault potential at all, and can win against bloodcrushers, nob bikers, assault termies, and lash.
The studio doesn't playtest those armies. Those are all extreme builds and the studio doesn't playtest extreme builds; they only playtest "balanced" armies like the kind you see in WD, composed of a random assortment of units from the battleforce box and whatever the 'Eavy Metal team has painted up for the new releases. Bloodcrushers, nob bikers, and dual lash are considered "tournament" armies, and the studio doesn't care if the game is balanced for "tournament" play.
Seriously. The new IG codex is going to be designed like every other new codex. Take the old 3rd edition codex and drop the armoury. Fiddle with the rules and pts costs for the existing units without any rhyme or reason. Add a few new units, options, and special characters. Pull some pts costs out of a hat. Hope for the best. As per usual.
5344
Post by: Shep
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Shep wrote:So now the FNG has to design an army, that has no assault potential at all, and can win against bloodcrushers, nob bikers, assault termies, and lash.
The studio doesn't playtest those armies. Those are all extreme builds and the studio doesn't playtest extreme builds; they only playtest "balanced" armies like the kind you see in WD, composed of a random assortment of units from the battleforce box and whatever the 'Eavy Metal team has painted up for the new releases. Bloodcrushers, nob bikers, and dual lash are considered "tournament" armies, and the studio doesn't care if the game is balanced for "tournament" play.
Seriously. The new IG codex is going to be designed like every other new codex. Take the old 3rd edition codex and drop the armoury. Fiddle with the rules and pts costs for the existing units without any rhyme or reason. Add a few new units, options, and special characters. Pull some pts costs out of a hat. Hope for the best. As per usual.
They do test... they can't afford to test as thoroughly as we'd like. They hire people to be 'game designers'. They go in to work 8 hours a day, doing nothing but pondering the game of 40k, they collaborate, and they make the best rules they can... which aren't always as perfect as we'd like.
After the misstep that was dark angels, every book since has been successful in terms of competitiveness. Although a great many vocal players were too myopic to see the power in CSM and demons until someone else had to show it to them on the circuit.
I have no reason to believe that IG would be anything less than top tier competitive unless we happened to be as unfortunate as dark angels players. But the game designers have the failure of the dark angels book and the successes of the following three books to learn and build from.
I don't know how much of your negativity is just the internet filter, or your honest outlook on games workshop. If the latter, how are they talking you out of your money?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
They talked him out of his money by printing Codex: Eye of Terror, and then after he was done making an army from that, they took the book away.
And Shep, Dobbie's right when he says GW doesn't playtest 'extreme' builds. They either don't know or don't care what their army lists are capable of doing in a 'competative' environment, and they actually shun the idea of the 'tournament crowd' - Jervis even said as much. When they test these armies, they make the odd and random armies you see in WD Battle Reports.
Whether or not you can make an extreme build or be 'top tier competative' doesn't matter to them in the slightest. It's not a design goal of theirs.
BYE
5344
Post by: Shep
H.B.M.C. wrote:They talked him out of his money by printing Codex: Eye of Terror, and then after he was done making an army from that, they took the book away.
That is an infamous sore spot for you HBMC... and I respect the injury that move caused. It sucks to be in the middle of a design philosophy change, with money in the pot. Their were avenues given to you in the form of "counts as" which I concede is far from satisfactory.
H.B.M.C. wrote:And Shep, Dobbie's right when he says GW doesn't playtest 'extreme' builds. They either don't know or don't care what their army lists are capable of doing in a 'competative' environment, and they actually shun the idea of the 'tournament crowd' - Jervis even said as much. When they test these armies, they make the odd and random armies you see in WD Battle Reports.
You are correct in a sense. They don't playtest what they don't see. And there aren't enough guys over there looking to see everything. I have read quotes from Jervis and others stating what they think of the tourney scene. I also know that they have taken jervis away from writing books. I believe they have re-focused their attention on making a balanced game. Thanks in no small part to sites like Dakka. I wish that GW would send out more playtest codecies to tourney pros, and run their books under a larger and more fine-toothed comb. They have chosen not to do that, or not to do that early enough or enough times to matter. That's why i believe they fall short of their potential.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Whether or not you can make an extreme build or be 'top tier competative' doesn't matter to them in the slightest. It's not a design goal of theirs.
That has certainly come out of the mouths of more than a couple former and current game designers. Never printed as an official statement from the corporation. A lot of those designers have been issued their walking papers or have been moved away from areas where their touch may turn things to lead.
The concept of balanced game design is core to creating and manufacturing games (of any variety). Broken games are not something that is a goal for ANY company. No one at games workshop is intentionally trying to make an unbalanced game, nor does anyone think releasing a broken codex is 'just fine'. The reason they occasionally fail (sometimes quite miserably) is because they are understaffed, unfocused, and in transition between a "beer and pretzels" large scale rpg to a strategy game with a global tournament scene. The old timers are retiring, dying of congestive heart failure, or just moving on. The younger generation wants a little bit of "page 5". Either GW knows that, or none of this will matter in 7 or 8 years, when GW folds.
This transition, like everything GW does, is ponderously slow.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Shep wrote:They do test... they can't afford to test as thoroughly as we'd like.
After the misstep that was dark angels, every book since has been successful in terms of competitiveness.
I have no reason to believe that IG would be anything less than top tier competitive
Yes, GW playtests, but they playtest Fluff-bunny / one-of-each / variety-pack armies, not tailored armies. Which is why they peeled back the options in 5E to something that they could do a better job of covering and evaluating.
DA seem to be OK, as long as you play them as DW/ RW insetad of as wannabe SM.
I think IG will be well-balanced as a Fluff-bunny / one-of-each / variety-pack army against any other Fluff-bunny / one-of-each / variety-pack army.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Remember, GW sees themselves as a miniatures company, not a gaming company that happens to produce models for their rules.
And Jervis has said on a number of occasions (and I heard him say as much a couple Adepticons ago), that they think hardcore tourney gamers are a small percentage of their audience, and they don't cater to them.
I would expect IG to have at least one ugly build, but it'll be something extreme, maybe all mech with 9 leman russ tanks or something similar.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Shep wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:And Shep, Dobbie's right when he says GW doesn't playtest 'extreme' builds. They either don't know or don't care what their army lists are capable of doing in a 'competative' environment, and they actually shun the idea of the 'tournament crowd' - Jervis even said as much. When they test these armies, they make the odd and random armies you see in WD Battle Reports.
You are correct in a sense. They don't playtest what they don't see. And there aren't enough guys over there looking to see everything. I have read quotes from Jervis and others stating what they think of the tourney scene. I also know that they have taken jervis away from writing books. I believe they have re-focused their attention on making a balanced game. Thanks in no small part to sites like Dakka. I wish that GW would send out more playtest codecies to tourney pros, and run their books under a larger and more fine-toothed comb. They have chosen not to do that, or not to do that early enough or enough times to matter. That's why i believe they fall short of their potential.
The annoying bit is that it shouldn't be hard to see. Most "extreme" builds have a common element: they take as many of unit X as points and rules permit. This gives you, e.g., the Green Tide, Nob Warbikes, Nidzilla, Sternguard spam, Lash and oblit spam, and similar. Analysis of a codex, then, can begin with "Okay, what happens if they take as many of unit X as they can?" Some things (grots) don't matter. Some things (boyz) are rough, but at least thematic. Some things (Nobs on Bikes as scoring units, with FNP; 8 TMCs) should trip a flag in the design process. GW needs an Armybuilder guy in-house, to input each draft Codex into AB, then build lists by clicking a lot. Second tier analysis requires spamming multiple units together, to catch interesting synergies like Lash & blast marker weapons (or, in the case of Nidzilla, redundant functionality spread across multiple Org slots/unit types). Edit: wierd ampersand rendering.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
You know, I have it on good word that CSM Possessed were originally Troops costing only 16 pts per model with free choice of any ability. But when they were spammed in all 6 Troops slots with Icon and Generic Lesser Daemon support, the army was totally broken and unfair, so GW added 10 ppm and made them Elite. Sad, but true.
Why does GW need to search out tournament builds? If they do that, then any tournament-level element would be punitively-priced. Which would result in a new set of tournament-level elements rising to the top, and instead of whining about Lash, we'd be whining about Tsons.
5344
Post by: Shep
To the guys that keep saying GW only tests battleforce builds...
Where are you getting your information about their testing process? Don't interpret any tone in that question. I could believe that you haven spoken to someone in their testing department. But I think this is just a mantra of yours that you keep saying over and over again.
@Janthkin
I couldn't agree with you more. They should see the broken things. But in some ways... they do. Lets just take a look at the top 4 armies. Nob bikers are getting a lot of press on dakka right now, so lets make them the yard stick... nob bikers can be easily beaten by a well built space marine list. (not conjecture... I've seen it, I've done it). Nob bikers were beaten by 2x lash chaos in a tourney environment. And a khorne heavy demon list with a focus on bloodcrushers and sulgrinders can beat nob bikers.
Nob bikers torture everything else, but demons torture everything else, space marines torture everything else, CSM torture everything else.
What were the last 4 codexes to come out?
The problem, I've said this before, is that people identify themselves with a particular army. "I'm billy, my screen name is blood angel billy, I play blood angels" The problem billy is going to have, is that his army is only going to get updated every 5 years. I wish more people were like tommy. "im tommy, i play 40k, right now i have a small ork army and im starting a space marine army" When you lock yourself into an army, you are going to have to spend a lot of time with an underpowered codex.
nob bikers are broken. unless you own an army from a codex that was written right before orks, or any army written after orks. That means... GW is working on it... slowly.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
JohnHwangDD wrote:You know, I have it on good word that CSM Possessed were originally Troops costing only 16 pts per model with free choice of any ability. But when they were spammed in all 6 Troops slots with Icon and Generic Lesser Daemon support, the army was totally broken and unfair, so GW added 10 ppm and made them Elite. Sad, but true.
Why does GW need to search out tournament builds? If they do that, then any tournament-level element would be punitively-priced. Which would result in a new set of tournament-level elements rising to the top, and instead of whining about Lash, we'd be whining about Tsons.
Some things should cost more (Lash). Some things probably just shouldn't exist (multiple Nob biker squads as Troops). "Extreme" builds exist in the space between "this tool is more effective than its points" and "this tool is so effective that the points don't matter." If you can catch the outliers during design phase, you have a more balanced game. Perfect balance is unobtainable, but so long as there is a little rock-paper-scissors action between various armies, less imbalances are handled by the metagame.
It's times like this that I wonder why WHFB's unit selection rules aren't ported over to 40k, though, as that builds in some army selection scaling factors that 40k just plain lacks.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Shep: Have you ever see GW field a "competitive list"?
The only one I've ever seen documented was a WFB "Battle of the Beard" to show what true WAAC armies would be like.
So based on years of watching what kinds of armies GW fields in their batreps, one has to conclude that varied armies are the norm for GW.
Also, what about those of us with 3 or more armies? Are we "spike"?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Shep: I believe Jervis made a statement to the effect that they do not test extreme builds. He didn't say battleforce armies though.
I think Guard is a bigger design challenge than any other army except possibly Tau, but tau with suits as troops could fix this. I think I've a pretty good handle on game balance, but I'd hate to have to try and balance Guard and make them as flexible as space marines or orks, and still avoid putting in something irritatingly broken. I think it's a pretty daunting task. I love Guard though, I really want them to get this right.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
While I have high hopes for the new IG codex...some how I know it's going to be disappointing somehow. GW needs to make them the shootiest F'N army possible...so that these "uber units" die and close combat armies get reigned in a bit. It's much harder to win consistently with a shooty army now than a choppy one.
Capt K
foil7102 wrote:Who else thinks that IG is still going to blow after the new codex comes out? None of the rumors so far have been earth shattering? Its not like when the marine dex was going to be released and we kept hearing tibits about game changing units. Plasma cannon sentinals? meh, new ratlings? storm trooper squads? All with no mentioned hypothetical rules. Hey play guard, not only are they the most expensive army in the game to collect, but painting them is a rock solid bioch, and their rules suck to boot.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Jantkin: I'm not even sure the imbalances are such a big deal. I mean, Lash wasn't so good that it was a no-brainer for taking and winning at the most recent 5E events. Same with supposed Drop Pod spam and so on. How many of these "broken" armies continue to stay broken?
From what I see, only Orks are holding tough. And that's a helluva spendy army.
So now, I kind of wonder if army cost factors into GW's points costs. As in: It would cost them twice as much money to field this most-effective build. I guess we can make it cheaper and better, because we would make a lot more money off the competitive players...
Personally, I'm pretty happy with the existing 40k FOC chart, if only because it's *different* from the WFB one.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I saw cheapo nob bikers made out of plastic cold ones and orks. I'd expect to see a lot of that, and that'll get you an army for under 150 quid easily.
Lash is baffling to me, I just don't understand the thought process of pricing it at 20 points. But I'm not sure what sort of points cost that sort of power should have.
7375
Post by: BrookM
"How to improve Imperial Guard? Make the men cheaper, put their tanks in squadrons but tack on nothing else to improve them, give storm troopers shotguns and oh, triple the cost of things like say, the power weapons and extra armour again. Let's go home and watch Blue Peter."
Ten to one we'll get some nice things but nothing earth shattering. Biggest changes will be that certain choices are removed and put into platoons this time round (AF squads and Veterans), platoons can deny the enemy a cover save when shooting through their own ranks, we'll get a fast skimmer and some other things, new *exciting* special characters. Maybe we'll get old ones back, but that's stretching things.
5344
Post by: Shep
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Shep: Have you ever see GW field a "competitive list"?
The only one I've ever seen documented was a WFB "Battle of the Beard" to show what true WAAC armies would be like.
So based on years of watching what kinds of armies GW fields in their batreps, one has to conclude that varied armies are the norm for GW.
Don't confuse battle reports in a white dwarf with in house game testing. Batreps are commercials designed to sell plastic kits.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, what about those of us with 3 or more armies? Are we "spike"?
haha , I was careful not to use MTG archetype names... although tommy is awfully close to timmy. What owning 3+ armies makes you, is more resilient to the winds of change. unless somehow you managed to buy 3 armies that are neighbors in the development cycle, you'll always have an army that is new enough and modern enough to compete on a tourney level, should you choose to do so.
