No I guess I still counted it as 2 models. Like if I were to ave 10 wounds to save, I'd roll the 10 dice and if the HW guy took a wound I'd remove his buddy instead.

So, if you have a squad of 3 teams and someone shoots a melta gun at you, you gotta take off a whole base even though it's assault 1? But if all 3 get splashed with a flamer, they roll for 3 wounds, not 6? Then if all 3 are wounded do you end up with 3 models with 1 wound, or 2 models and 1 have 1 wound left?

Necros wrote:No I guess I still counted it as 2 models. Like if I were to ave 10 wounds to save, I'd roll the 10 dice and if the HW guy took a wound I'd remove his buddy instead.

So, if you have a squad of 3 teams and someone shoots a melta gun at you, you gotta take off a whole base even though it's assault 1? But if all 3 get splashed with a flamer, they roll for 3 wounds, not 6? Then if all 3 are wounded do you end up with 3 models with 1 wound, or 2 models and 1 have 1 wound left?

This my friend is why they never should have put the weapon teams on one base to start with .

They might do something silly like give them eternal warrior and vulnerable to blasts. The actual unit rules aren't known yet.

Another oddity: When charging, a heavy weapon team will get three attacks instead four. This doesn't bother me much.

Some people might be tempted to mix heavy weapons in an attempt to use wound allocation to retain some of the old survivability. I do not plan to do so.

Necros wrote:No I guess I still counted it as 2 models. Like if I were to have 10 wounds to save, I'd roll the 10 dice and if the HW guy took a wound I'd remove his buddy instead.

So, if you have a squad of 3 teams and someone shoots a melta gun at you, you gotta take off a whole base even though it's assault 1? But if all 3 get splashed with a flamer, they roll for 3 wounds, not 6? Then if all 3 are wounded do you end up with 3 models with 1 wound, or 2 models and 1 have 1 wound left?

It will be HW-team = 1 model, 2 wounds.
Heard it before, got it confirmed and now its in tHe reference-sheet.

Unfunny vs ID attacks. But arent guardsmen always doomed?

Woah, hang on.

What about the people who field their missile launcher teams on two 28mm bases?

BrookM wrote:Woah, hang on.

What about the people who field their missile launcher teams on two 28mm bases?

Looks like you better put them on a large base (my ML are on small bases as well).

Yes, turning two 1 wound models into one 2 wound models has its draw backs (S6 will kill them outright, might loose a lasgun shot), but I think we will live.

Of course, there may be a special rule of some sort that says when the HW team has two wounds it can fire a lasgun and the HW, or when moving can fire two lasguns. We do not know yet.

I am magneting them on one base if it comes to that, but the are not getting glued as such.

And also, this will seriously make me re-think even HAVING HWs in my IG army. I can make do with more tanks, right? Right???

Isn't the last weapon team plastic kit already 2 men at 1 base?

So every 2x28mm owner can go for sets of bigger bases then?

I can see why support squads can be attached to platoons all of the sudden.

Wow HW squads being one model? That's purely stupid. On so many levels. I don't think one single person was confused about how the "2 models 1 base" thing worked, why change it? Ugh.

Ah well, just means more tanks in the end, which is more scary...

I have tediously cut so many guys off of large bases due to the superiority of 2 small. I don't like this at all. and 2 wounds means that they will take priority fire if they get wounded as well. 50% casulties? slightly less casulties! and losing the 2nd lasgun shot just adds insult to injury

We don't technically KNOW that we lose the lasgun shot... Though it is likely. Maybe this is the big nerf! Honestly, on the whole that's not bad.

So from now on our squads will be either ten or nine strong..?

BrookM wrote:So from now on our squads will be either ten or nine strong..?

Or the infantry squad loses the HWT-option and all HWT are gathered in HWT-squads.

That would ALSO suck.

Honestly I think GW should have just said that the HW teams must maintain coherancy within the squad and been done with it.

Centurion.

It makes sense. Loaders rarely have time to fire their own weapon, as they have to spot/ look out for weapon jams, watch for overheating.... etc. Also, gunners and loaders are normally right next to eachother..... 2" in game turns is about 6 feet/yards? Imagine a loader trying to load a gun from 6 feet/yards? away? Doesn't happen. Also, when two men are right next to eachother like this.... it's a lot easier to kill them both with one shot.... so something like a lascannon, that vaporizes terminator armor.... would have little problem going through two guardsmen standing side by side. As far as only 3 attacks go on the charge..... I doubt the gunner, holding a heavy weapon such as a lascannon, would be very good swinging the thing around in a fist fight. Also... ever tried to knife fight after firing off a heavy machine gun? Needless to say even if they dropped the lascannon/ heavy bolter and pulled out their bayonette. they're more likely to drop the bayonette as well than do any real damage with it. Does it suck in game terms? Yes. Is it more realistic? Yes

Unfortunatly, when you play the only army in the game that has any basis in reality, your gameplay suffers from it

Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Hey, that's good idea!

Kill me please.

AlexCage wrote:Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Isn't that what they have been in the past editions anyway? A giant 10 wound lascannon with eternal warrior and vulnrable to templates? Heck, a lot of people have even been mounting them on one base as a movement tray.

Heck, I'd be happier if they got rid of the lascannons and replaced them in the fluff with "All of the guardsmen in the unit cross the beams of their lasguns"...... I might just hafta do that myself.... and make all my cadians have little ghosts crossed out on their shoulders.

while i don't like it from a pain in the butt modelling perspective, i do like it from a fluff perspective. it shows that although the IG field many of the same weapons as SM chapters, their status as non-'roided supermen requires a change in how they do it (requires two regular humans constantly working together instead of one high tech spacemarine). i always liked that the metal cadian special weapon guys had to hook up their weapons to a backpack and the marines didn't (you could assume that it was hooked up to the power armor instead) as it followed the same premise. i don't understand why they would change the heavy weapons to fit that but then add the special weapons without backpacks to the command sprue. i'm fine ultimately either way; i just wish they were consistent.

I'm not really planning to run HW teams in my regular squads anyway, I stopped doing that a little while ago, makes it easier to have the troops more mobile for objective capturing and then you don't have to worry about giving up a lascannon shot, so I started making my HW teams be in HQ anti-tank squads and it's worked a lot better for me. So that's how I'll continue to do it, and I'll take all those extra special weapons that my drop troop vets were using and just make special weapon squads for the regular platoons.

Necros wrote:So, if you have a squad of 3 teams and someone shoots a melta gun at you, you gotta take off a whole base even though it's assault 1? But if all 3 get splashed with a flamer, they roll for 3 wounds, not 6? Then if all 3 are wounded do you end up with 3 models with 1 wound, or 2 models and 1 have 1 wound left?

Yes & Yes. 2 models (1 w/ 1 wound). slowed.