I'm really screwed... because I own a massive IG army, a massive necron army, and a mid sized eldar army. Eldar is underpowered, and not able to effectively answer orks, and not likely to see a new book until the end of the development cycle. and IG and necrons are just unusable if your aim is a high battle score. Fortunately for me, I painted an ork army for a friend, took it to Vegas and did well, and now I'm painting a space marine army for my roommate which I play most of my games with. If I get two new army books this year... which is looking likely, I will be flooded. I'll be too focused on guard to really enjoy anything new with necrons.
@da boss... that sounds like Jervis. And is an unfortunate utterance if it is true. And "battleforce armies" is an old Stelek term, it just means 'a little of this, a little of that'. Which is basically what we are all talking about.
You and captain K are dead on with the challenges ahead of GW for IG though.
They either win, and we have a fresh new metagame with the inclusion of shooting being an actual way to win a game. Or they fail and solidify the assault phase as the only consistent way to remove enemy units from the table. If that fail happens... 40k will not regain any of its dimension. I might not be all that interested until they can right the course.
May is just too far away!
429
Post by: Ogiwan
I'm so pessimistic about GW actually doing the Guard right that I'm going to sit down with the codex and read it cover to cover. Three times. And then think about it.
If it's good, my Guard will come off the shelf, displacing my Dwarves and video games, and all will be good.
Probably, though, my Guard are going to stay in the closet for several more years as i become even more jaded and apathetic towards 40k.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
All 40k player are jaded and angry husks. It's part of the hobby as much as modeling and playing.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Janthkin wrote:Some things should cost more (Lash). Some things probably just shouldn't exist (multiple Nob biker squads as Troops). "Extreme" builds exist in the space between "this tool is more effective than its points" and "this tool is so effective that the points don't matter." If you can catch the outliers during design phase, you have a more balanced game. Perfect balance is unobtainable, but so long as there is a little rock-paper-scissors action between various armies, less imbalances are handled by the metagame.
Isn't MORE Rock-Paper-Scissors what you want in the game? RPS is a PERFECT balanced game. Like Chess, each player comes to the game with PRECISELY equal fighting elements, except for their brain and luck. So I'd think that was a good thing, no?
What I would think you'd want to avoid is one person having a knife at a gunfight. Particularly if that guy is you.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Rock paper scissors works at a metagame level but it doesn't make a particularly fun game to play if people just run with their scissors all the way and hope not to see a lot of rocks (as happens in all games that use the system of balancing). Rock paper scissors should happen at level of granularity considerably smaller than the overall metagame (shooty vs assault vs whatever the middle is), which is what he is referring too.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Shooting should beat Assualt, Assault should beat mixed, and mixed should beat Shooting.
Mixed sounds like a balanced SM list personally.
Assault is self explanatory, as is shooting.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
If that functioned as you state it then blood angels could never win a game against tau. IG could never win a game against eldar. And eldar could never win a game against orks. The outcome shouldn't be known until the game is over, not when people trade lists. Rock paper scissors is a horrible way to balance a game that consists of two people.
Its the reason why rock paper scissors is a crappy and unenjoyable game.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Shep wrote:The concept of balanced game design is core to creating and manufacturing games (of any variety). Broken games are not something that is a goal for ANY company.
I don't agree. I read a statement by the president of Palladium decrying the concept of "balanced games." I've read plenty of statements from the likes of Jervis and Rick in favor of unbalance scenarios. Balance != fun.
No one at games workshop is intentionally trying to make an unbalanced game,
Again, I don't agree. I read an article (I think it was in Citadel Journal) by one of the designers. The Halfling team in Blood Bowl was deliberately designed to be weaker than the other teams. It was intended to be a challenge to play, for more experienced players. This was not an accident.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Again, I don't agree. I read an article (I think it was in Citadel Journal) by one of the designers. The Halfling team in Blood Bowl was deliberately designed to be weaker than the other teams. It was intended to be a challenge to play, for more experienced players. This was not an accident.
That was bloodbowl. A dead game with a different development team that died a looong time ago. Games workshop did wacky crap back when bloodbowl was a viable game you saw on every stores shelves.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
BrookM wrote:"How to improve Imperial Guard? Make the men cheaper, put their tanks in squadrons but tack on nothing else to improve them, give storm troopers shotguns and oh, triple the cost of things like say, the power weapons and extra armour again. Let's go home and watch Blue Peter."
That's actually not so terrible, you know. If basic Guardsmen dropped by 20 pts per squad, that would save 60+, 80+ pts per Platoon. Cut the Chimera and AF, and you can probably buy another tank or reshuffle in a couple Squadrons. But one likes to imagine GW can do better than that.
____
Shep wrote:Don't confuse battle reports in a white dwarf with in house game testing. Batreps are commercials designed to sell plastic kits.
Sure, but if you've never seen GW do anything with an "extreme build" then probably it's not a priority for them.
Shep wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, what about those of us with 3 or more armies? Are we "spike"?
haha ,
What owning 3+ armies makes you, is more resilient to the winds of change. unless somehow you managed to buy 3 armies that are neighbors in the development cycle, you'll always have an army that is new enough and modern enough to compete on a tourney level, should you choose to do so.
I'm really screwed... because I own a massive IG army, a massive necron army, and a mid sized eldar army.
Eldar is underpowered, and not able to effectively answer orks, and not likely to see a new book until the end of the development cycle.
If I get two new army books this year... which is looking likely, I will be flooded. I'll be too focused on guard to really enjoy anything new with necrons.
Yup. With sufficient breadth of armies, I can pretty much always have something interesting to play. And I find that 3 armies seems to be the magic number for true variety of play.
IMO, having Eldar and Guard, you're in pretty good shape. Necrons are were you got yourself in trouble - if those were CSM, you'd have been golden.
I haven't played my Eldar in 5E yet, but I plan to. I like to think they'll get their next book in 2010, as they're a major race.
As I've posted, Guard are going to be my project for 2009. I'm finally going to finish mine once the Codex comes out. That's my 2009 Gaming Resolution.
6633
Post by: smiling Assassin
I would appreciate, as somebody said before, some Plastics of the Current Forge World Models. For example, Salamander, new Griffon etc.
It would add flavor to Tank Batallions that will quickly become: RUSS RUSS RUSS RUSS RUSS RUSS RUSS RUSS RUSS DEMO DEMO DEMO DEMO BASSY BASSY.
~sA
181
Post by: gorgon
Shep wrote:After the misstep that was dark angels, every book since has been successful in terms of competitiveness. Although a great many vocal players were too myopic to see the power in CSM and demons until someone else had to show it to them on the circuit.
To be fair, a lot of the complaining was about the CSM codex being Chaos Skittles, and not about its power level.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Reecius wrote:why would anyone not want to use the modeling bases for heavy weapons teams? well lets see,
-Two seperate models dont get hosed by blast and template weapons
-Easier to place models in cover
-Easier to store and trasport the models
-People like me have lots of old school heavy weapons teams, which are all two man teams on seperate bases.
I like the bases too for aesthetic reasons, but they arent that great gaming wise.
and why would they get rid of them? they have plastic molds built for them, it doesnt make any sense to make new plastic heavy weapon teams.
However, I am stoked about the griffon! That is a cool model IMO, plus very useful.
Also, they did not say that sentinal would be heavy support, just that more heavily equiped sentinals would be unable to scout. They could be taken in HQ or Fast as now, or who knows, maybe even as troops if they make a Enginseer special character llike the big mek with orcs.
Ive never liked them. It (Being the base) makes the HW team a large creature, if you look at the unit per base option. Leaving the guys on the 40MM template give you the reason to remove the casualty and fire the weapon because of the loss, without being mixed up in the hundred or so guys you have in the pile.
Why should every HW be a diorama, anyway? The HW kits are lacking in some of the basics, so to compensate, they gave them a bigger base?
Forget it, though. Its a matter of taste and opinion, and as long as the HW's can stay on the table for more then a few turns, it doesn't matter what sort of base they're on.
666
Post by: Necros
I actually kinda like the HW teams being on big bases. It just looks better that way. But I think it should be optional, if you want to model yours like that, great, if not single bases are just fine too. I wouldn't complain if I was playing against someone who had theirs on separate bases. It's just a matter of taste. I think it would have been better if they kept the heavy weapons separate kinda like the eldar HW platforms.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
gorgon wrote:To be fair, a lot of the complaining was about the CSM codex being Chaos Skittles, and not about its power level.
And then it was more that people gained the *option* to field Chaos Skittles, not that there was a *requirement* to field Chaos Skittles... But I think most of the complaining really was power level +++ CENSORED +++ +++ CENSORED +++ +++ CENSORED +++
221
Post by: Frazzled
1. Lets not go there
2. But since we did, much of the complaining was-
a. loss of flexibility. The Chaos dex was the most varied buy and build codex made. A glorious number of options. The fact it was abused in some builds could have been easily rectified without taking all those options away.
b. destruction of the artists formerly known as demons. Outside of wiping out whole lists I don't think I've seen a time where so many troop and other choices were just eliminated.
c. ELIMINATION OF LATD.
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:
In short, I think the real problem is that the new Chaos book killed the old broken builds while requiring new tactics.
You know, John, you've been improving your ability to post without pissing too many people off, so it's sad to see you deliberating flame bait like this. You know it's a contentious issue, and it will wreck the thread. Why post like this?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Frazzled wrote:Outside of wiping out whole lists I don't think I've seen a time where so many troop and other choices were just eliminated.
c. ELIMINATION OF LATD.
I'm guessing that you're not a WFB player.
If you were, you might recall Storm of Chaos. GW released something like a dozen corner-case lists for the global campaign, encouraging players to make these really narrow armies with very limited ability to play in normal games.
A year or two later, GW shuts those lists down hard.
Nerd rage!
___
Polonius wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
In short, I think the real problem is that the new Chaos book killed the old broken builds while requiring new tactics.
You know, John, you've been improving your ability to post without pissing too many people off, so it's sad to see you deliberating flame bait like this. You know it's a contentious issue, and it will wreck the thread. Why post like this?
Um, old habits die hard?
But yeah, you're right that I have largely cut back on the sniping and most of the other stuff that was done specifically to piss people off. That was a deliberate choice that I made last year, and I'll be continuing in that vein this year. I'd be nice if some other posters would take a similar tack. Though I just confess that it always amuses me to watch Monkey Boy dance...
I guess I'll go self-censor now. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:Frazzled wrote:Outside of wiping out whole lists I don't think I've seen a time where so many troop and other choices were just eliminated.
c. ELIMINATION OF LATD.
I'm guessing that you're not a WFB player.
If you were, you might recall Storm of Chaos. GW released something like a dozen corner-case lists for the global campaign, encouraging players to make these really narrow armies with very limited ability to play in normal games.
A year or two later, GW shuts those lists down hard.
Nerd rage!
I believe we're discussing 40K, not WFB.
I'd posit however, your argument is not exactly supporting your cause here, just that GW slammed WFB some time in the past as well.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Fraz: it wasn't that long ago, within the last few years, I recall.
I believe the Army Book only push in WFB coincided with the lockdown in 40k to published Codex lists only.
Ultimately, the new approach of Rulebook and Codex / Army Book is clearer and better, especially now that 40k has Apoc for the older, miscellaneous stuff.
752
Post by: Polonius
Even the whole storm of chaos thing isn't quite analogous to the LATD situation. IIRC, the SoC army lists generally built on legal units, just in varying ratios: all slayers, tons of Knights errant, Clan eshin stuff, etc. LatD armies were build from the ground up around new units that have no legal use now. If I owned, say, a Black Orc horde, I could sell the excess black orcs, count them as big uns, or even just use them in gigantic battles. A player with 100 mutants can... well... play them in apocalypse with a watered down datasheet?
More importantly, the release of Eye of Terror, with the latD list came after, IIRC, the anouncment that GW wouldn't cancel any army with a codex and before they axed the SoC lists. While GW never promised that LatD would be legal forever, they certainly didn't say anything about them being "campaign only."
Given that the list proxies really nicely as an ork horde, and that few if any players had LatD as their only army, I'm not crying blood for them, but they did get rogered by GW.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
IG need a massive fire power tune up (with points reductions), or GW needs to boost the "assault" units to be more effective at killing. Watching RR bounce off things, then die horribly is frustrating. RR were meant to attack tougher units because of the weapon they wield. However, send them after Blood Crushers, Nob units, etc. and watch them bounce. Ogryns need either T5 or Eternal Warrior to not be bitches to PF's. Stormtroopers should be close to the level of a marine from a performance stand point...i.e. loads of options, good leadership, etc. but still a human statline. I remember when Stormtroopers could take Heavy Weapons. I think Stormtroopers should be Ld9 at least...always able to regroup below half, or have a rule like combat tactics...I mean come on...some of these guys eventually become Commissars. Speaking of Commissars, I think Commissars should confer Stubborn to units they join. The wish list goes on, but until IG get some amped up abilities in some area of their book...they won't really affect the metagame of current 5th ed builds...which would be a tragedy.
Capt K
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Polonius: I think the situations are essentially similar. If I paint a Slayer army, and GW pulls the rug, then I'm screwed because Slayers move from Core (~Troops) to Special (~Elite), so I've got an excess of models that just aren't fieldable in normal games. SoC players were under similar notions that their SoC lists would be valid forever.
If you say that, oh, you can just sell / count as something else, then LatD follow the same argument. Mutants are Orks or Lesser Daemons or whatever.
117
Post by: Tribune
A brave, but futile, attempt made by the Capt to get this thread back on topic for a moment there...
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: I think the situations are essentially similar. If I paint a Slayer army, and GW pulls the rug, then I'm screwed because Slayers move from Core (~Troops) to Special (~Elite), so I've got an excess of models that just aren't fieldable in normal games. SoC players were under similar notions that their SoC lists would be valid forever.
If you say that, oh, you can just sell / count as something else, then LatD follow the same argument. Mutants are Orks or Lesser Daemons or whatever.
Except they aren't Orks or lesser demons. Orks and Demons are Orks and Demons. A Slayer is a slayer, no matter for what purpose it was bought or how it was previously used. A metal slayer, stripped and repainted, is whatever the new owner wants it to be. A painted, converted plastic mutant is only of value to somebody that wants a similar painted, converted plastic mutant thing. You're a veteran trader, you can't possibly make a case that converted plastics hold value anywhere near what metals do. I'm not saying that GW's plans were dissimilar, but I really don't think you can convincingly argue against the positions that LatD players 1) got screwed by GW, and 2) got screwed harder than a similar WFB player with say, a clan eshin army. I was always under the impression that the Storm of Chaos lists were always a little more "semi-legal" than the Eye of Terror lists. I could be wrong. Again, I'm not arguing what GW did was wrong. I'm simply stating that LatD players have a pretty legitimate and unique beef, and that brushing it aside is, if not insulting, at least ungentlemanly.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Rumor threads always devolve into flame wars once people have absorbed the rumors. Its the Dakka way. We're a website of whiney casuals and powergamers who hate eachother and ourselves!
Non sensical rants and counter-rants about the chaos codex always follow good conversation.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Problem with guard will most likely be that some stuff will go down in price, while the upgrades, the useful and hurty stuff, will go up in price to "balance" the issue. I've got a feeling that the days of cheap power weapons and cheap vehicle upgrades are over soon. Extra armour has already been bumped to a fapping 15 pts for marines and camo netting is going to cost 20 pts if the IA 2 document is to be believed. At least on the bright side our vehicles will get smoke launchers and search lights as standard issue now. Oh and the heavy stubber will go down a whopping two points in price, hurrah!
Then again, it is useful that the basic Guardsman goes down in price, seeing as rumours hint towards the infantry platoon being the only Troops choice in the new codex, with the removal of the AF squad and Conscript platoon. Not a biggy for large games, but smaller games where you can only field platoons could be problematic.
752
Post by: Polonius
ShumaGorath wrote:Rumor threads always devolve into flame wars once people have absorbed the rumors. Its the Dakka way. We're a website of whiney casuals and powergamers who hate eachother and ourselves!
Non sensical rants and counter-rants about the chaos codex always follow good conversation.
Luckily posters like you show up to contribute positive material and advance discussions without being insulting.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The right brain says "lets stay on focus guys."
The left brain says 
Now back to the topic of actual IG please.
752
Post by: Polonius
BrookM wrote:Problem with guard will most likely be that some stuff will go down in price, while the upgrades, the useful and hurty stuff, will go up in price to "balance" the issue. I've got a feeling that the days of cheap power weapons and cheap vehicle upgrades are over soon. Extra armour has already been bumped to a fapping 15 pts for marines and camo netting is going to cost 20 pts if the IA 2 document is to be believed. At least on the bright side our vehicles will get smoke launchers and search lights as standard issue now. Oh and the heavy stubber will go down a whopping two points in price, hurrah!
Then again, it is useful that the basic Guardsman goes down in price, seeing as rumours hint towards the infantry platoon being the only Troops choice in the new codex, with the removal of the AF squad and Conscript platoon. Not a biggy for large games, but smaller games where you can only field platoons could be problematic.
Well, extra armor isnt' what it used to be. It was a huge deal in 4th when any penetrating hit also stunned the vehicle. It's now only protection 1/6 of the time, so simply going without isn't a big deal. Given that Chimeras should (and hopefully will) drop to 50-60pts with Multilaser and Heavy Bolter, that's not a bad trade.
I dont' have the fear that others do about IG. I think that how they handle KPs is going to be the big issue. Aside from that, having hordes of small units with good shooting will be valuable. Add in plenty of tanks and cheaper chimeras, and the IG might be able to finally be both mobile and have a solid firebase.
What I really expect to lose is the range of IG armies. I doubt we'll see an option for all drop troops, or all infiltrating, etc. I imagine in the new codex there will be little reason to field all infantry or all mechanized. But If I can get a command squad, a static shooty squad and an armored fist squad, all for the price of a SM tactical squad(or close to it), I'll be happy.
7375
Post by: BrookM
The thing that puzzles me though is why make extra armour more expensive when it is less useful?
The "new" Chimera will cost 55 pts and have a multi-laser, heavy bolter, smoke launchers and search light as a standard. Only thing really missing from the entry are the amount of fire points, though that could be explained with the "Armoured Firebase" special rule and the option to take track guards. Though this could have something to do with that this is an Inquisitorial Chimera, not a regular Guard version.
ia2-update wrote:Special Rules:
• Amphibious
• Armoured Firebase
• Mobile Command Vehicle
Options:
• Replace multi-laser with:
- Heavy flamer or heavy bolter ..................................................................................free
- Autocannon......................................................................................................................+5 pts
- Twin-linked heavy bolter ....................................................................................+10 pts
• Replace heavy bolter with:
- Heavy flamer...........................................................................................................................free
• May take any of the following:
- Pintle-mounted storm bolter or heavy stubber............................+10 pts
- Hunter-killer missile.................................................................................................+10 pts
- Dozer blade........................................................................................................................+5 pts
- Extra armour..................................................................................................................+15 pts
- Camo netting................................................................................................................+20 pts[/quote
752
Post by: Polonius
BrookM wrote:The thing that puzzles me though is why make extra armour more expensive when it is less useful?
Welcome to the wonderful world of GW development. I'm not a hater, as I think they do good work most of the time, but they are notorious for creating a problem, waiting four years, and then fixing it twice instead of once, so that what was once too good is now too bad. It happened with Imperial extra armor, it happened with Rhinos in 4th edition (where in one fell swoop the following all happened: they no longer counted as scoring, troops could not assault out of them if they moved, their destruction could hurt the squad inside as well as slow them down with entanglement, and escalation kept them off the board in 1/3 of missions), it happened with Las/ plas space marine squads in fifth (now that they are way more expensive, lascannons just aren't as good any more).
GW has been on a consistency kick within each codex, making a plasma pistol on an assault marine the same cost as on a captain, and charging them all the same over priced value. Between codices, GW seems pretty happy to have different rules for identical items. I wouldn't be shocked to see IG keep 5pt power weapons (does anybody think they're worth more than that?) and possibly even a return of 15pt powerfists.
5394
Post by: reds8n
I think one of the key components of the new codex will be the affect of command squads upon the units under their command. Given that we are getting plastic command squads I wouldn't be too surprised if they play a bigger, possibly vital role.
"command" squads eh ....?
752
Post by: Polonius
reds8n wrote: I think one of the key components of the new codex will be the affect of command squads upon the units under their command. Given that we are getting plastic command squads I wouldn't be too surprised if they play a bigger, possibly vital role.
"command" squads eh ....?
I think one cool rule would be to allow command squads to combine with the squads under them. Lets say you buy a platoon with a command section and two line squads. The rule would allow you, during deployment, to combine them into one giant squad (like a reverse combat squads). This would count as a single unit for all game play purposes ( KPs, objective holding, etc.). It'll solve two big IG problems: lack of durable and useful squads to hold objectives, and getting boned by KP missions.
117
Post by: Tribune
Or alternatively (forgive speculation as opposed to news/rumours but hey it's page 5) only certain units count as kill points in an IG army?
Look after those squishy command squads, kids.
10683
Post by: bottbott
the thing im looking forward to is plastic stormtroopers
752
Post by: Polonius
Tribune wrote:Or alternatively (forgive speculation as opposed to news/rumours but hey it's page 5) only certain units count as kill points in an IG army?
Look after those squishy command squads, kids.
I doubt that'll be the case. Kill points aren't a core rule, they're a mission scenario rule. Any rule citing "Kill Points" will read like the old codices that talk about "victory points" do. Certainly an easy fix for IG would simply be to have all squads count as 1/2 a kill point, but that leaves a rule in the IG codex for what'll probably be 5 years, meaning 6th edition may or may not reference an obsolete rule. I imagine they'll simply include a few tweaks to the IG list to minimize the KP hit, and then revise the GT and RTT mission packs to further soften the blow. It's easier to change missions mid stream than it is to change codices midstream. Look at Escalation in 4th: any place that kept the rule had far different top armies than those that eliminated it in their missions.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
My assumption is that they will pull a zoanthrope and have multiple designated units be a single killpoint and force org choice. The zoanthrope does this by being a single unit that ignores coherency and morale, not sure how IG would pull it off. It would be fairly easy to designate a grouping of squads as a single kill point with the right ruling language. It could also be easy to add morale boosts and HQ benefits to this larger multi part squads. It would certainly make commissars nicer when they could effect every unit in the overall group rather than his own small squad.
752
Post by: Polonius
ShumaGorath wrote:My assumption is that they will pull a zoanthrope and have multiple designated units be a single killpoint and force org choice. The zoanthrope does this by being a single unit that ignores coherency and morale, not sure how IG would pull it off. It would be fairly easy to designate a grouping of squads as a single kill point with the right ruling language. It could also be easy to add morale boosts and HQ benefits to this larger multi part squads. It would certainly make commissars nicer when they could effect every unit in the overall group rather than his own small squad.
I thought zoeys were separate units that just take up a single FOC, like a unit and it's transport. Any rule that requires mutliple units to be destroyed to gain a single KP is going to be ripe for abuse, and I doubt GW will implement it on a wholescale level.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Polonius wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:My assumption is that they will pull a zoanthrope and have multiple designated units be a single killpoint and force org choice. The zoanthrope does this by being a single unit that ignores coherency and morale, not sure how IG would pull it off. It would be fairly easy to designate a grouping of squads as a single kill point with the right ruling language. It could also be easy to add morale boosts and HQ benefits to this larger multi part squads. It would certainly make commissars nicer when they could effect every unit in the overall group rather than his own small squad.
I thought zoeys were separate units that just take up a single FOC, like a unit and it's transport. Any rule that requires mutliple units to be destroyed to gain a single KP is going to be ripe for abuse, and I doubt GW will implement it on a wholescale level.
As per the brood ruling "You may include between 1 and 3 zoanthropes as a single heavy support choice, but only one choice may be made per army. Thus you can have a maximum of three in an army. Zoanthropes are deployed as a single unit, but do not need to be placed together and operate independently during the game".
Does that count as a single kill point for the three? It states that they are deployed as a single unit that operate independently. Has this been FAQ'd? As for IG abusing this that is quite possible. It entirely depends on the wording of the ruling I guess. I can see a few methods by which it could be made difficult to abuse, but they would likely require situation specific descriptions.
117
Post by: Tribune
Polonius wrote:Tribune wrote:Or alternatively (forgive speculation as opposed to news/rumours but hey it's page 5) only certain units count as kill points in an IG army?
Look after those squishy command squads, kids.
I doubt that'll be the case. Kill points aren't a core rule, they're a mission scenario rule. Any rule citing "Kill Points" will read like the old codices that talk about "victory points" do. Certainly an easy fix for IG would simply be to have all squads count as 1/2 a kill point, but that leaves a rule in the IG codex for what'll probably be 5 years, meaning 6th edition may or may not reference an obsolete rule. I imagine they'll simply include a few tweaks to the IG list to minimize the KP hit, and then revise the GT and RTT mission packs to further soften the blow. It's easier to change missions mid stream than it is to change codices midstream. Look at Escalation in 4th: any place that kept the rule had far different top armies than those that eliminated it in their missions.
I don't think I buy that logic. Telling me that GW won't put a rule in a codex that will likely look 'a bit silly' when something is potentially changed in a later edition, when there are clearly occasions when it already happens, doesn't really work. There are plenty of codices with obsolete rule references, whether you class them as 'core' or 'mission' related is irrelevant to that truth. Although I do see your point on how it could be easier to change mission rules than the main ruleset.
Anyway KP tweaks to the IG list aren't too difficult to accept as a decent/balanced approach, when there's a fair possibility you could end up playing an objective mission instead.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Your posts were intentionally insulting, either to individual posters, those posting in the thread, dakka in general or perhaps all 40k players.
Mine was a quip stating a truth (all rumors threads eventually become unrelated arguments) and a joke (dakka members are angry self hating bitter husks). You are clearly taking it more offensively then intended as is your prerogative, but it was meant as a jab at the community myself included.
We are a rather derisive and angry community of polar opposites. I don't think many will argue that we're not. If you can't take jokes for what they are then you're doing little but supporting the joke itself.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ShumaGorath wrote:We did, you were too busy inflating your ego in the BYE thread .
A). That thread's almost off the first page.
B). You're just jealous.
BYE
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Yeah :( .
5344
Post by: Shep
In regards to the 20 point camo netting...
camo netting could very well be.. "vehicle counts as obscured until it moves"
if so, I don't think 20 points would be too high a price to ask for something like that.
I like the idea that tau get obscured vehicles as long as they can play keep away, whereas guard get their cover saves while they are firmly entrenched in their battle lines. One static shooty and one mobile shooty.
Other guard considerations....
field artillery. Orks have artillery units, eldar have artillery units, space marines have artillery units... it would be an absolute travesty if guard doesn't end up getting an artillery unit. It's not very characterful for space marines and eldar to dig in and set up artillery positions. And that is such an iconic guard thing to do. I'd kill for some artillery, even if they don't sculpt vossie models to crew it.
ogryns. FNP, eternal warrior, T5. All these things have been mentioned, but I don't think they fit very well with the design concept of IG. I think for them, a DRASTIC points reduction is in order. Just for fun, what could IG do with a stubborn (with attached commissar) T4 W3 WS4 unit if you could get that whole package for 175 points?
30 T4 wounds with a floating str6 power fist. Any of the premiere CC units can still go through that, either through sheer #s or through strength 8. But they won't break it. Where a unit like this could get cool would be what they could do to a half-eaten bloodcrusher or nob biker or terminator unit. They are good enough and cheap enough to either kill off or at least seal up an 'almost dead' CC monster.
ratlings. mind war for guard?
storm troopers. like i mentioned before. im anticipating that the valkyrie = drop pod, and storm troopers = sternguard. That gets imperial guard contesting objectives in enemy territory quite well. They've never had a problem holding. They just have a problem contesting.
kill points. This one scares me most of all. I've heard rumors of a command squad box. thats a 5 man unit=2 kp. Pray they remove IC status to knock it down to 1kp. cadian plastics repackaged into 10 model $25 dollar format. That could mean 10-30 man platoon "units" or it could mean 10man units with sub-catagories. I've already stated my opinions (and been crucified) about the multi-unit FOC slot. And how untenable it is. No one has seen a single rumor to address the kill point problem. It is such a massive sticking point for guard. You have to ditch MSU entirely, or show me a really well thought out way to address the 30 kill point to 5 kill point matchup between drop guard and nob bikers.
leman russ squadrons. true squadrons, not zoanthrope style. That means everything has to shoot at the same target, that means coherency and that means close combat and multiple tank kill shots get a lot more mileage when evenly spread across a unit. It's not overpowered. But its a nice change. When i build my non-drop competitive guard, i start with the minimum troops i need to win, which doesn't cost much, i throw in the minimum HQ that is effective, and then i go for what I want... armor. I buy my 3 demolishers, and now I'm looking at less than 1000 points spent. I don't want anything else, I don't want fast attack, i DEFINITELY don't want troops. and outside of 3x75 points for my "elites" I'm stuck spending points on units I don't even want. I buy 3 hellhounds because they are almost like heavy support, and i end up with a fragle list. Its the only army book I know that I have to fatten up after I jot down my ideas rather than cut points. With the ability to spend 1k points on good tanks, I'm already feeling confident in my ability to win games.
more later...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Shep wrote:In regards to the 20 point camo netting...
camo netting could very well be.. "vehicle counts as obscured until it moves"
if so, I don't think 20 points would be too high a price to ask for something like that.