If they get fanned by an enemy Exterminator (Heavy 4 S7), the entire unit dies. slowed.
____

Narlix wrote:This my friend is why they never should have put the weapon teams on one base to start with .

QFT.

2 models each on 25mm bases is a *lot* easier to manage, and a lot less confusing.

Worst case, require 2" coherency between gunner and loader.

____

BrookM wrote:Woah, hang on.

What about the people who field their missile launcher teams on two 28mm bases?

Well...

We can be "counts as" 1 model with 2 wounds, using the Loader as a wound counter.

One thing is for damn sure, I'm *not* cutting off two dozen tabs, buying new bases, and rebasing my minis. I'm going to field them on the bases which were supplied with the models, which happen to be 25mm slottabases. I didn't re-base my Termies, and I'm not rebasing my MLs.

What is interesting is to see what GW does with the other "classic" minis which have tabs, whether they're still going to be sold on individual 25mm bases.
____

strange_eric wrote:Wow HW squads being one model? That's purely stupid. On so many levels. I don't think one single person was confused about how the "2 models 1 base" thing worked, why change it? Ugh.

Ah well, just means more tanks in the end, which is more scary...

You know, I saw "2 models 1 base", and thought "oh, crap, there's a scat video for 40k?"

The problem was the "scenic" bases, so rather than be rules- and play-smart and clarify things to be uniform 25mm bases which are rules-simple, GW decided that large bases would be the answer.

Oh, there will be tanks!
____

AlexCage wrote:Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Better line them up single file, so they can insta-die to a single autocannon hit...

Narlix wrote:
Calling 2 Guard squads with Chimeras a static gun line, is like calling 2 units of firewarriors with devilfish a static gun line. A static gun Line would be 4 Squads of IG grunts The chimeras means they can move and most likely will move.

Yet you assumed that the Chimeras and the squads get to fire everything, including infantry-borne heavy weapons. In this case, they must be sitting still. If they move at the same speed as the Valk, they will fire much less, and will have to care about difficult terrain. You cannot argue that the squads and IFV's have both mobility and superior firepower. Again, I'm sure this layout has some advantages (eg four units) but without knowing any more details, I'm loathe to say it is better or worse, and I'm not going to get all emo because we suddenly get a fast skimmer that addresses all our woes in the movement phase.

Angron wrote:Hmmm... then what is "Penal Guard"?

Penal Guard

AlexCage wrote:Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Yes, Guard are being so simplified that you have 20+ different tanks and probably the longest summary sheet in the game.
Heaven forbid you would get one tiny nerf amidst all the new bling. Smurfs have been doing just fine with 2-wound attack bikes since 2004.

And I for one would be thanking my lucky stars if my opponent was pouring massed melta/lascannon fire into my 4-pt infantry. But that's just me.

Recklessfable wrote:

Angron wrote:Hmmm... then what is "Penal Guard"?

Penal Guard

Hmm, I prefer a Black Russian myself, it always intimidates the clergy.

The difference being, Attack Bikes are indeed a single model.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference being, Attack Bikes are indeed a single model.

In exactly the same way any two guys mounted on one base are a single model, yes.

lord_blackfang wrote:

AlexCage wrote:Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Yes, Guard are being so simplified that you have 20+ different tanks and probably the longest summary sheet in the game.
Heaven forbid you would get one tiny nerf amidst all the new bling. Smurfs have been doing just fine with 2-wound attack bikes since 2004.

And I for one would be thanking my lucky stars if my opponent was pouring massed melta/lascannon fire into my 4-pt infantry. But that's just me.

This. A hundred times this.

John, would it really make you happier if they re-did Heavy Weapon teams such that they were "one model"... maybe the heavy bolter loader can sit there feeding or reloading the thing.

I think its a silly thing that GW did it, but I think it was a good idea to try and simplify an undeveloped and aberrant rule.

On a different note... I asked this before and was thinking on it; it seems to me that Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters will get backdoor benefits from the IG codex. They can take IG platoons as inducted troops, it seems that those units have been improved and made cheaper would help the Inquisition Codices.

I also want to start a discussion on units that won't have kits at codex release, I think it will be predominately speculation, so I'm starting it over in the general discussion forum.

lord_blackfang wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference being, Attack Bikes are indeed a single model.

In exactly the same way any two guys mounted on one base are a single model, yes.

Well, good thing my Mordian heavy weapons are on the same bas-wait, they're not.

Catachans? Nope. Tallarns? Nope. Valhallans? Nope. Praetorians? Nope. Hell, even the Steel Legion don't field MLs on a single base.

lord_blackfang wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference being, Attack Bikes are indeed a single model.

In exactly the same way any two guys mounted on one base are a single model, yes.

not quite, the attack bike literally *is* one model. the IG HW teams are *two* models mounted on the same base, and that's *only* the catachan and cadian ones (and Krieg/Elysian if you want to go that far) while the older lines are based seperately. currently that's not even technically legal, there's no rules as to how to handle that.

Just wait for April's GW product spotlight: 60mm bases and Citadel basing kits. Operators standing by now!!!

I just hate 60mm bases. They don't fit in our city terrain. I'd rather have one wound and still not have to rebase my entire Tallarn, Steel Legion and Cadian armies (Yeah, I started using 40mm bases for my heavies).

I'm going to wait for GW to start kicking IG players out of tournaments for having their troops mounted on smaller bases.

Vaktathi wrote:not quite, the attack bike literally *is* one model. the IG HW teams are *two* models mounted on the same base, and that's *only* the catachan and cadian ones (and Krieg/Elysian if you want to go that far) while the older lines are based seperately. currently that's not even technically legal, there's no rules as to how to handle that.

Steel Legion Lascannons and Heavy bolters are 2 on a 60mm(and they're pre-plastic Guard), as are all Vostroyan heavies. It's not "only" Cadian, Catachans, and FW heavies.

can't wait myself - may have to use one of these for a deathstrike (at only £24 not too bad!) -
http://www.netmerchants.co.uk/product.php/710/44/ss1c_scud_b_with_maz543_tel/soviet scud wagon
(ok someone tell me how to use the 'url' button please)

I get the feeling we will see alot of Scud - Deathstrike conversions.

strange_eric wrote:Wow HW squads being one model? That's purely stupid. On so many levels. I don't think one single person was confused about how the "2 models 1 base" thing worked, why change it? Ugh.

Actually, it used to be a constant point of confusion. It always seemed to confuse people on the old GW message boards.

I'd strongly recommend anyone who is bothered by the new policy to jsut get some magnets and big abses and make scenic bases with two rounds spots for the HW team members.

aka_mythos wrote:On a different note... I asked this before and was thinking on it; it seems to me that Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters will get backdoor benefits from the IG codex. They can take IG platoons as inducted troops, it seems that those units have been improved and made cheaper would help the Inquisition Codices.