I think you're right, and I think it would be a nigh-on mandatory upgrade for Russes. That way you don't even need cover, you can be in cover in the open. Wonderfully stupid rule IMO, but it makes sense given the points cost. Now if it is obscured until you shoot, then we've got a problem. 20 points worth of problems actually.
Shep wrote:field artillery. Orks have artillery units, eldar have artillery units, space marines have artillery units... it would be an absolute travesty if guard doesn't end up getting an artillery unit. It's not very characterful for space marines and eldar to dig in and set up artillery positions. And that is such an iconic guard thing to do. I'd kill for some artillery, even if they don't sculpt vossie models to crew it.
Unlikely. We'll get a new Griffon (which is fine - I already have two and I don't want nor need any more), and it along with the Basilisk will be the artillery of Guard. We might even get a combined kit as DoubleDunce has been saying, so a Medusa/Griffon kit, which would be nice. And if we get to squadron these tanks then we don't even need field artillery.
Shep wrote:ogryns. FNP, eternal warrior, T5. All these things have been mentioned, but I don't think they fit very well with the design concept of IG.
Ogryn have been done to death in the Proposed Rules forum, so I won't go into too much detail on my views here except to say that what you've said above is true. No solution to the 'Ogryn Problem' is a good solution. The solutions either don't work the way they need to (like giving Ogryn FNP - they can still be instakilled by power fists so it solves nothing) or just don't make sense (Ogryn with Eternal Warrior? What?).
Reducing their cost doesn't work either because they, as a unit, don't work as advertised. If you advertise chainsaw and advertise it as being capable of cutting through wood and steel, and then the product doesn't even start up properly let alone cut anything, giving it away for free doesn't make it any better. Ogryn suffer that problem. You can reduce their cost but it doesn't change that they are a fragile unit that can't kill anything.
Ogryn either need to be able to completey rip apart anything they face, or be able to take a charge from just about anything and act as cliff-face to an army's wave of assaulters. I don't like the idea of them being able to tear through anything - that's the perogative of the Rough Rider - so I prefer the wall of muscle idea. And despite it being a bad solution, the only solution that achieves this goal is base T5. I hate it, but it's the best of a terrible lot and does actually achieve what needs to be done for Ogryn.
Shep wrote:leman russ squadrons. true squadrons, not zoanthrope style. That means everything has to shoot at the same target, that means coherency and that means close combat and multiple tank kill shots get a lot more mileage when evenly spread across a unit.
God no. That would utterly destroy Guard tanks. Immobilised = Destroyed in a squadron, remember? And Guard tanks don't want to move anyway. Actually having them as a squadron that must maintain coherency and fire at the same time just compounds the idiocy of all post-2nd Ed vehicle rules. I hate 5th because of its vehicle rules more than any other. This would make them worse.
BYE
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Shep wrote:ogryns. FNP, eternal warrior, T5. All these things have been mentioned, but I don't think they fit very well with the design concept of IG. I think for them, a DRASTIC points reduction is in order. Just for fun, what could IG do with a stubborn (with attached commissar) T4 W3 WS4 unit if you could get that whole package for 175 points?
30 T4 wounds with a floating str6 power fist. Any of the premiere CC units can still go through that, either through sheer #s or through strength 8. But they won't break it. Where a unit like this could get cool would be what they could do to a half-eaten bloodcrusher or nob biker or terminator unit. They are good enough and cheap enough to either kill off or at least seal up an 'almost dead' CC monster.
See HBMC's remarks, above. Personally, I'd prefer "Eternal Warrior" while within a Guard Officer's command radius, over base T5. (HBMC - go back and reread Nork Dedog's fluff piece from the 2nd ed codex. I fully believe them to be too stupid to die, if ordered otherwise.)
kill points. This one scares me most of all. I've heard rumors of a command squad box. thats a 5 man unit=2 kp. Pray they remove IC status to knock it down to 1kp. cadian plastics repackaged into 10 model $25 dollar format. That could mean 10-30 man platoon "units" or it could mean 10man units with sub-catagories. I've already stated my opinions (and been crucified) about the multi-unit FOC slot. And how untenable it is. No one has seen a single rumor to address the kill point problem. It is such a massive sticking point for guard. You have to ditch MSU entirely, or show me a really well thought out way to address the 30 kill point to 5 kill point matchup between drop guard and nob bikers.
Under the current rules, I'd fix it thusly:
1) No ICs.
2) (Of platoons) Only platoon command squads yield Kill Points.
3) Platoon squads are only scoring/can only contest while their corresponding platoon commander is alive.
But if they drop Armored Fists, then this doesn't work - keeping a couple 5-man guard squads alive is impractical, if your enemy just has to kill them to prevent you from scoring.
7375
Post by: BrookM
I remember a GW rep saying that the 5th edition was all about bringing the game back to the infantry on foot and that the vehicle rules are not part of the core rules. Figures.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Tying scoring and KP's solely to command squads makes it very easy for the enemy to get their points.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yeah making KP's (and scoring) come all down to 3-4 5-man T3 W5 squads would make the Guard even worse. Every Guard strategy would revolve around keeping their HQ units alive, and every Guard list would be geared to bringing as many Command Sections as possible without compromising the integrity of the rest of the army.
1 KP for wiping out 50% of a platoon, and a further 1 KP for wiping it out completely. Yes, it makes KP's harder to get from Guard, but considering that Guardsmen are the worst basic infantry in the game (Gretchin notwithstanding), and they're the only thing we have to score with (meaning they have to hold objectives against far scarier things that just have to contest them), I don't have a problem with them having a KP advantage. So if you bring two 45-man platoons it's 4 KP total, not 12 KP.
God KP's are such a f  king God-awful addition to the game. Stupid bloody Jervis...
BYE
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
God KP's are such a fking God-awful addition to the game. Stupid bloody Jervis...
Agreed. Which is further amplified by stupidly good units like Nob Bikers that score.
Capt K
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
A well built guard codex should be in a prime position to decimate the Nob Biker army. What army can field a comparable amount of FNP denying super-pie and heavy weapons? And what army can toss ablative wounds in front of the main line as well as guard should be capable?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
What other unit can streak across the board to kick the crap out of your pie throwers though?
The KP thing is so bloody stupid. What was wrong with VPs!
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
I guess it took too long to add up VPs or something.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Any number that uses more than the fingers on his hands makes Alessio's head hurt. That's why we have KP.
BYE
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
kill points would have been a great thing had they not boned guard doing it, don't riff on the idea because the implentation doesn't live up to potential.
60
Post by: yakface
Guys,
You've already been warned once about drifting off-topic in this thread by a moderator. If you wish to discuss personal issues between you, please use PMs and keep the discussion out of the forums.
I've nuked a whole page of back-and-forth nonsense that doesn't belong in this thread. Anyone who continues to drive this thread off-topic will likely be getting a temporary suspension.
Please stay on topic!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Kill points were likely meant as a measure to prevent minmaxing, and were probably designed to contrast with the increased focus on multiple units caused by the multiple objective scenario. Combined they both "ensure" more balanced armies of medium composition. Unfortunately too many armies are hindered or are given undue bonus by killpoints, dark angels love them and guard are given a very difficult time under kill points. I think the biggest issue is the two base mission which could have added a third vector that would further help prevent extreme builds, but instead its just tiefest. The new codexes will likely represent steps taken to even up that playing field.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:I think one cool rule would be to allow command squads to combine with the squads under them.
TBH, I really don't think we need 55+ model unit blobs.
And besides how would that work in Dawn of War with KPs? "You only have 21 models on the board? I just put down 140 in the Command Blob and 2 Troops Blobs. Shooting? OK, my Command Squad fires 7 Lascannons and 6 Autocannon at your unit... The Troops Blobs fire 6 Lascannon and 6 Autocannon at your other Troops... I'm up 2-0 on KPs, you're down both Troops. Are we having fun, yet?"
____
Polonius wrote:Certainly an easy fix for IG would simply be to have all squads count as 1/2 a kill point, but that leaves a rule in the IG codex for what'll probably be 5 years, meaning 6th edition may or may not reference an obsolete rule.
As much as some people would like it not to be the case, I strongly suspect that 40k will keep Kill Points as a key simplifying differentiator from WFB VPs, just as 40k will keeps the FOC as a differentiator from the WFB "choosing an army".
Plus, it's a minor deterrent against the kinds of MSU armies that GW greatly dislikes.
____
Shep wrote:camo netting could very well be.. "vehicle counts as obscured until it moves"
I could see that. Certainly, 20 pts is way too much just for +1 to cover saves.
Shep wrote:field artillery.
I think Guard would get 0-2 Artillery Pieces that attach to the Command Squad, each with 3 crewmen.
Shep wrote:ogryns. FNP, eternal warrior, T5.
I think for them, a DRASTIC points reduction is in order.
IMO, T5 would be the easiest fix, as it's simply a statline fix, although it kind of converts Ogryns into a lesser Monstrous Creature.
OTOH, if they were dropped to under 15 pts, they'd be playable.
Shep wrote:ratlings.
I still think Artillery Spotters is the best special rule for these little guys, due to the high potential synergy making them playable...
Shep wrote:storm troopers.
I also think these will be good, and likely the only unit that can buy Valks.
Shep wrote:kill points.
or show me a really well thought out way to address the 30 kill point to 5 kill point matchup between drop guard and nob bikers.
I'm hoping for 1/2 KP per Platoon unit, without any ICs in the entire army. I'd settle for Command Squads = 1 KP, all other squads = 2nd KP. That way, it's easy to get the first KP by killing the Command, but hard to get the remaining KP.
If Guard can take 2 Specials per Drop unit, then that's 60 Plasma Guns or Flamers - not a terrible matchup for Guard...
Shep wrote:leman russ squadrons.
I'm hoping for Russ, Demolisher, Hellhound, and Basilisk Squadrons of 1-3 models. It'd really open up the army design options considerably. And with all the Cover Saves, it wouldn't be broken, either.
___
ShumaGorath wrote:Kill points were likely meant as a measure to prevent minmaxing, and were probably designed to contrast with the increased focus on multiple units caused by the multiple objective scenario.
That, and breaking from the WFB mold, along with simplifying scoring conditions - it's almost impossible to cheat your opponent out of KPs.
443
Post by: skyth
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Plus, it's a minor deterrent against the kinds of MSU armies that GW greatly dislikes.
Only problem, is (to me) the game is more fun with the more units that are out there.
221
Post by: Frazzled
(Moderation mode)
Gentlemen this thread has received several reports. Please refrain from personal attacks or disciplinary action will be taken.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
skyth wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
Plus, it's a minor deterrent against the kinds of MSU armies that GW greatly dislikes.
Only problem, is (to me) the game is more fun with the more units that are out there.
I believe that MSU that is being talked about is along the lines of 3 individual raveners rather than a squad of 3 (I used to do this all the time). In fourth edition if you could take a 1 to anything choice there was no real reason to go above 1 per squad as long as you had force org spots to burn. This made it so that shots couldn't carry into the next even if you were running them in a pack. It also made them immune to squad morale and failed combats. In previous editions the larger your squad was the more you were at a disadvantage, there was simply no reason to take large squads. Even the obvious answer of squad morale was too easy to simply ignore or get around with special rulings.
Kill points aren't bad as a concept, the are needed as a balancing scale with other scenarios in the game. The problem is certain codexes are built very poorly to deal with them, something that will largely be rectified in the coming guard codex.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I agree with Shummy. They are to balance out taking lots of units which is an advantage in objective based missions. I agree that some armies (IG and DE especially) get hosed by KP's but I hope that the new codexes balance this out.
I don't see them breaking the basic rules of KP's by saying that IG platoons are 1/2 KP's. I see something more along the lines of each platoon gets smaller and the whole thing counts for a KP (but with a restriction like must stay within 6" of the Command squad or something).
Ozymandias, King of Kings
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I could definitely see a change to require 6" unit-to-unit coherency, but it would really cause players to howl over the Heavy weapons...
4351
Post by: ubermosher
JohnHwangDD wrote:
And besides how would that work in Dawn of War with KPs? "You only have 21 models on the board? I just put down 140 in the Command Blob and 2 Troops Blobs. Shooting? OK, my Command Squad fires 7 Lascannons and 6 Autocannon at your unit... The Troops Blobs fire 6 Lascannon and 6 Autocannon at your other Troops... I'm up 2-0 on KPs, you're down both Troops. Are we having fun, yet?"
BTW, if an IG player places more than a CHQ squad and 2 infantry squads (or an infantry squad and chimera, etc.), then they kindly need to reread the deployment rules for DoW. It's 2 units from your troops choices, not 2 Force Org slots. The caption at the bottom of page 93 even illustrates that.
Edit: My bad. Thanks Janthkin. Apologies, John.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
ubermosher wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
And besides how would that work in Dawn of War with KPs? "You only have 21 models on the board? I just put down 140 in the Command Blob and 2 Troops Blobs. Shooting? OK, my Command Squad fires 7 Lascannons and 6 Autocannon at your unit... The Troops Blobs fire 6 Lascannon and 6 Autocannon at your other Troops... I'm up 2-0 on KPs, you're down both Troops. Are we having fun, yet?"
BTW, if an IG player places more than a CHQ squad and 2 infantry squads (or an infantry squad and chimera, etc.), then they kindly need to reread the deployment rules for DoW. It's 2 units from your troops choices, not 2 Force Org slots. The caption at the bottom of page 93 even illustrates that.
You missed the preceding discussion - JHDD is discussing one approach to "fixing" IG KPs, which would be to use something like Combat Squads for entire platoons.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Thanks, Janthkin.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Reposting: That, and breaking from the WFB mold, along with simplifying scoring conditions - it's almost impossible to cheat your opponent out of KPs.
And how exactly does one 'cheat' an opponent out of VP's any differently to 'cheating' an opponent out of KP's? I have to assume that DD means 'points denial' when he says 'cheat', which a fantastic example of reframing the issue and vilifying those who like VP's at the same time - excellent job their Jonnyboy, you sure debate (dishonestly) like a pro - but I do not see how points denial is any different under a KP system. Actually, I do see a difference. In a VP system, points deinal has you denying the unit's worth to the enemy. In a VP system, everything is equal (which is stupid - why is a 20-man Chosen Terminator worth the same as a 20-man unit of Grots?), but you can still keep KP's away from your opponent using the exact same methods we used to deny VP's. So, I ask again (to someone brave enough to read my posts perhaps): And how exactly does one 'cheat' an opponent out of VP's any differently to 'cheating' an opponent out of KP's? BYE
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
H.B.M.C. wrote:Reposting:So, I ask again (to someone brave enough to read my posts perhaps):
And how exactly does one 'cheat' an opponent out of VP's any differently to 'cheating' an opponent out of KP's?
BYE
Well, it's easier to "cheat" an opponent out of KP's than it is with VP's, as you can simply have fewer of them to begin with. So that's different, it's harder under a VP system.
Though I suppose you could bring a 1,000 point army to a 2,000 point battle under a VP system, but that's not the usual strategy.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
So you're saying it is easier to cheat KP's than VP's. And Jonny says that it is " almost impossible to cheat your opponent out of KPs".
Of course you can't both be right? My money's on Pariah.
BYE
443
Post by: skyth
ShumaGorath wrote:skyth wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
Plus, it's a minor deterrent against the kinds of MSU armies that GW greatly dislikes.
Only problem, is (to me) the game is more fun with the more units that are out there.
I believe that MSU that is being talked about is along the lines of 3 individual raveners rather than a squad of 3 (I used to do this all the time). In fourth edition if you could take a 1 to anything choice there was no real reason to go above 1 per squad as long as you had force org spots to burn. This made it so that shots couldn't carry into the next even if you were running them in a pack. It also made them immune to squad morale and failed combats. In previous editions the larger your squad was the more you were at a disadvantage, there was simply no reason to take large squads. Even the obvious answer of squad morale was too easy to simply ignore or get around with special rulings.
Kill points aren't bad as a concept, the are needed as a balancing scale with other scenarios in the game. The problem is certain codexes are built very poorly to deal with them, something that will largely be rectified in the coming guard codex.
Actually, that's what I was refering to when I said it makes the game more fun (to me) to have more units on the board. Kill points both make the game less fun and unbalanced, as armies with good troops (See Orks and Chaos) can get away with having low- KP armies whereas other armies need other units to do the heavy lifting. Having multiple weak units isn't significantly better at controling/contesting objectives compared to how much they are handicapped by KP's.
The only way KP's would be somewhat valid would be if both players agreed to build thier armies to a set number of points and to a set number of kill points.
443
Post by: skyth
H.B.M.C. wrote:So you're saying it is easier to cheat KP's than VP's. And Jonny says that it is " almost impossible to cheat your opponent out of KPs".
Of course you can't both be right? My money's on Pariah.
BYE
Mine too. If you think it's not possible to cheat your opponent out of KP's, then check out Moz's battle report.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
It's actually very easy to keep KPs safe. The annihilation games I've played have seen weakened squads running away from the enemy, ripper swarms spending entire battles picnicing behind bunkers, and always the frantic "ohcraphehaslesskpsthanme" calculation at the start.
10123
Post by: BoxANT
Playing a KP game as IG feels *very* "unGuardy".
Instead of trying to wear your opponent down through attrition, throwing squads to their death. You end up holding back, and running away when you get threatened.
IG is just so bloated in KP that you have to guard your Guard, which to me is not that fun :(
429
Post by: Ogiwan
Uhh....for me, 40k is not that fun, hence my current obsession with Fantasy.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I'm just hoping that Guard become killy enough that we can simply table our opponents and not worry about KPs.
1099
Post by: Railguns
Just you wait, Guard plasma guns will go up to 25 points a piece and have Gets Hot! on a result of 1 or 2 to hit. Grenade launchers will become Krak: S6 ap4 blast , Frag : S4 ap5 large blast and come free with ten men. Also Guard missile launchers will be heavy2, autocannons will go up by ten points in cost, and priests will get preferred enemy and 4 eviscerator attacks but stay at t3 and 2W, with an option to buy flack armor for 15 points.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
On the KP issue, I just had a game a few weeks ago where my buddy hid the last Chaos Chosen from a squad in a landraider for the last turns of the game. The bloody thing would not explode, so the kill point was denied. He also had significantly fewer KPs than my marines due to taking expensive things like the landraider instead of lots of dreads etc. From the get go I was disadvantaged, not that it made the game less fun between friends, but it turned what was largely a slaughter for me (I had a huge number of units left to his 3) into a very near thing.
Back to IG rumors, do you think a permenant +1 to cover saves would not be worth 20 points? Even if it got it all the time? (no cover becomes 6+, etc.) It might depend on the board you play on and the terrain that can block 50% of a vehicle, but geting a 3+ cover save on a AV14 Russ sounds pretty daunting to crack. Like a marine without the AP or massed small arms fire vulnerability.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I dunno. Camo improves survivabilty by 17%, but does nothing for firepower or mobility. So it's worth 5 to 10%, which would be 10-15 pts.
1099
Post by: Railguns
I would be okay with 10 points. 15 is a little high, extra armor costs this much and I've yet to see it taken widely. If it's something like, vehicle counts as obscured if it doesn 't move, then I'd would expect 15 points would work.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm just hoping that Guard become killy enough that we can simply table our opponents and not worry about KPs.
So should we take your lack of answer as a concession, that you can 'cheat' an opponent out of KP's just as you could VP's?
BYE
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
I'm pretty sure that's the best you can hope for, H.B.M.C.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Shep wrote:field artillery. Orks have artillery units, eldar have artillery units, space marines have artillery units... it would be an absolute travesty if guard doesn't end up getting an artillery unit. It's not very characterful for space marines and eldar to dig in and set up artillery positions. And that is such an iconic guard thing to do.
So? White Scars can get artillery and fortify defenses. Iron Warriors can't. Go figure.
9736
Post by: Sha1emade
I really don't want to get involved in this KP vs VP discussion. I am fine with both systems. I prefer VP however. That being said I thought about H.B.M.C.'s question about KP and VP denial. I have an answer or at least a theory. I could care less by the way.
KP denial is easy to do. Hide a small unit like 40pt unit. While attacking with the 500pt unit. One obviously takes longer to kill and has more killy power. So you put your best units forward and hide the weak, often small and easy to hide, units. So you end up with what plays like a normal game for the most part.
VP denial is not AS easy to do, but not hard either. As the point is to hide a expensive unit from death. However this is pretty much the reverse tatic of KP denial. Your large squad and expensive squad often have harder times hiding and even if they do the weaker (less expensive) units are doing the fighting for them. So if your opponent is doing this to you you simply hit him with everything and he gets killed badly, in theory. So it would tend to be a mix of tatics here that pretty much make for a normal game. Yes there are always exceptions but I just don't see the vast majority of people abusing either system.
My conclusion is that they are not much different. KP still has the flaw that some armies have fewer and some have a ton. This is the inherent problem. I like the stelek-casper-????? kill point system. It seems to even the playing field.
Just my 2 cents...
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Sha1emade wrote:I really don't want to get involved in this KP vs VP discussion. I am fine with both systems. I prefer VP however. That being said I thought about H.B.M.C.'s question about KP and VP denial. I have an answer or at least a theory. I could care less by the way.
KP denial is easy to do. Hide a small unit like 40pt unit. While attacking with the 500pt unit. One obviously takes longer to kill and has more killy power. So you put your best units forward and hide the weak, often small and easy to hide, units. So you end up with what plays like a normal game for the most part.
VP denial is not AS easy to do, but not hard either. As the point is to hide a expensive unit from death. However this is pretty much the reverse tatic of KP denial. Your large squad and expensive squad often have harder times hiding and even if they do the weaker (less expensive) units are doing the fighting for them. So if your opponent is doing this to you you simply hit him with everything and he gets killed badly, in theory. So it would tend to be a mix of tatics here that pretty much make for a normal game. Yes there are always exceptions but I just don't see the vast majority of people abusing either system.
My conclusion is that they are not much different. KP still has the flaw that some armies have fewer and some have a ton. This is the inherent problem. I like the stelek-casper-????? kill point system. It seems to even the playing field.
Just my 2 cents...
VP denial, at least in 40k & WHFB terms, involves taking extremely hard to kill units, and adding additional points to them to reduce the points available for your opponent to get, unless they manage to crack the super-unit. (See, over the the WHFB Tactics forum, the discussion of "Death Star" units.) Under 4e, 3 Eldar Falcons loaded with Fire Dragons made for good VP-denial choices: they were very hard to actually kill, and protected a significant chunk of the army's points, while still being useful.
9736
Post by: Sha1emade
VP denial, at least in 40k & WHFB terms, involves taking extremely hard to kill units, and adding additional points to them to reduce the points available for your opponent to get, unless they manage to crack the super-unit. (See, over the the WHFB Tactics forum, the discussion of "Death Star" units.) Under 4e, 3 Eldar Falcons loaded with Fire Dragons made for good VP-denial choices: they were very hard to actually kill, and protected a significant chunk of the army's points, while still being useful.
But isn't this something you might do anyway just to be effective in normal non KP or VP games? That unit and others like it are usually part of a persons list anyway. I was thinking more on the tactics of denial more then the list building aspect of it.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Sha1emade wrote:VP denial, at least in 40k & WHFB terms, involves taking extremely hard to kill units, and adding additional points to them to reduce the points available for your opponent to get, unless they manage to crack the super-unit. (See, over the the WHFB Tactics forum, the discussion of "Death Star" units.) Under 4e, 3 Eldar Falcons loaded with Fire Dragons made for good VP-denial choices: they were very hard to actually kill, and protected a significant chunk of the army's points, while still being useful.
But isn't this something you might do anyway just to be effective in normal non KP or VP games? That unit and others like it are usually part of a persons list anyway. I was thinking more on the tactics of denial more then the list building aspect of it.
Again, I'll direct you to the "Death Star" thread in WHFB Tactics. The metagame consideration of "how do I keep my opponent from claiming VPs?" creates the strategy. In, say, a purely objective-based mission, "Death Star" units are much less optimal. (In 4e 40k, the best example was probably the uber-Seer Council, where a single 20+ strong mob of Warlocks with rerollable 4+ invulnerable saves & rerollable ld 10 protected points. But for objectives other than VP, it wasn't an optimal unit.) And, as usual, some lists are much better at VP denial than others. To return the conversation to 40k & 5e, the problem here is that some armies cope with KP scenarios, in conjunction with objective scenarios, much better than others. In particular, Orks do very well in either (30-boy mobs are a single KP, lead to a low total KP count, and can claim quite a few objectives); Space Marines get Combat Squad rules to actually change the number of units they field, depending on which scenario comes up.
5344
Post by: Shep
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Shep wrote:field artillery. Orks have artillery units, eldar have artillery units, space marines have artillery units... it would be an absolute travesty if guard doesn't end up getting an artillery unit. It's not very characterful for space marines and eldar to dig in and set up artillery positions. And that is such an iconic guard thing to do.
So? White Scars can get artillery and fortify defenses. Iron Warriors can't. Go figure.
If there were ever an army to play as 'counts as' space marines. Iron warriors are them. I have scoured the GT rules for 'counts as' and the space marine and chaos space marine section in the GT rule packet.
Looks perfectly legal to me to play your iron warriors as space marines.
Not that it has anything to do with IG.
2776
Post by: Reecius
I agree with what most of you all have said on the kill point system. It is just flat out inherently flawed. As HBMC said, how do you justify a maxed out nob biker squad counting for as much as a 5 man imperial gaurd remnants squad?
I just do not understand what the rationale was. If two armies fight and one can give up 24 kill points against an army that gives up a total of 6, and the army with many kill points is composed of units that are easy to kill and the army with few has units that are very hard to kill, there is absolutely no logic what-so-ever that I am capable of comprehending that says this system is better than VP's, or even fair.
I just fail to see how in playtesting they could look at a game where an IG gamer wiped out all but a single model of a Chaos player's army, and lost only half of their own army but gave up more kill points and thus lost the game, as an improvement to the system.
Also, what is the buisness sense in it? It discourages mechanized armies. A 35 point Rhino or Drop Pod costs $35 bucks. But I for one am discouraged in taking many of them as they double the KP's of each unit.
It is just a truly bad system that seems as if there either was not much thought put into it or, hopefully, there are codex changes coming that have been planned into the system and help to balance it.
9736
Post by: Sha1emade
Well, as this is about 40k ,fantasy has little relevance here on a topic about 5th ed guard. Second I said I was talking about the tactics IN GAME and not from the list perspective. What you said has little to do with what I was talking about. I was being generic about what certain point level units could do IN GAME. Think if it as more reacting to you opponent then when you build your list. I do not disagree with the meta game statement. However I do think there is more to it than that.
In game is just as important in VP and KP denial then in the list building stage. Our statements do not contradict each other other than quite a few people do use those uber units in normal games and not because of kill points. A unit that is very hard to kill can be effective in most any game type. Holding objectives, forcing opponent to redeploy, taking out opponents uber units and so on. Nob bikers and TH termies are not popular because they offer few kill points. They kill most everything and are great in pretty much all game types if you play them right. They have a tactic or a benefit from all game types.
Your last paragraph is basically the same as mine. Some do better by codex then others. That was my point of my last statement. Seems to me we agree on pretty much everything just get their by different paths.
Just saying...
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
What if the 6E mission table was like this:
1 - winner scores the most KPs
2-5 Objectives!