Sure, although it's unknown what little warts there will be (Especially if any units have moved around the FOC) but most importantly it shouldn't be a big deal as the costs all come from Codex: IG. Where it is admittedly a problem is if Codex: UberMarines adds a +S to Shotguns and we have to deal with either two different 'Shotgun' profiles or patch a lot of costs across different books.

aka_mythos wrote:I get the feeling we will see alot of Scud - Deathstrike conversions.

Personally, I intend to use the Saturn V rocket. If I can find the right scale model, and smack some fins on it, it'll look very GrimDark, I think. And it'll be a near match for the epic version.

Balance wrote:

strange_eric wrote:Wow HW squads being one model? That's purely stupid. On so many levels. I don't think one single person was confused about how the "2 models 1 base" thing worked, why change it? Ugh.

Actually, it used to be a constant point of confusion. It always seemed to confuse people on the old GW message boards.

Hell, my group still doesn't get it. Every game (And I mean EVERY god damned game) I have to explain it, yet again.

"You have to remove whole models, you can't allocate wounds across multi-wound models!"
Grrraaahh. This is not a difficult concept.

But to be honest I'm still not sure how to handle blast weapons. GW says imagine a 25mm under the model, but that gets real iffy when you're trying to decide if this small template gets both or just one. Or is it ALWAYS supposed to get both, even if it touches just the barest tip of the base? (The latter, of course, being how ALL my opponents interpret the rule. )

aka_mythos wrote:John, would it really make you happier if they re-did Heavy Weapon teams such that they were "one model"...

it seems to me that Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters will get backdoor benefits from the IG codex.

They can take IG platoons as inducted troops

No, it would make me happier if GW re-clarified that Heavy Weapons are 2 Guardsmen that should stay in coherency. At this point, I really hate the Armageddon Steel Legion, because they're the ones who introduced these stupid multi-model bases. Plus, GW did shortcoat guard instead of the Greatcoat Guard that everybody really wants.
____

aka_mythos wrote:I'm going to wait for GW to start kicking IG players out of tournaments for having their troops mounted on smaller bases.

I dunno - have they kicked any SM players for fielding the OOP TH&SS models on 25mm bases?
___

bubber wrote:can't wait myself - may have to use one of these for a deathstrike (at only £24 not too bad!)

$35 for a SCUD launcher? Not bad at all, but I prefer the idea of using a V-2.

OK, in a desperate attempt to drag this thread back on track(ish) I've gone through the sheet, translating where possible and have come up with the following:
This is all pure speculation on my part but trying to rationalise what's on the list into a plausible FOC.


IG now have 10 special characters (assuming Creed and Kell still come as a pair).

Capt Al'Rahem
Colonel Straken
Commander Chenkov
Commisar Yarrick
Lukas Bastonne
Moghol Kamir (possible RR sgt upgrade)
Nork Deddog (possible Ogryn upgrade)
Artillery Sergeant Harker (possible vehicle upgrade a la Chronus)
Sly Marbo (possible vet sgt upgrade)
Ursarkar Creed/Jarran Kell


Combining the unit entries and the 22 vehicle variants seems to give the following:

HQ's -
Company Commander or Commissar Lord, possibly with 'Garde du Corps?*' as the troops in their cmd squads.
Advisors - Astropath, Forward Artillery Observer, Fleet Liaison Officer, Sanctioned Psyker, 'Mentor?*'
Unit upgrades - Commissar, Priest
Independant Characters - Primaris Psyker, Enginseer with Servitors (maybe goes in Elites section?)

* no idea what these are!!

Troops -
Platoon Captains, again with 'Garde du Corps?'
Guardsmen (with sgts and HW teams)
Penal Legion Troops (with some kind of sgt/Arbite? (we hope ) to lead them)
Conscripts
Chimera Transports

Elites -
Stormtroopers (with sgts), possible Valkyrie transports
Veterans (with sgts and HW teams) - could be a troop upgrade instead
Ratlings
Ogryns (with BONE'eads)

Fast Attack -
Rough Riders (with sgts)
2x Sentinel variants (may end up as platoon upgrades)
Valkyrie/Vendetta
3x Hellhound variants (may end up as platoon upgrades)

Heavy Support -
7x LR variants
Hydra
6x Artillery variants


Other than not knowing what a mentor (possible comms officer upgrade given his high Ld but otherwise poor stats?) or a garde du corps are and allowing for possible shenanigans with regards to things like HW platoons going into the heavy support section or things being taken as platoon upgrades instead of in a seperate FOC slot, what do people think of this as a first pass at the new guard book??

Hrm. A thought occurs to me. The new Command Squad strikes me as very similar to an Inquisition retinue.

Just by the name alone, Mentor seems very similar to Sage. So with a little leap of logic I imagine this character to provide a similar function, maybe a ballistic skill increase?

Or! Maybe the Mentor is supposed to be just that, the commanding officers Mentor. Maybe a retired general, or a grizzled old drill sergeant that's seen it all. The first thing that springs to mind is this feller will directly effect the Orders system. Since we've basically seen that none of the other 'advisors' effect it.

And honestly, what the hell kind of 'advisor' has no input on Battle Orders?!

Excuse me for thinking out loud. Just speculatin' here.

@Calvin: Gard du Corps is Bodyguard.

Overall, I have high hopes for this Codex. I think Guard are going to be Ork-competitive, and that says a lot. GW added a lot of mobility and transport to the list, and I'm glad to see them do it.

Characters
I'm really glad to see Nork return, along with the other Captains / Colonels, but it's too bad Stuard Muckstump isn't included.

I'm a little scared that al-Rhaem is going to be the only way to get Light Infantry, or that Marbo is going to be required for Jungle Fighters.

HQ
I'm OK with the HQ only being Senior Officer, possibly with a "Heroic" option. I'm very curious to see the various powers and abilities.

Troops
In general, I don't have any issues here, although I'm not sure how the Penal Legion and Conscripts are going to shake out. How will GW differentiate them?

Without points and equipment, it's hard to say what's going to work. I definitely hope we don't have same old "unlocking" business. And I sure hope we have Grenadiers.

Elite
If Veterans are linked to Platoons, that actually would be a good, sensible thing. Though I suspect extreme nerfage will be the order of the day.

I'm very glad to see S5 T5 Ogryns return, and hope we have a close-combat option. Depending on the rules, I could use a couple units of them.

R18" RF S3 AP3 Hellguns don't interest me much, but they are somewhat better than AP5, despite the range reduction. I think Storms are still going to be taken for Melta and Plasma. If GW screwed up the Plasma, it's going to continue as =I= Storms until those books get redone.

Fast
This section finally has some serious competition with Hellhound variants, Valkyeries and new Sentinels. Costs and options are going to be a huge thing. And the expanded AP2 access is awesome.

Heavy
This was always good, but 14 variants is probably overkill. I hope to see some good variety and options come out of this. It's really sad that they didn't upgrade the Medusa to Barrage. That would have been awesome.

Cool, thanks for that, John.

I'd say Garde du Corps stats are quite likely to be command squad stats then - at least for HQ's.

I really like the mentor idea, Alex, as an advisor who affects the orders system.

I understand what you mean about the overkill on the HS section, but it basically boils down to 5 options:
Leman Russ (with variant weapons)
Hydra
HW platoons (if they make the cut)
Missile Artillery (manticore/deathstrike)
Standard Artillery (with variant weapons)

I just wish my wallet was looking forward to this as much as I am!!

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
Sly Marbo (possible vet sgt upgrade)

In all the fluff so far, Marbo works alone - in fact, the original special character could not be attached to a squad. I don't see them suddenly making him a Vet Sgt Upgrade and force him to go along with a unit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm a little scared that al-Rhaem is going to be the only way to get Light Infantry, or that Marbo is going to be required for Jungle Fighters.

I think it's a pretty good bet that since we don't see Gaunt on this list that Al'Rahem will be the only way to get Light Infantry. And as above, I don't see Marbo being required for Jungle Fighters - Straken would be such a character. Although with the "Jungle Fighter" doctrine as crappy as it was under 3E and with as many of its rules as were made useless by 5E (LOS, anyone?) I don't see those rules making a comeback. I'm hoping that Straken will allow players to take extra Vet Squads. In his old Catachan rules, if you took him, you could essentially have Hardened Vets (well, Catachan Devils - 13-point HVets, I might add - sheesh!) as your troops. I think taking him for more HVet Squads would be pretty reasonable.

Death By Monkeys wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm a little scared that al-Rhaem is going to be the only way to get Light Infantry, or that Marbo is going to be required for Jungle Fighters.

I think it's a pretty good bet that since we don't see Gaunt on this list that Al'Rahem will be the only way to get Light Infantry.

At least from a counts-as perspective Al'Rahem has the potential to be more neutral than Gaunt. I mean, he's just a Company Commander with a plasma pistol and power weapon, instead of a Colonel-Commissar with a camo cloak and a custom sword.

Looks like we've found That One Rule that people are going to arguing about for years after the codex comes out. If that's the only one this codex will be in remarkably good form.

These rumors are actually making me consider getting some vehicles.

Agamemnon2 wrote:At least from a counts-as perspective Al'Rahem has the potential to be more neutral than Gaunt. I mean, he's just a Company Commander with a plasma pistol and power weapon, instead of a Colonel-Commissar with a camo cloak and a custom sword.

Good point. There's a whole lot less baggage attached to him than there is to Gaunt's 12 books and a short story.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I'm going to wait for GW to start kicking IG players out of tournaments for having their troops mounted on smaller bases.

I dunno - have they kicked any SM players for fielding the OOP TH&SS models on 25mm bases?

I was actually thinking of the general sort of rule that says you should use the base the model comes with. The majority of IG players are going to eventually be using the new cadians and chances are those larger bases are what they'll be provided with.

1hadhq wrote:

BrookM wrote:So from now on our squads will be either ten or nine strong..?

Or the infantry squad loses the HWT-option and all HWT are gathered in HWT-squads.

Scottywan82 wrote:That would ALSO suck.

You know, suck doesn't even begin to describe it. No longer having the ability to hide a HW gunner in a 9 wound meat shield would discourage me greatly. I'm sure I'm not alone here.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I'd say Garde du Corps stats are quite likely to be command squad stats then - at least for HQ's.

I understand what you mean about the overkill on the HS section, but it basically boils down to 5 options:

According to the sheet, Bodyguard is WS4 BS4 A2, whereas Storms & Vets are WS3 BS4 A1, and Guardsmen are only WS3 BS3. I agree that Bodyguard are Command Squad, although I expected Veterans.

Yup, 5 chassis: Russ (14/13/10), Demolisher (14/13/11), Hellhound (12/12/10), Chimera (12/10/10), & Basilisk (12/10/10 OT). Major point of suckage: Chimera is still listed as 12/10/10, so while less overpriced, it's sitll not good.

Getting back to HS, most of these options are largely defined by the guns that they carry, and a lot of them are kind of so-so. For example, it's interesting that the Basilisk lost the direct-fire option and is now only an IF Barrage gun...
____

Death By Monkeys wrote:I think it's a pretty good bet that since we don't see Gaunt on this list that Al'Rahem will be the only way to get Light Infantry. And as above, I don't see Marbo being required for Jungle Fighters - Straken would be such a character. Although with the "Jungle Fighter" doctrine as crappy as it was under 3E and with as many of its rules as were made useless by 5E (LOS, anyone?) I don't see those rules making a comeback. I'm hoping that Straken will allow players to take extra Vet Squads.

OK, though I'd also expect any "Doctrines" to be cleaned up for 5E.
____

aka_mythos wrote:I was actually thinking of the general sort of rule that says you should use the base the model comes with.

The majority of IG players are going to eventually be using the new cadians and chances are those larger bases are what they'll be provided with.

You mean like in 4E? Yeah, that'd be OK.

Do they still provide sufficient 25mm bases to allow for all single-basing? Hmm...

JohnHwangDD wrote:For example, it's interesting that the Basilisk lost the direct-fire option and is now only an IF Barrage gun...

As mentioned up above, remember that 5e specifically allows Barrage weapons to direct-fire, ignoring any minimum ranges.

lord_blackfang wrote:In exactly the same way any two guys mounted on one base are a single model, yes.

I have over 70 Heavy Weapon teams in my army. Over half of them are metal Tallarns, Mordians and Cadians. Virtually none of them are on bases and in the case of the Lascannons the Lascannons are completely separate from any crew, crew who are on their own regular bases. None of them are 2 models on a single base.

HW teams are not analogous to an Attack Bikes.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:
According to the sheet, Bodyguard is WS4 BS4 A2, whereas Storms & Vets are WS3 BS4 A1, and Guardsmen are only WS3 BS3. I agree that Bodyguard are Command Squad, although I expected Veterans.

I was hoping for the option of taking an Ogryn for a bodyguard. I guess it's still possible with Nork.

The only heavy weapons I have on a big base are my lascannons and even then the second dude is on his own base so I can remove it rather than put a dice down to remember one of them is dead. Everything else I have is on seperate small bases for the simple reason that I'd like to actually be able to take advantage of cover. Ever try fitting a big base into ruins or small terrain features? It's impossible and looks slowed.

Anyone want to take a bet with me as to Moghul Kamir's special rules? I'm betting that he's the IG's Captain on a Bike - i.e. you take him and you can have Rough Riders as troops.

Kamir is Atillan. It wouldn't make much sense to put him on a bike.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Kamir is Atillan. It wouldn't make much sense to put him on a bike.