6 - winner has most KPs on the board
I think the KP issue would resolve itself entirely with that small change to the mission table.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Except that people seem to forget that KP's are there to balance out the advantage of having 24 units in an Objective game. In 2/3 of the time, the 24 unit army is going to have an advantage over the 6 unit army in that they can simply contest/claim more objectives.
GW is expecting you to take both into account when you are creating an army. The real problem is that IG have no real way to balance this. They simply can't choose to take a small number of units unless using specific doctrines (and even then you will likely still have more). I fully expect this disadvantage to go away when the new IG codex comes out in May.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I wonder if Guard will be allowed to score KPs off their own units...
That is, if the Guard are down 3 KPs on turn 5, they kill 5 of their own, scoring 5 KPs. Bang, they're up by 2 KPs going in for the win.
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
JohnHwangDD wrote:I wonder if Guard will be allowed to score KPs off their own units...
That is, if the Guard are down 3 KPs on turn 5, they kill 5 of their own, scoring 5 KPs. Bang, they're up by 2 KPs going in for the win.
Hey! So they will find a way to make Commissars more useful!
661
Post by: Leggy
Would it not be easier to just count a platoon as 1 kill point? that way you can only have the same max kill points as any other army. I force org slot = 1 kill point
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Two reasons:
1) It would be too easy to deny KP's at that point. Put one platoon unit on one side of the board and the other on the other side.
2) 1 FO =/= 1 KP in other codices. For example: IC and retinue (1 KP each), Combat Squads (1 KP each), Squad and transport (1 KP each), Tau Vehicles (KP's for vehicle and for Drones), Death Cultists (1 KP per cultist but only one FO choice), etc.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
117
Post by: Tribune
Ozymandias wrote:Except that people seem to forget that KP's are there to balance out the advantage of having 24 units in an Objective game. In 2/3 of the time, the 24 unit army is going to have an advantage over the 6 unit army in that they can simply contest/claim more objectives.
GW is expecting you to take both into account when you are creating an army. The real problem is that IG have no real way to balance this. They simply can't choose to take a small number of units unless using specific doctrines (and even then you will likely still have more). I fully expect this disadvantage to go away when the new IG codex comes out in May.
Ozy wins another thread...
661
Post by: Leggy
1) IG aren't exactly difficult to kill. A determined stare will take down most models. Even if you attempt to "hide" squads you aren't sure to keep the killpoint safe, as even the lightest fast unit will be capable of killing them.. It gets even harder if you're trying to hide 2, 3 or more units
2) Yeah, this is a good point.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I don't know about you but I'd quickly forget which units are in which platoon. Especially playing against a Gray Horde or even painted units with no Platoon markings.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
3934
Post by: grizgrin
I just can't wait to see the book. I still need to put unit markings on my IG that I have been building, and I am not doing it now when I have no idea how they are going to arrange squads here in a few months.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Now that the Lizardmen stuff is coming out, does that mean we'll soon start to see IG previews?
9892
Post by: Flashman
Scottywan82 wrote:Now that the Lizardmen stuff is coming out, does that mean we'll soon start to see IG previews?
Assuming IG are the next Codex/army book, then yes. Remember Lord of the Rings Apocalypse (ahem, War of the Ring) comes next though. Personally not seen any new releases for that yet.
I suspect there'll be some kind of IG hint on the back page of the next WD.
6091
Post by: Apone
And the new Stompa and Superheavy tank are out next. So that covers the next 40k slot for articles in White Dwarf as well as what they are selling.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Damn. I want my IG previews already!!
7684
Post by: Rune Stonegrinder
Dexy wrote:... not like IG will ever use all 6 Troop slots in a FOC.
I'm trying to build a IG force, and if we lose the armored fist unit then you maybe right we'll never come close to 6 troop choices in a 2000 pt game. I can only picture 3 at most since regular platoons will be able to buy chimeras.
on the other hand
i have noticed a recent trend, GW has been trying to intice gamers to choose 4 or more troop choices by giving troop choice units the best rules upgrades.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I'll be more than happy to have Apoc previews. Shadowsword is Imperial Armor, after all.
5022
Post by: livingregret
Terribly sorry...but I've read through the thread and might have missed if this information was posted....
Are there plans/Green Sculpts of new plastic Regular troops? I expect Storm Troopers to go plastic and what not...but will we have a new regiment go plastic? We currently have Cadians and Commando(catachans)....
I am asking because I am thinking about starting IG but if there will be a new plastic Troop choice I might just wait to pick up my troops. Thanks
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
There are a lot of people wishing for plastic greatcoat Guard (~Valhallan / Krieg / Armageddon), but there's no proof of this.
As far as I know, only plastic Storms have been confirmed, along with plastic Cadian / Catachan Command.
9111
Post by: mlund
For Infantry Platoons, I think I'd like to see an update in their Deployment and Kill Points rules.
In particular, I'd like this rule:
Platoon Deployment:
All Squads within an Infantry Platoon count as a single deployment and must be deployed at the same time. To use Reserves, the entire Infantry Platoon must be placed in Reserves and they must enter play from Reserves at the same time.
When an Infantry Platoon is deployed or enters the board, place the Command Squad first. Each Infantry Squad from that Infantry Platoon must deploy or enter play with a least one of its models within 12" of the Command Squad.
Infantry Squads do not count for Kill Points and do not count as Scoring Units.
In short form: The Command Squad of the infantry Platoon is what counts for Scoring and Kill Points. Your Infantry Platoon needs to make advancing and protecting the Command Squad a priority if it wants establish Command and Control over Objectives.
- Marty Lund
7375
Post by: BrookM
And as mentioned before, the command squad would be easily picked off.
5022
Post by: livingregret
JohnHwangDD wrote:There are a lot of people wishing for plastic greatcoat Guard (~Valhallan / Krieg / Armageddon), but there's no proof of this.
As far as I know, only plastic Storms have been confirmed, along with plastic Cadian / Catachan Command.
That's what I was figuring but thought I'd double check if I missed something somewhere....
Sigh...start picking up Troops now or hope that they do get some new plastics?.......gah
Thanks again
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
If you're playing Guard, and know what you like, then go ahead and start getting stuff. It's not like you'll likely have the whole army completed by May...
10975
Post by: tonytidus916
ive heard rumors of
- better lasguns (ap or range possibly even strength)
- going to ground while still being able to shoot regularly
(based on training for war and common sense fluff wise)
- also a point reduction of the standard gaurdsmen
(to compinsate for the 6pt ork that taps that bootentay on a lame gaurdsman)
***
Just what ive heard in well trusted circles higher up
but not confirmed
~tony~
9111
Post by: mlund
BrookM wrote:And as mentioned before, the command squad would be easily picked off.
A fair point. As Command Squads are designed in the current IG Codex they are easy marks. If the Command Squad were a proper 10-man squad, I think it would be a whole lot hard to pick them off, especially with 4+ cover saves all around for shooting over/through intervening Infantry Squads. Also, I think you should probably be able to give the Command Squad the option to take a Chimera IFV even if the regular Infantry Squads are foot-slogging it.
At that point you're just worrying about Whirlwinds and their ilk, as well as having your Infantry Squad lines broken through. If somebody breaks through the Infantry Line and kills the Command Squad, though, aren't they performing the action that is supposed to wreck a Platoon?
If Guard Infantry and Chimeras get the cost-reduction people are anticipating I think the scheme would play out pretty well.
- Marty Lund
6946
Post by: Dexy
Let CHQ take bikes, give them two wounds and so much wargear they can each have something different! Give them special rules too relating to combat. Guard H2H issue and easy Kp via CHQ solved! Why has no-one thought of this?
5022
Post by: livingregret
Dexy wrote:Let CHQ take bikes, give them two wounds and so much wargear they can each have something different! Give them special rules too relating to combat. Guard H2H issue and easy Kp via CHQ solved! Why has no-one thought of this?
I like it!!! And Toughness 4/5 on bikes....and and...feel no pain....+ I don't know.....Combi Flamers for all of em!!!
PERFECT!!
Seriously though I would really like to see something along the lines of what mlund suggested. It makes sense fluff wise and would make it so guard no longer rock 20+ kill points every game
10975
Post by: tonytidus916
why does everyone act like the nob bikers are really that unkillable?!?!
are they good? yes
are they really really expensive points? omg yes
are they unstopable? no no no no no
they are a force to be reckoned with but they do die and they can be stopped and when they are the whole plan/win potential for the army using/losing them goes right out the window
shoot them.....especially with big stuff and they die
take away their save in assault w/ initiative and they die(both plans fairly easy to do)
just like anything else thats good, you must play against them accourdingly if you wish to win/beat that unit
do you fight a tank with lasguns? or do you shoot it with heavy weapons and make it blow up?
cmon guys.....they do die
p.s.
im an ork player and i just told you how we die.... fail lol
1406
Post by: Janthkin
mlund wrote:All Squads within an Infantry Platoon count as a single deployment and must be deployed at the same time. To use Reserves, the entire Infantry Platoon must be placed in Reserves and they must enter play from Reserves at the same time.
When an Infantry Platoon is deployed or enters the board, place the Command Squad first. Each Infantry Squad from that Infantry Platoon must deploy or enter play with a least one of its models within 12" of the Command Squad.
Infantry Squads do not count for Kill Points and do not count as Scoring Units.
In short form: The Command Squad of the infantry Platoon is what counts for Scoring and Kill Points. Your Infantry Platoon needs to make advancing and protecting the Command Squad a priority if it wants establish Command and Control over Objectives.
We chatted about things like this back a few pages. The problem is that you can't defend or protect 5 T3 models with a 5+ save.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Command squads are not supposed to be 10 strong, it's very unfluffy and doesn't feel like a command squad anymore.
"I'm the lieutenant and that's my medic, that's my vox operator, that's my banner bearer, that's my weapons specialist and those five guys over there? They are the extra ablative armour."
Besides, GW is bringing out plastic five man command squads for both Cadians and Catachans.
5022
Post by: livingregret
Wait what's wrong w/ 10 man squad commands? If you look at the fluff...Commanders are normally no where near battle. They lead from WAY in the back where they have no chance of coming under fire, and even if they do come under fire they are normally in some sort of battle HQ area. Why wouldn't they move around w/ "veteran advisors" or some other title to bump em up? I also understand that will not happen.....having said that I feel that the current way KP effect IG, they are such a huge liability to give up KP quick.
Would it be horribly wrong if you have to kill the command squad to get KP and the regular units, which are normally seen as throw away units that die in the millions anyways, not be worth any KP? Just asking.
No one can say it isn't fluff that regular infantry squads shouldn't be worth KP. IG literally die by the 100's of 1000's all day along and no commander(except a few) even care. There's always more Guards for the grind....
168
Post by: foil7102
What I heard.
Guard platoons will be worth 1 kp.
This will be balaced by the fact that the guards new special rules only work on squads in the same platoon. IE guardsmen can only shoot through squads in the same platoon with out granting cover saves. Platoon comanders must be in range of their squads to grant that squad the ability to fire while going to ground. Basically the closer you keep your sqauds together the more powerful they become... However as with most of the stuff you see on the interweb please take with a grain of salt
9111
Post by: mlund
Janthkin wrote:We chatted about things like this back a few pages. The problem is that you can't defend or protect 5 T3 models with a 5+ save.
True, but as I've noted, you can protect 10 T3 models with a 4+ cover save thanks to having 2-5 other 10-man squads acting as screens that cost 40-50 points each. Having the option to take a Command Squad Chimera helps too.
At least, you can protect them about as well as you can protect any 10-man squad that's worth 1 Kill Point.
Further, I don't see anything "unfluffy" about Officers having, you know, guards. You don't have to take a Vox operator, medic, or anything else. A Command Squad, at its core, was 1 Officer and 4 Guardsmen. 1 Officer and 9 Guardsmen makes just as much sense to me.
Meanwhile the "5 man Command Squad box" doesn't present a compelling argument to me. That's the upper limit of specialist units you can fit into a Command Squad and the minimum number of models. It should not automatically present an upper limit to the number of models in the Squad.
Those Vostroyan models look pretty awesome. When did they come out, anyway? Are they Direct Order only? I haven't seen them at my local store.
- Marty Lund
5022
Post by: livingregret
WARNING SHAMELESS PLUG.....
I posted a 1k army list in the Army list section if any IG commanders wouldn't mind commenting on it.
W/ that out of the way...anyone know what the recuts of the Sentinels are suppose to have in it? I am assuming that I can just use a plastic kit to make the different variations
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
mlund wrote:Those Vostroyan models look pretty awesome. When did they come out, anyway? Are they Direct Order only? I haven't seen them at my local store.
- Marty Lund
The Vostroyan models are indeed totally awesome. Very John Blanche. They were released in 2006 in conjunction with the Medusa V global campaign. They are indeed now Direct Only.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Bell of Lost Souls wrote:IG Codex $25
IG Primaris Psyker $15
IG Ratling Snipers $20
IG Sentinel $25
IG Cadian Command Squad $25
IG Catachan Command Squad $25
IG Valkyrie $50
IG Cadian Shock Troops $22
IG Catachan Jungle Fighters $22
And there we go!
Plastic Valkyrie is confirmed at $50 for the kit, part of the initial release.
And possibly more...
Woo-hoo!
Now, please, let there be three-fer splash release on the Valkyrie & Sentinel! Yes!
9667
Post by: Lord Castellan Mik
Have you seen the WarSeer update from BigBadBull on the Shadowsword boxed kit
Pics and info
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
It would be cool if the guard had something like the mob rule that allowes them to increase leadership within the platoon.
Like getting 1 ld bonus for every squad of the same platoon within 12' to a max of 10 or something similar.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Lord Castellan Mik wrote:Have you seen the WarSeer update from BigBadBull on the Shadowsword boxed kit
Pics and info
Yes indeed.
Regarde :
1
7375
Post by: BrookM
Hurrah, the Stormlord in plastic.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
I see GW's proofreading department is as hard-working as usual.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And the Volcano Cannon is apparently the biggest weapon the Imperium has...
BYE
7375
Post by: BrookM
Either I smell retardism, a sales pitch or another one of those retcons.
Probably all three..
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Anyone know is the $22 Catachan box (I assume 10 man) a resculpt or just a recut with more special weapons?
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
Nice. Primaris Psykers are back! Hopefully, they can do something...and not the weak ass crap of a sanctioned psyker.
Capt K
7375
Post by: BrookM
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Anyone know is the $22 Catachan box (I assume 10 man) a resculpt or just a recut with more special weapons?