BYE

I may be mistaken, but I think Death by Monkeys meant that he's analagous to a Space Marine Captain that is riding a Bike, in that Moghul would allow Rough Riders as Troops, just like SM Captains allows Bikes as Troops.

Anyways! I'm excited about this Codex, and I'm itching to try out some Valkyries. With 12/12/10, there's no way I can resist them!

Oh right, in that case that'd suck. I'd rather not have to take the same Atillan to every single battle I face. I'd much rather bring a made up character.

Mandatory special characters to play armies we used to play without them is bad design choice.

BYE

Cept that at least in this case you never got to field an army where rough riders were troops

But seriously we are getting way ahead of ourselves since all we have is the reference sheet. I'm truly excited about a release for the first time this year.

oooh oooh rough riders as troops...

time for my cowboy guard to see the light of day...

Someone was muttering bitterness about, "why whinge about your HW's being done over, you've got loadsa tanks boy, i said boy, you've got loads of tanks, Vroom Vroom look at them go, aint they purty", I'm pretty sure that was the direct quote.

anyway in response to that fething slowed statement:

BECAUSE IT COMPLETELY feths ALL INFANTRY GAURD, those of us who despise tanks, and have made a point of not taking them have been done over, our squads are easier to kill and less shooty by 1 lasgun (which certainly does add up).

now you might say, "but gaurd are getting cheaper, you'll have more of them in your all-infantry-army-of-deathTM", but my problem always was fitting the buggers into my deployment zone to start with. now it looks like light infantry is pinned to a bloody special character, and I'll have yet more meat heads to make up the points.

I'm going to be particularly peeved as I now have 30+ HW squads which are not legally based, simply because I took the time and effort to make things as clear to my opponents in 4E and until now 5E what the actual rules were rather than getting into stupid discussions about scenic bases and charges. You can't buy the correct bases individually and get ,what 2, in a giant pack of other bases I'll never use

All I wanted was sort to the kill points issue and I would have been fine...

oh and having 9 model units makes the kill points just that bit easier to get...

dr vompire wrote:I'm going to be particularly peeved as I now have 30+ HW squads which are not legally based, simply because I took the time and effort to make things as clear to my opponents in 4E and until now 5E what the actual rules were rather than getting into stupid discussions about scenic bases and charges. You can't buy the correct bases individually and get ,what 2, in a giant pack of other bases I'll never use.

nit: 60mm bases are back in stock, 3 for $4.50. Still annoying, but now somewhat practical. I agree that 60mm bases for heavy weapons was never the best idea and this is not the best solution, and it is a shame that all infantry is unlikely to remain practical. Insert platitudes here. I know I expected to have to completely rework my army's concept when the new codex came out.

Raxmei wrote:nit: 60mm bases are back in stock, 3 for $4.50. Still annoying, but now somewhat practical. I agree that 60mm bases for heavy weapons was never the best idea and this is not the best solution, and it is a shame that all infantry is unlikely to remain practical. Insert platitudes here. I know I expected to have to completely rework my army's concept when the new codex came out.

The base packs are direct-only, aren't they? So still not an ideal state of affairs (though I'm lucky because I only need another seven and I'm all set)

AlexCage wrote:

Balance wrote:

strange_eric wrote:Wow HW squads being one model? That's purely stupid. On so many levels. I don't think one single person was confused about how the "2 models 1 base" thing worked, why change it? Ugh.

Actually, it used to be a constant point of confusion. It always seemed to confuse people on the old GW message boards.

Hell, my group still doesn't get it. Every game (And I mean EVERY god damned game) I have to explain it, yet again.

"You have to remove whole models, you can't allocate wounds across multi-wound models!"
Grrraaahh. This is not a difficult concept.

But to be honest I'm still not sure how to handle blast weapons. GW says imagine a 25mm under the model, but that gets real iffy when you're trying to decide if this small template gets both or just one. Or is it ALWAYS supposed to get both, even if it touches just the barest tip of the base? (The latter, of course, being how ALL my opponents interpret the rule. )

Wait... Why would that rule even apply? From my understanding it's not a multi-wound model, it's two models that share a base. This si definitely an example of the confusion that was caused.

For the blast template thing, I know the people I played with treated it as each model being centered on a virtual normal-sized base.

Is it just me, who's inner geek keeps saying "Is it May yet!?" "is it May yet!?"

Centurion.

I'll even settle for, is the MAy WD out yet? Is the May WD out yet?!?!

If I could rebase two dozen Terminators when they moved to 40mm, you guys can buy or make some 60mm for your old HW teams. It's not as big a deal as some people make it out to be.

Bootstraps, people, bootstraps! I can do it you can too!

lord_blackfang wrote:If I could rebase two dozen Terminators when they moved to 40mm, you guys can buy or make some 60mm for your old HW teams. It's not as big a deal as some people make it out to be.

Cutting off painted and based models and regluing and rebasing them to different bases is a gigantic PITA.

Your Terminators also never *HAD* to be rebased if they *came* on the 25mm bases, that was a choice, and under the current ruleset, is technically an opponent's permission thing since they aren't the bases they came with.

Vaktathi wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:If I could rebase two dozen Terminators when they moved to 40mm, you guys can buy or make some 60mm for your old HW teams. It's not as big a deal as some people make it out to be.

Cutting off painted and based models and regluing and rebasing them to different bases is a gigantic PITA.

Your Terminators also never *HAD* to be rebased if they *came* on the 25mm bases, that was a choice, and under the current ruleset, is technically an opponent's permission thing since they aren't the bases they came with.

Glue the bases onto the bases. They'll just be a little taller. you could even add more scenery!

That only works if they are both on 25mm bases. I have some on a 40mm and a 25 mm. Doesn't work.

I think scenery is youre friend here.

The old metal HWT didn't have bases for weapons. Was possible to find bases for them,so not really a challenge now.

I'm more interested in the platoon organization.
If a HWt comes in squads that fit into a platoon, maybe it is a 10 wound unit / 5 models ?

Well, I'm sorry some of you are mildly inconvenienced. I'm sure it's never happened in the history of the hobby that someone would have to do some minor alterations to their models when a new Codex comes out. Actually I'm really envious of you if this is your biggest gripe in life., like you make it sound to be.

Damn, how dare we ask for things as customers. Quickly boys, latch back onto GW's nutsack! Can't have them thinkign we don't worship their every move!

Or whatever the hell you expect us to do.

@ Scottywan82
QFT ROFL!!!!

@ Lord BlackFang
Obvious Troll Is Obvious

Scottywan82 wrote:Damn, how dare we ask for things as customers. Quickly boys, latch back onto GW's nutsack! Can't have them thinkign we don't worship their every move!

Or whatever the hell you expect us to do.

Um, if we didn't latch that tightly to 'em we wouldn't have had plastic piranhas, baneblades and valkyries now would we? Keep suckling, boys!

I'm just saying that re-basing some models is a very very minor issue compared to what some players have had to endure. There are people out there with entire armies they can't use anymore. So forgive me if I'm not particularly sympathetic to people who are making a huge fuss over having to buy a bag of bases.

wow reading that and all of the posts makes me hopeful that when DE comes out we will have a codex thats compleatly overpowered following GWs recent trend
oh btw the hw squads counting as 1 model will help stop arguements which is a good thing

Yes, because there's been so many arguments over heavy weapons teams....not...

Actually, I just had a really good idea.

Take the large base of the heavy weapons team, and trace it over some plasticard or even just cardboard.

Cut out the traced circle. Put the 2 models on the traced circle.

Then you can add some flock/whatever to the traced circle. And you don't have to go buy bases!

I'm a genius.

lord_blackfang wrote:I'm just saying that re-basing some models is a very very minor issue compared to what some players have had to endure. There are people out there with entire armies they can't use anymore. So forgive me if I'm not particularly sympathetic to people who are making a huge fuss over having to buy a bag of bases.

But of course they can use them! In Apocalypse! No one need complain ever!

@stonefox - Was it the suckling? Or the never buying FW? The world may never know.

I believe the "Mentor" is the Sergeant equivalent for a potential unit of Sanctioned Psykers; if you compare page numbers, you'll find that his entry is on their page, and that would explain his Leadership 9.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Kamir is Atillan. It wouldn't make much sense to put him on a bike.

Okay, I wasn't clear - of course he's not on a bike - but I'm betting he'll be analogous to the SM Capt. on a Bike in that just as the SM Capt on a Bike allows bikes as troops, Kamir on his horse will allow RRs as troops.

Right - thanks MinMax (dammit - gotta remember to read through the next page before I reply...)

lord_blackfang wrote:If I could rebase two dozen Terminators when they moved to 40mm, you guys can buy or make some 60mm for your old HW teams. It's not as big a deal as some people make it out to be.

I didn't rebase my terminators in either my chaos or loyalist SM armies. Why should I? The rules state that you may use bases of the original size that the models were provided with or larger. As I use nothing but first edition terminators, the small rounds are correct for them.

TR

Yeah, if your models are on the bases that they came with, they should be legal. Just treat the loader as a wound counter...

Damn I'm blind. I didn't notice that all Russ variants have 13 side armor, not just the Demolisher. Guess I'm just not a tank guy.

I ran the numbers on stormtroopers, and like vespids they're only as good at shooting marines as marines are at shooting them. Good in the right situations, but not worth the sort of attention they're certain to receive.

....Melta cannon???

Has that not been posted yet? But yeah, the English translation was helpful, confirmed a lot of things.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that taking a mounted captain allows rough riders to be troops and that it is no just the special char that allows that.

What mounted captain? There ISN'T a mount option for any character except Kamir.

Anyone notice that the Demo charge is AP2 now? If it already was then my reading skills sucked but hot damn, my tiny guards men are gonna kill me some termies! (or themselves )

Anung Un Rama wrote:....Melta cannon???

Yes, it's believed to be the primary weapon for one of the new Hellhound variants.

Hulksmash wrote:Anyone notice that the Demo charge is AP2 now? If it already was then my reading skills sucked but hot damn, my tiny guards men are gonna kill me some termies! (or themselves )

Yes, it's AP 2 now. Many a deep striking termie squad has suffered from these in the hands of my IG.

Hulksmash wrote:Anyone notice that the Demo charge is AP2 now? If it already was then my reading skills sucked but hot damn, my tiny guards men are gonna kill me some termies! (or themselves )

The demo charge has always been AP2. It increased from str 8 to str 10, however.

S10 AP2. What are they throwing around? Demolisher shells???

Edit: the reference sheet says it's only S8....

They're throwing little gift-wrapped packages of anti nob-biker love.

Little bundles of hate that can scatter back into your face or somehow land behind you.

Yay 5th Ed blast rules - slowing down the game, adding unnecessary complication and creating unrealistic situations since 2008!

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yay 5th Ed blast rules - slowing down the game, adding unnecessary complication and creating unrealistic situations since 2008!

BYE

Yes, because fourth edition blast rules were soooooo realistic.

imo, the new blast rules are at least not such a big source of argument. "You call that half of the model?"

I personally prefer the Codex: Cityfight "blast" rules, but the 5th Edition ones are way better than 4th.

I think the damn charges should be just like any other weapon.

Roll to hit, and if you miss.... well you miss.

Nothing like throwing the Charge and haveing it somehow hit behind your guys.

Must be a strong headwind.

I saw some mention of Creed and Kell coming as a pair earlier in the thread, and didn't see anything brought up as a response to it, so I'll add a little info to that now:

At the Design Studio Seminar, Robin Cruddace confirmed that Creed and Kell NO LONGER have to be taken as a pair at all times. You can have an army that has Creed but not Kell, and vice versa, or you could still take both.

That's nice to know for people who "only" want to field a cool standart bearer or a bad-ass general.

Wait...didn't creed have Hellpistoles? Nice

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, because fourth edition blast rules were soooooo realistic.

They were just as bad. Perhaps I should have said:

5th Ed Blast Marker Rules - A different kind of 'suck'.

Better now?

BYE

Oops, the demolition charge is still str 8, no change. I guess I must have read the demolisher cannon stats.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Vets are Ld7... ok...

Maybe only French veteran squads are Ld7.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hydra is just Heavy 2... which is really dumb... but Range 72.

We only know the weapon, not exactly how it is mounted. The Hydra tank/weapons platform might have two Hydra gun systems, or one twin linked one.

My only concern for these rumours is the prevelance of special characters.

it was alright for some army related special abilities to be special character based because 'counts as' is now fully acceptable and encouraged.

However what is good for marines is not good for guard. Special characters are tougher than usual and have lots of nice skills and/or toys to be taken to unlock access to their unique army list bending rule. It is alright for your alt SM Master to have lots of wargear, but the average IG cavalry company commander, or stormtrooper company commander or (dare I hope) a tank company commander, thus assumning those are now Troops; will not necessarily be a hero dripping with gadgets, and I would dislike having to field same in order to take a quite ordinary formation.

Here's hoping that the Hydra mounts four Hydra Autocannons. That'd be some serious firepower there.

BYE

Karnage wrote:I saw some mention of Creed and Kell coming as a pair earlier in the thread, and didn't see anything brought up as a response to it, so I'll add a little info to that now:

At the Design Studio Seminar, Robin Cruddace confirmed that Creed and Kell NO LONGER have to be taken as a pair at all times. You can have an army that has Creed but not Kell, and vice versa, or you could still take both.

Good, first thing I thought when I saw them was why can't you just take the flag guy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, because fourth edition blast rules were soooooo realistic.

They were just as bad. Perhaps I should have said:

5th Ed Blast Marker Rules - A different kind of 'suck'.

Better now?