Most likely a recut of the original sprues into a smaller boxed set with a heavy weapons set.
171
Post by: Lorek
Edited title to reflect new rumor addition.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Actually, I wouldn't count on a full selection of Heavy Weapons. I'd bet on just getting a single man-carried weapon, consistent with the Tactical SM ML and Chaos Marine HB. So the IG box should have:
- Flamer
- Plasma
- Melta
- GL
- ML
This forces players to still buy HWS boxes for the extra gun options, just like the SM Devs and CSM Havocs.
If we're lucky, the included weapon is semi-useful ML. If GW is on the variety kick, maybe the Guard get the Mortar...
273
Post by: Foda_Bett
Isn't it odd that they reference Tyrand creatures in the Stompa fluff? Maybe its a hint of things to come...
DD - I think it'd be easier for GW to just throw the plastic heavy weapon sprue in the box. How many cadians are on each sprue right now?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
H.B.M.C. wrote:And the Volcano Cannon is apparently the biggest weapon the Imperium has...
BYE
Biggest Primary Weapon it says, which would suggest a class between Heavy Weapons, Artillery, Tank mounted Weapons (Battle Cannon) and the much larger Titan and Starship Weapons.
Sounds about accurate to me.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
I'd rather have them have Autocannons vs. the ML. ML suck for IG.
Capt K
2776
Post by: Reecius
Oooooh nelly,this is looking good. And that Stormlord is tits! I was going to but a Macharius but i think i would just rather get the stormlord.
And I agree, the primairs sounds tasty, hopefully they give him powers to match the old title!
I am very excited for the new IG, even more than I was before!
5022
Post by: livingregret
Bell of Lost Souls wrote:IG Codex $25
IG Primaris Psyker $15
IG Ratling Snipers $20
IG Sentinel $25
IG Cadian Command Squad $25
IG Valkyrie $50
IG Cadian Shock Troops $22
Hmmm...this is the stuff I'm interested in hearing. I am assuming that Ratlings are Pewter, as is the Psyker of course. Like others have said the Sentinel is most likely a recut that allows you to give yourself the armoured compartment via plastic(and saving $5 hopefully) Command squad...guess I'll wait to buy one noe Valkyrie...vehicle...plastic...yippie! And recut Shock troops now only give you 10 per box w/ some sort of extra weapon/bits....sooo time to start buying the IG now so I don't have to get em 10 at a time! Shadowsword sounds gravy but I don't really like APOC sooooo that's a shame :(
7116
Post by: Belphegor
M0TH#RDUCK3R!
Confirmation that ratling snipers are still around!
I hate ratilings. Why couldn't they get eaten with the squats.
(hate hate hate)
they better have boots...
and if they're plastic they're getting piked on my Word Bearer Dreadnoughts to further show my disgust
(since a ratling model never deserve to hit the table outside of Mordheim)
10101
Post by: kharndude
Hey ratlings are the bomb. i almost took out a whole squad with them. dont dis the space hobbits man.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Ratlings will adorn my marines bases. I hate space hobbits.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
I love space hobbits!
Actually, i totally don't care, but I felt I should continue the "Do not!" "Do too!" nature of this thread.
10694
Post by: jamunition
yay new ig
5344
Post by: Shep
Thank goodness for some nice tangible news about IG.
I was looking at other recent releases, and it seems that there are two weeks of releases per wave, with the second week being a smaller batch. If this is the 'may 2nd' release, then there is probably a may 16th release with less stuff in it.
Given what we know or are pretty sure of, what is coming out in the next week's releases?
I keep hearing a recut leman russ. But I don't remember ever seeing any kind of confirmation on this.
How about that commissar lord we saw a while back?
A new special character?
Another 5/6 model metal box like ratlings?
Any other plastic kits that were rumored? Are we forgetting about something? I seem to recall that the stormtroopers in plastic weren't going to make it into this wave. Something else? Maybe the hellhound/griffon?
As far as all that is rumored. I'm way more interested in rules rumors, because like 90% of active guard players, I'm neck deep in the models i need to play.
ratlings. I bet they'll look cool. I'm really hoping both abhuman units will be competitive. I could have given or taken both ratlings and ogryns, but since they are choosing to stay with both units, I'm hoping we can see them be really useful. I'm sure we will.
new plastic command squads. I'm happy for the plastic guard players. I've got enough vostroyan command squads to not be jealous.
repackaged infantry squads. could be 8 and a weapons team... but also realize that it could be 10 with a special weapon only. Until we get a confirmation on what's in it, we won't have any insight into the squad structure. If I recall there were 5 guardsmen to sprue, so a non-recut repackage would be 10 foot guardsmen. A simple recut could change that... but that would count against our 'new plastics'
primaris psyker. I've only been playing for 7 years. But by the reaction this guy's name is getting, he was some kind of bad-ass. I'd love a fear inducing, complaint inspiring, power character. Maybe this is one.
Valkyrie... sure, I'm on board. Its a smart way to balance guard and make them competitive without going to the insane shoot you off the table power level. Not really 'in character' but, guard looks to be getting a little modernization. I'm not a reactionary, so I'll adapt.
Sentinels. What was that rumor about support sentinels? Maybe that is a wave 2 thing. At this price point I'm guessing we get the 4 guns, a chainsaw, a catachan driver and hopefully a resculpted cadian driver, that'd be worth using some of our 'new plastic allotment'. Even though i wouldn't use it. Throw a closed top in there too.
Those release schedule came just in time. I thought I was going to go a little crazy without any confirmed rumors. GW needs to loosen the reins on the rumor mill a little bit. I'd kill for a test codex
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I've always seen Guard in 40k as the elite, Gaunts ghosts type engagement. There aren't enough to be the normal, regiment sized battles we read about. For this reason, having things like Valkyries makes sense as they would be available to a small strike team like force.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
5344
Post by: Shep
Ozymandias wrote:I've always seen Guard in 40k as the elite, Gaunts ghosts type engagement. There aren't enough to be the normal, regiment sized battles we read about. For this reason, having things like Valkyries makes sense as they would be available to a small strike team like force.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
And GW is clearly seeing them the same way.
It's a heroic 28mm scale game, with every model being 10 feet tall. There is little to no realism to speak of. So, sure, lets just have the guard army be a group of supermen too. Just with a lower armor save...
I'm not being sarcastic... I'm kind of excited to see them demand some respect, instead of just being faceless fodder.
But I do lament the more fatalistic, 'dig a hole and die in it' WWI esque feel. It made guard a bit different from everything else.
You just can't balance a table top game with a pure gunline. Its either all shooting phase, with one guy bitterly scooping up handfuls of models, or it is the assault phase vacuum cleaner, that tables the gunline after their unsuccessful bid to eradicate the other army.
Lets see some rules GW!
5022
Post by: livingregret
Well we either need to be beefed up in terms of what our models do, representing elite hit units, or need to have a HUGE Point drop across the board for our subpar stats and truly show everyone what a Horde army is. 4pt Guardsmen...tops. 4 points if we are going horde......TOPS I SAY!!!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Shep: GW knows there's a *ton* of interest in Guard - that's why the keep stoking the fires, bit by bit, month after month.
I'd say we're about 2 months away from the Codex leaks hitting the ground, and can't wait to see them.
I don't know what's in the rest of Wave 1, but assume that plastic Storms will be in it to go with the Valk. Along with yet another redone Commissar. Or two.
I don't hugely care about the rest, as I'm just mired in Guard as it is (see my IG project in the P&M Blog). The announced Codex, Valk, and Sentinels will be just fine for me this year, and I'd hate to blow my entire annual hobby budget on IG...
Primaris Psyker used to be badass, but he got nerfed hugely down to the current crappy Sanctioned Psyker. Right now, if you want a "proper" Primaris Psyker, you're better taking an Elite WH / DH Inquisitor "counts as". I'm hoping the Codex gives us something essentially similar.
I think the FW Valk is a bit large, so the plastic one could stand to be ensmallened by 5-10% for play purposes. It'd still be cool.
Per your question on Sentinels, I'm expecting closed top to be an option, along with Multi-Laser, Heavy Flamer, Lascannon, and Autocannon. That would leave Multi-Melta, Plasma Cannon, (classic) Assault Cannon, and Rocket Pod as the alternate "support" sprue, probably with Grav Chute.
Recut Leman Russ wouldn't hold any interest for me, as the design is horrible and needs to be redone in toto. A big, bulky, Land-Raider-sized Russ would be interesting, and I might actually buy some. I'm hoping that this and the Hellhound are Wave 2, along with the Griffon. That makes for a well-themed "Armored Company" Wave 2.
5344
Post by: Shep
livingregret wrote: Well we either need to be beefed up in terms of what our models do, representing elite hit units, or need to have a HUGE Point drop across the board for our subpar stats and truly show everyone what a Horde army is. 4pt Guardsmen...tops. 4 points if we are going horde......TOPS I SAY!!!
i think we are a lot more likely to see an emphasis on elites and heavy support.
Troops seem to be universally designed as "we don't die easily" objective scorers these days. There are more aggressive troops being designed, and people tend to use them as mini-elites to try and get massacres on capture and control missions, but mostly, they are just stationary, survivable units.
I'm willing to bet competitive guard armies will have a focus on either stormtroopers/valkyries, abhuman spam, or leman russ spam. With troop platoons and armored fist squads having the honor of "don't die and stand here please". Guard are going to be elite... Just like Ozy is saying.
5022
Post by: livingregret
Shep wrote:
Troops seem to be universally designed as "we don't die easily" objective scorers these days. There are more aggressive troops being designed, and people tend to use them as mini-elites to try and get massacres on capture and control missions, but mostly, they are just stationary, survivable units.
I'm willing to bet competitive guard armies will have a focus on either stormtroopers/valkyries, abhuman spam, or leman russ spam. With troop platoons and armored fist squads having the honor of "don't die and stand here please". Guard are going to be elite... Just like Ozy is saying.
I agree, we will not be going the Horde route. We will be forced to rely on our Elites/Heavy choices to win our games. One of the problem facing guard is quite simple....we do die easily. To everything. As much as many of my local Marine players lament there bolters they seem to forget that it ignores a lot of basic troops armour saves. We get cut down very easily and are forced to rely on cover saves(5th ed)from screening ourselves to have a chance to live against anything stronger than a slight breeze. I would hope that we can be a viable army w/ out relying on something as annoying as Leman Russ spam but who knows. W/ out a radical point drop on Infantry squads we will have to rely on our non troops to win us
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Before we all start waving any white flags, let's see what the Codex actually does...
2700
Post by: dietrich
Based on recent codexes, there will be 1-2 power spam builds and a bunch of 'gee, that's nice, but too many points' with troops that aren't real killy, but can be big or survivable (sometimes, both).
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
What are the power spam builds from the space marine book. I have yet to see a single power build at all from the book that is anything more than a flash in the pan idea that fails to win tournament games then disappears.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Cadian sprues will need to be completely recut if our geniuses are correct in assuming that a heavy weapon team will be in it as well. Currently each Cadian sprue holds enough parts for five men. Catachans same thing if I remember correctly, though it has been over a decade since I last messed around with one of those kits.
One thing that does sort of surprise me is the lack of special characters for this initial release. I would expect at least one or two named characters to be included with the first release of the codex. Maybe next year then.
4924
Post by: LordClammy
cadian sprue holds 4 cadians, not 5. 2 of those, and a heavy weapon sprue gets you your 10 man unit.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Five.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
ShumaGorath wrote:What are the power spam builds from the space marine book.
I'm guessing it's supposed to be 10-man Tactical Squads with Transport? There doesn't seem to be anything else that's competitive in there...
10089
Post by: Exile
Since the current sprues hold five basic cadians, what would be nice is to keep two of those and toss a HW sprue in as well. That way, if we want a HW team in the squad we can have one, if we don't, we've got ten men in the box. It works well for GW as they don't need to recut anything. Winners all round!
I doubt that'll be how they do it, though. Why let people buy one box when you can have them buy two? Even if it costs them more in the short term to recut the sprues, they'll more than make it back over the next few years.
5344
Post by: Shep
Like I mentioned before, we don't even know if infantry squads will have heavy weapons options. There is nothing that proves or disproves that infantry squads will remain "tactical squad clones"
Here are the options.
1. the new box is a repackage. It comes with 10 guardsmen with an option for a grenade launcher, flamer, vox-caster, and sergeant arms
2. the new box is a recut. The infantry squad follows the same options as before, and we get 8 guardsmen with an option for a grenade launcher, flamer, vox-caster, and sargeant arms plus the two small frames for a single heavy weapon team.
3. the new box is a recut. It includes options for the new infantry squad, options that are new and different.
If option 1. it is quite possible that heavy weapons won't be available to infantry squads.
If option 3. Maybe infantry squads will move to a 'double special weapon' rig.
I'd probably put my money down on option 2. But I wouldn't bet a lot. Unlike space marines that have pages and pages of background describing the weapons fit of tactical, devastator, assault and terminator units, IG isn't hampered by so much detail.
If they split their heavy weapons and their special weapons into support units and infantry units, it doesn't invalidate the gaunts ghost series or any of the Imperial Infantryman's primers.
Its highly unlikely that the command squad is going to include a heavy weapons team. Which, if you follow their packaging pattern lately, is likely to mean that command squads aren't going to have heavy weapons options... (they generally aren't putting options for units in the rulebook if they can't fit the option into the plastic kit.) then the idea of a support unit, consisting of 3 heavy weapons teams, becomes a lot more plausible.
Now I'm just delving into deep speculation. I would like to see the 'imitation tactical squad' format go away for guard. infantry squads aren't tactical or self sufficient, they should use outside support for firepower. the platoon itself should emulate the tactical squad, but should be split by squads based on their role.
How about you guys? Do you like one heavy one special? Or would you rather move to a 2 special format?
7375
Post by: BrookM
Well, Guard is known for the inflexible structure of its platoons and units. Plus that turd Guilleman wrote a thing or two on how the Imperial Army should go to war.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I expect that the new 10-man Cadian / Catachan boxes will be new sprues reshuffling already-designed parts around:
- 10 legs & torsos
- 12 heads (1 shouting Sergeant)
- 10 pairs Lasgun arms
- LP&CCW arms
- Flamer, Melta, Plasma, GL bitz (various configs)
- ML & loader bitz and arms
- Vox bitz
- pouches & other bitz
This should all fit on a single full-sized sprue, breaking to fit 1 per squad box.