BYE

Your so pessimistic. You need a hug.

Orlanth wrote:My only concern for these rumours is the prevelance of special characters.

This is the new reality of the current 40K Codex design. Rather than sub-dexes or alternate army organisations we have Special Characters. Of course, GW is very good at changing horses multiple times mid-race, so in a few years they'll either have gotten over it (or Jervis will be gone), so they can get back to writing army lists, not WarhammerMachine 40K.

BYE

ShumaGorath wrote:Your so pessimistic. You need a hug.

You're so contrary. You need to agree with someone once in a while, even if its just for kicks.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Your so pessimistic. You need a hug.

You're so contrary. You need to agree with someone once in a while, even if its just for kicks.

BYE

All that anger can't be healthy for you. *hug*

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Orlanth wrote:My only concern for these rumours is the prevelance of special characters.

This is the new reality of the current 40K Codex design. Rather than sub-dexes or alternate army organisations we have Special Characters. Of course, GW is very good at changing horses multiple times mid-race, so in a few years they'll either have gotten over it (or Jervis will be gone), so they can get back to writing army lists, not WarhammerMachine 40K.

BYE

There really isn't a prevalence though. It seems about equivalent to the ork or daemon codexes. Its nothing like the sea of special men in the marine 'dex. There's considerably more than in the previous card codex, but that book was quite anemic in that regard. There were a ton of heroic characters in the fiction and imagery, but very few were really represented in any fashion. It was sort of a grinding point for my IG friend.

Am I the only person not bummed out about special characters? I mean, there are a handful of archtypes, and those archtypes will be built out of whatever rules are provided. Having them instead boiled down to a few locked options isn't as fun, but it's almost the same thing. How many jump pack force commanders with lightning claws and iron halos did we see in 3rd? How many terminator librarians in 4th?

I like sublists, but having any ability to manipulate the list is better than nothing. SCs are a bit of a forced way to do it, but I don't mind it.

I got sick of how every 4th ed Marine army around here was led by the same special character... "Jump Chappy".

They should release a graphic novel, "The Adventures of Jump Chappy". It would sell like hotcakes.


(In other words, 4th ed marine codex had more theoretical HQ diversity, 5th ed Marine codex has more actual diversity).

Also, I like special characters.

Neil wrote:I got sick of how every 4th ed Marine army around here was led by the same special character... "Jump Chappy".

They should release a graphic novel, "The Adventures of Jump Chappy". It would sell like hotcakes.


(In other words, 4th ed marine codex had more theoretical HQ diversity, 5th ed Marine codex has more actual diversity).

Also, I like special characters.

That's a great way to put it: actual diversity compared to theoretical diversity.

jp400 wrote:I think the damn charges should be just like any other weapon.

Roll to hit, and if you miss.... well you miss.

Nothing like throwing the Charge and haveing it somehow hit behind your guys.

Must be a strong headwind.

But then, what's supposed to happen if you miss? Does it just float off into space or something? Vanish into another dimension?

But why can't a person play Salamanders withing bringing Vulkan Whatshisface to every battle? Why can't I use a Ravenwing army without having to have Shrike show up to every battle? Why does the Master of the Deathwing attend every conflict the Deathwing participate in, no matter how minor?

These are the reasons I dislike the current special characters. I really like special characters - Calgar and Yarrick especially - but I shouldn't need to take them to play a style of army. Once I have to do that, they cease being special and become mandatory.

BYE

lalabox wrote:

jp400 wrote:I think the damn charges should be just like any other weapon.

Roll to hit, and if you miss.... well you miss.

Nothing like throwing the Charge and haveing it somehow hit behind your guys.

Must be a strong headwind.

But then, what's supposed to happen if you miss? Does it just float off into space or something? Vanish into another dimension?

The same thing as every other weapon in the game when you miss....

Nothing!

Also is it just me or is anyone else not excited about the ICBM of doom? Sure its a beast, but how much is it going to cost for a weapon that you only get one shot per game at BS 3?
Now if it was BS 4 id pay through the nose for it. lol

lalabox wrote:

jp400 wrote:I think the damn charges should be just like any other weapon.

Roll to hit, and if you miss.... well you miss.

Nothing like throwing the Charge and haveing it somehow hit behind your guys.

Must be a strong headwind.

But then, what's supposed to happen if you miss? Does it just float off into space or something? Vanish into another dimension?

Maybe he didn't prime it right or it's a dud. Nobody complains that missed laser shots don't continue to travel and hit something.

jp400 wrote:Also is it just me or is anyone else not excited about the ICBM of doom?

I don't like it either, but not because of its rules. I dislike the idea of the Deathstrike being an actual Guard Codex unit because it just doesn't fit with 40K. Much like the Hydra, this is a unit that doesn't belong in the standard Guard Codex. It's a game suited more to play lots of Apoc games, not something you take in a regular game.

BYE

lalabox wrote:

jp400 wrote:I think the damn charges should be just like any other weapon.

Roll to hit, and if you miss.... well you miss.

Nothing like throwing the Charge and haveing it somehow hit behind your guys.

Must be a strong headwind.

But then, what's supposed to happen if you miss? Does it just float off into space or something? Vanish into another dimension?

I vote "floats off somewhere".

The demolition charge can scatter and hit other things because it's not just a straight shot that has to be aimed to hit something, the demolition charge blows up a giant area.

Yeah but how do you throw it forward and it ends up several meters behind you. That's just silly.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah but how do you throw it forward and it ends up several meters behind you. That's just silly.

BYE

Yeah, it can be pretty stupid how it scatters sometimes. I think that it should scatter, but not as much as it does now.

Well, you'd swing it backwards before you swing it forwards towards the enemy. It's entirely possible to let go of it on the swing back!

Dexy wrote:Well, you'd swing it backwards before you swing it forwards towards the enemy. It's entirely possible to let go of it on the swing back!

yeah that might be true, bet when a tank fires how can it explode behinde the tank?

Chaos did it.

That's what Jervis said.

Dexy wrote:Well, you'd swing it backwards before you swing it forwards towards the enemy. It's entirely possible to let go of it on the swing back!

Yes, that happens to me at bowling all the time

Flashman wrote:

Dexy wrote:Well, you'd swing it backwards before you swing it forwards towards the enemy. It's entirely possible to let go of it on the swing back!

Yes, that happens to me at bowling all the time

I asumme you don't have that many bowling buddies left Flashman

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Flashman wrote:

Dexy wrote:Well, you'd swing it backwards before you swing it forwards towards the enemy. It's entirely possible to let go of it on the swing back!

Yes, that happens to me at bowling all the time

I asumme you don't have that many bowling buddies left Flashman

Only ones with broken ankles

Back on topic...

It was about time we had a good IG leak. It all looks very positive for Guard players (time to dig around in the Warhammer cupboard for that old box of Cadians), if not too overpowered.