1656
Post by: smart_alex
I think they should get assault cannons and the closed top upgrade reduced to 5 points.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Twin Linked Assault Cannons on a Sentinal would look really freaking cool methinks. Like one on each side. That would totally kick ass.
10123
Post by: BoxANT
Screw Assault Cannons, that donkey cannon is way overpriced now (read: SM codex).
Give me Sentinels with Multimeltas and PlasmaCannnos
And give me 20 point Sentinels with multilasers
2776
Post by: Reecius
I would like to see them do other things, like being able to site a target, letting an ordnance barrage reroll the scatter dice, stuff like that.
Guard have plenty of things that shoot, some units that alter tactics would be appreciated at least by me.
That said though, it would be cool to have the rocket pod sentinals similar to what forge world did, where they can fire indirectly.
9765
Post by: Illeix
Ya know, 2 special weapons a squad would be cool, as long as stubbers are allowed.
2401
Post by: Recklessfable
10 man box set for a squad. That kinda scares me. What if the solution to platoon killpoint problems is one squad per FOC slot... They can't... can they?
An army based on the platoon, rather than the Company?... naw... /gulp
<Cold sweat while the terror passes>
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Reckless - I could deal with it, as long as Tanks were Squadronable...
7375
Post by: BrookM
Platoons will stay for obvious reasons.
A recut of the current Cadian and Catachan sprues might not be such a bad idea, they did the same with the Ork Boy sprues and look at how well those turned out. A recut infantry squad sprue might yield more bits, more variety in heads, the addition of dare I say the plasma gun and meltagun, maybe some kneeling legs as a standard.
Here's hoping they fix those crappy Catachan arms while they're at it.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Recklessfable wrote:10 man box set for a squad. That kinda scares me. What if the solution to platoon killpoint problems is one squad per FOC slot... They can't... can they?
I almost wish they would. At the moment, my minimum Troops allotment costs ca. 400 points, which is a lot of points to pay for useless footslogging infantry with inaccurate heavy weapons
1639
Post by: Flagg07
Heavy weapons have been the bread and butter of IG since their 1st published army list in RT. I'll eat 2 dishes of crow if GW changes that with the next codex.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Oh come on now ladies! You might as well assume that the Reds will be parachuting into your back yard this very moment.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
BrookM wrote:Oh come on now ladies! You might as well assume that the Reds will be parachuting into your back yard this very moment.
Crap! I gotta get home!
Really though, I would rather like to see guard get a 2 special/ 1 special + 1 heavy option. Sort of like SoB Celestians, only instead of the full range of heavy weapons, they could have access to the less specialized types, like ML, HB, HStubber and the like. If you could then add a "heavy weapons squad" to your platoons that then had 3 teams with HB, LC, AC and that sort of stuff, that could be really cool.
I think that would make it easier to fit certain squads to a certain purpose, instead of being a little bit of everything like Marines.
168
Post by: foil7102
Woah, the rumors I have been hearing make me think of some combos that could be cool to pull off.
x = grunt c= command sqad h = heavy weapon squad
xxxxxxxxxx - gone to ground
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
hhhhhhccccc
If the can still shoot while going to ground and the whole can shout through squads with out granting cover saves is true than you can make some seriously hard to peal through formations...... gots me to thinking
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Valkryie...all I have to say is "Happy Birthday to me..."
Codex comes out about a month before my birthday...jeez this is pretty exciting actually.
Primaris Psykers...I've always loved Psykers even though my LatD army worships Khorne. Of course nowadays I suppose that it wouldn't be too unfluffy to say that my army uses the Psykers and then kills them. 
1478
Post by: warboss
foil7102 wrote:Woah, the rumors I have been hearing make me think of some combos that could be cool to pull off.
x = grunt c= command sqad h = heavy weapon squad
xxxxxxxxxx - gone to ground
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
hhhhhhccccc
If the can still shoot while going to ground and the whole can shout through squads with out granting cover saves is true than you can make some seriously hard to peal through formations...... gots me to thinking
on the off chance that one squad does make it through (via special rules or just luck like having their transport right in front of your mass destroyed last in the shooting phase), then they would be able to assault and tie up almost your entire platoon. i'd stick one squad with their heavy a little in front.
i haven't seen anyone talk about it here but there was talk a few days ago on warseer's IG rumor thread about ogryns getting a huge boost. namely, a T5 and FNP kinda boost. no points cost were listed and no source was listed. personally, that might be too much ask for. i'll be happy with just T5 and a similar power (offensive not defensive like lances every first round of combat) boost to rough riders.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Yeah on Warseer, (take with salt) apparently Ogryns are going to be T5, have a 4+ save, and FNP.
If this is true (and Ogryns are well costed) expect to see a lot of Ogryn heavy armies!
Definitely an Ork's bane.
168
Post by: foil7102
Vlad Well arn't ogryns supposed to be ork bane in the fluff?
Also warboss, why do you think I would leave my flanks open like that? I don't think that you would have any problems hunkering down in a corner with a couple of platoons. If you can only rip through one layer a turn, well you just might have a surviable firebase while your heavy's, specials, fast attack do the whole manuver and capture thing.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
It will be nice to see an immobile firebase with a high population of ablative models enter the metagame. All the firing line armies right now are low model count and very vulnerable to assault. It will certainly make tactics like drop melta and nob biking a lot less viable when there is simply no where to maneuver too.
If I ever start a guard army the ratlings will just be human children.
2776
Post by: Reecius
If Ogryns get tough 5 and FNP but only two wouns that is cool, if they are rocking with 3 wounds, then holy gak, that it is pretty uber. If you can take them as troops whith a full squad, then I will be rocking some Ogryns fo sho.
I can't wait for this codex.
5022
Post by: livingregret
ShumaGorath wrote:It will be nice to see an immobile firebase with a high population of ablative models enter the metagame. All the firing line armies right now are low model count and very vulnerable to assault. It will certainly make tactics like drop melta and nob biking a lot less viable when there is simply no where to maneuver too.
This is what I am hoping for. I hope for a lower point cost and some of the abilities already suggested, Example would be a JO being w/ in 12" allowing units to shoot through one another w/ out giving cover saves to the enemy, to bring Guard back to an horde army w/ strong firepower but NOT having to run a million tanks to achieve that. I like tanks enough but tank spam isn't what I think about when I think guard. I expect our Elites to be made better than what they are and wouldn't even be surprised to see tanks be taken in squads.....BUT I still hope that troop heavy is not only viable but supported
7375
Post by: BrookM
In regard to the JO granting the ability for friendly platoon squads to ignore each other when shooting: congrats you've just described the much rumoured and hinted at "Platoon Drill" special rule of the new codex.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
But only within range/Vox of the JO? That's sweet. Really opens up the board.
5022
Post by: livingregret
I'm fine w/ board not being opened up more lol. Lets me use my non mech units as objective holders/fire support while Armoured fist squad, supported by tanks, form the hammer to break into my enemies zone
7375
Post by: BrookM
Scottywan82 wrote:But only within range/Vox of the JO? That's sweet. Really opens up the board.
Only when in the 12" command bubble of the officer in question. Which could be seen as a ploy for people to get more platoons and more men, especially when paired with a 2 point reduction in the basic guardsman and the removal of both the conscript platoon and AF squad.
On the other hand thanks to the current scatter rules bunching models together isn't exactly a good idea, especially for T3 men in flak.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Actually being HOT AT isn't really good for T3 men in flak. They tend to become T3 paste with flak.
168
Post by: foil7102
Heck no, I am thinking 2 inch spacing, all around. Two platoons can go up to 60 inches long. Have the front squad go to ground, and everyone else gets a 4+ invulerable.
7375
Post by: BrookM
That could work yes, several thin lines of flak hunkering down behind cover and one another. Not my personal style but it is something that would work, assuming of course that the Platoon Drill rule will be in the final product.
5022
Post by: livingregret
Just curious BrookM....mainly because I haven't seen a lot of rumors, but why do you think AF squad is going away? Do you really think they will kill the Mech IG army that has been around for so long? Or do you think a special character(hardie har GW...more Special characters to change army comp instead of variety in the army codex itself)to take AF squads galore?
7375
Post by: BrookM
Several rumours have pointed at the drop of the AF squad, instead the cheaper guardsman is supposed to make up for this loss along with mutable platoons. However, caveats emptor as they say. AF squads could still be around in the latest version. Same for Hardened Veterans and Techpriest Enginseers. The Primaris Psyker has been confirmed, so miracles aren't out of the way yet, maybe GW has wizened up and decided to implement my suggested Page 3 pin-up morale boosting squad after all.
I do find it kind of odd that no new rumours have surfaced on the Guard as of yet, when marines were in the air boards were brimming with peeks at the upcoming rules, characters and whatnots, with the Guard it's all a bit quiet isn't it?
1406
Post by: Janthkin
livingregret wrote: Just curious BrookM....mainly because I haven't seen a lot of rumors, but why do you think AF squad is going away? Do you really think they will kill the Mech IG army that has been around for so long? Or do you think a special character(hardie har GW...more Special characters to change army comp instead of variety in the army codex itself)to take AF squads galore?
The assumption has been No Armored Fist troops choice, but you can mechanize by platoon, if you want. I seriously hope it to be a mistaken assumption, as running a fully-mechanized force with no AF squads would involve a minimum of 7 Chimerae. Revised point costs on both infantry & vehicles may make that viable; dollar-wise, it gets pricey quick.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Aye, anything can happen. Though the die-hards should be grinning from ear to ear if the proposed cost of the infantry squad drops to 40 points and the Chimera drops to 55 points including multi-laser, heavy bolter, light and smoke launchers.
Maybe hardened veterans and storm troopers will also get a tweak in their cost. Wistful thinking I know but still..
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Yes, but plasma will go to +25, and lascannons to +40. *sigh*
7375
Post by: BrookM
Ah yes, the much dreaded balancing. Equilibrium must be maintained and zero progress be made in the end.
5022
Post by: livingregret
Janthkin wrote:
The assumption has been No Armored Fist troops choice, but you can mechanize by platoon, if you want.
I seriously hope it to be a mistaken assumption, as running a fully-mechanized force with no AF squads would involve a minimum of 7 Chimerae. Revised point costs on both infantry & vehicles may make that viable; dollar-wise, it gets pricey quick.
You can do less than that. If the platoons stay how they are right now you can get away w/ 3 Chimera Armoured Fist Squads. And I hope that the prices do drop like they are rumored.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
livingregret wrote:Janthkin wrote:
The assumption has been No Armored Fist troops choice, but you can mechanize by platoon, if you want.
I seriously hope it to be a mistaken assumption, as running a fully-mechanized force with no AF squads would involve a minimum of 7 Chimerae. Revised point costs on both infantry & vehicles may make that viable; dollar-wise, it gets pricey quick.
You can do less than that. If the platoons stay how they are right now you can get away w/ 3 Chimera Armoured Fist Squads. And I hope that the prices do drop like they are rumored.
If platoons stay as they are, and you have to fully mechanize a platoon, you need 3 Chimerae PER platoon, minimum 2 platoons (2 Troops choices), plus a Chimera for the HQ squad. That's 7. Under current rules, where you are allowed one AF squad per platoon, you can field a fully-mechanized Guard army, starting at 5 Chimerae (3 for the platoon, 1 for the AF, 1 for the CHQ).
5022
Post by: livingregret
Ahhh true, I was implying only 1 Platoon was Mechanized while the other would be footslogging. But yes...Full mechanized would be 7 minimum
2401
Post by: Recklessfable
Vladsimpaler wrote:Yeah on Warseer, (take with salt) apparently Ogryns are going to be T5, have a 4+ save, and FNP.
I (or any number of other folks) might have started that rumor when I (we) said it was the only way to make them a viable counter assault option... except for the save. I only said T5, FNP. :p
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
The question is what happens with Conscripts / Grenadiers in the next book. Hopefully, they stay on as alternatives to give some flexibility to the points costs.
5022
Post by: livingregret
I 2nd wanting Conscripts to stay(Hopefully even cheaper if Guardsmen go down to 4pts!!) I love my Conscripts....nice big unit to die horribly. I love em.....tarpit unit(sorta), walking cover save, and it's not easy to kill 30-40 of em in 1 go
9910
Post by: CommissarKhaine
livingregret wrote: I 2nd wanting Conscripts to stay(Hopefully even cheaper if Guardsmen go down to 4pts!!) I love my Conscripts....nice big unit to die horribly. I love em.....tarpit unit(sorta), walking cover save, and it's not easy to kill 30-40 of em in 1 go
Not to mention the whole KP thing... I'm happy guard are getting a new codex, but if they hadn't I think 30-50 strong conscript squads would've been good for the whole KP problem. Right now, i'm just painting basic stuff till I hear some more rumours.
Primaris psyker is making me curious, I have to admit. I remember them from 2nd ed. , and I've always love the background.
1656
Post by: smart_alex
Vladsimpaler wrote:Yeah on Warseer, (take with salt) apparently Ogryns are going to be T5, have a 4+ save, and FNP.
If this is true (and Ogryns are well costed) expect to see a lot of Ogryn heavy armies!
Definitely an Ork's bane.
HELL FREAKIN' YEAH FINALLY!!! IF this is true Ogryn might actually be the bad asses they are supossed to be. THERE IS NOTHING BADASS about IG as it is. THis is totally cool. THey new models rock. AND most important of all they are expensive. IF GW want to make a good business decision. THey will give us a reason to buy expensive blisters of only 4/5? different models. That is NOT i repeat NOT overpowered. It fits with the fluff. Thank the emperor. I CANNOT WAIT> I was expecting an October release. Now I hear early as March or May. WOOT! Remember they are 25 pt models and elites. The idea is elites should all be slightly overpowered. I love the fluff of ogryn and ratlings. It shows that IG are still the good guys as they fight with other races and hence are open and tolerant. But as it is now. The races they would work with suck. The multi racial fluff was what made me be an IG player when I first started. But they other races just sucked so bad. I cannot wait.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
If IG get my wishlist config of T5 Sv4+ FNP Ogryns at a semi-reasonable price, that'll be very cool.
But, yeowch, those are models expensive!
I'm not sure I'd buy them, maybe convert something up instead?
|
|
+ 
= 