I don't fully undestand the issue with the new HW teams. If its two models on one base, fine. If its 2 models on seperate bases, equally fine.

In game terms either way you physically put the stuff on the table it will count as a single 2-wound model.

For those worried about the meat-shield effect, think about the way wound allocation works in 5th ed:
In 4th, you would have been able to fail up to 9 saves (from any weapon) without losing your HW. Now, you'll allocate 8 wounds to the rest of the squad before you need to allocate one to your HW team. As long as the wound you allocate is less than S6, you won't lose your HW to instant death. So the only way this is worse is if every wound is caused by S6 or greater.

It may even lead to your HW being able to survive more punishment, because until you get to the 18th allocated wound (or the 9th allocated wound of S6 or higher) you can guarantee they'll survive...

...they'll run away, but survive

Another plus-point of the new HW team rule is that you can add more characters to a unit without having to worry about space in dedicated transports.

I doubt it works that way, they'd probably add a small line to their rules that they are bulky and therefore take up two spaces.

Besides, the Chimera has space for twelve men, more than enough for a full squad and attached somebodies.

Oh right. I forgot that the Chimera was superior to the Rhino in pretty much every way

Plus the Chimera is water tight.

But when the Chimera finally takes a dip in point cost she's well on her way to becoming the ultimate transport of the game again.

Which it really shouldn't be, considering the hunk of junk the Emporer's finest have to use.

Sooo many options now......

scatter rules are daft, but fun. Will teach you to pick a better target. Also remember that most IG troops won't have specific training, give a 'normal' person a havy thing and tell them to make a hammer throw. Or check it on you tube. Bound to be on there. It's funny.

Chimeras mmmmmmm yummy. Wonder what options they add.

I agree that Hydras/Deathstrikes are apoc type things. They could be icluded to help encourage players to use bigger things in normal games (GW seem to be pushing this in WD and in store at the moment.)

I'm excited, surprised about the amount of options but happy.

Anyone have a picture of a colossus? Or any idea what one is?

Anung Un Rama wrote:Which it really shouldn't be, considering the hunk of junk the Emporer's finest have to use.

I think its important to point out the main difference of marine and IG vehicles and the advantage of the rhino that doesn't have a way of being represented is that the Rhino can be carried on Tactical Transport, Thunderhawks and deployed by those means from orbit; IG have larger strategic transports that carry generally carry larger assets, say a company. It is much the same way the M113 can be air dropped but many superior armored vehicles can't. In the case of the space marines they need that ability and that simply means sacrificing vehicle combat effectiveness in exchange for more rapid deployment, airlift capability, ability to operate in vacuum, and surviving atmospheric entry. Those three thing are strategic abilities that fluff dictates these Space Marine vehicles have but IG vehicles wouldn't.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
It may even lead to your HW being able to survive more punishment, because until you get to the 18th allocated wound (or the 9th allocated wound of S6 or higher) you can guarantee they'll survive...

...they'll run away, but survive

depends. if you get shot from two units, it'll happen alot sooner. your scenario works only if all 18 wounds come from one enemy unit (unlikely even with marines shooting). if we assume a strength 4 ap5 weapon like a bolter, you'll only need 13-14 wounds from two squads. even if they're armed with the crappiest weapon in the game (our lasgun!), they only need 16-17 wounds from two squads.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Which it really shouldn't be, considering the hunk of junk the Emporer's finest have to use.

But........... The Guard ARE the Emperor's Finest!!

But how is that any different to the surrent situation?

At present, if the number of wounds equals the number of men left in the unit (from any source or at any point in the shooting phase) then both members of the HW team have to take a save (if applicable) or just die from AP5 or better.

When you change to a 2-wound model, unless the wound is S6 or greater (and such a wound should be easily shifted to a normal guardsman via wound allocation) you assign 1 wound to the HW team. Extra wounds then have to be assigned to the normal guardsmen until everyone has a second wound before a second wound get to the HW team.

This applies in every case, irrespective of when in the shooting phase it happens or how many men are left in the squad.

Only when the HW team has taken 1 wound does it become as vulnerable as a normal guardsman to the next batch of incoming fire (by which time the squad is probably splashed anyway).

aka_mythos wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:Which it really shouldn't be, considering the hunk of junk the Emporer's finest have to use.

I think its important to point out the main difference of marine and IG vehicles and the advantage of the rhino that doesn't have a way of being represented is that the Rhino can be carried on Tactical Transport, Thunderhawks and deployed by those means from orbit; IG have larger strategic transports that carry generally carry larger assets, say a company. It is much the same way the M113 can be air dropped but many superior armored vehicles can't. In the case of the space marines they need that ability and that simply means sacrificing vehicle combat effectiveness in exchange for more rapid deployment, airlift capability, ability to operate in vacuum, and surviving atmospheric entry. Those three thing are strategic abilities that fluff dictates these Space Marine vehicles have but IG vehicles wouldn't.

If a Rhino can be used in a vacuum, shouldn't it be at least be amphibic as well?

On that note, how do space marines with helmets off operate in a vacuum? Or are wars only fought on planets where you can breathe?

Rhino's and Lard Raiders are used as subs if not mistaken.

The Chimera for the inquisition is far superior to the guard chimera because those namby-pambys get TWO fire points! If only I could drive-by 2x melta/plasma w/ my grenadiers!!!

Anung Un Rama wrote:If a Rhino can be used in a vacuum, shouldn't it be at least be amphibic as well?

Your dealing with two different pressured environments. One in which the atmospheric pressure and the pressure of water pushing down on you would crush and the other where the internal pressure would try to blow out. Should it be amphibious yes. Should it be submersible... maybe but that would out side the scope of any fluff I've read.

Necros wrote:On that note, how do space marines with helmets off operate in a vacuum? Or are wars only fought on planets where you can breathe?

This would once again be where space marines excel over guard. Power armor does operate in vacuums, though in a vacuum the space marine would likely have to hold his breath and precede to pop (Just because they wear blue and read does not mean they are "Superman")

If I had to give an explanation I'd say their power armor can feed oxygen straight to their lungs via the various bionic ports that interface the armor to the marine. Other than that it'd be a matter of training (not to inhale), dealing with the cold, and getting extremely red in the face as their blood damaged the blood vessels in their face... that last one might not happen they are space marines (HURR!).

I suspect this thread is verging on going off-topic, somewhat, but it does highlight the pitfalls of WYSIWYG.


My understanding / interpretation of the 40K fluff is that no two chassis of vehicles or minis are ever going to be exactly the same and you can't model everything all the time.

Nit-picking about things such will bog a game down. Pay the points, write in your army list, TELL your opponent & get on with enjoying the game.


It's a war-game about fire, manoever & assault - not detailing the logistics of such.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:But how is that any different to the surrent situation?

At present, if the number of wounds equals the number of men left in the unit (from any source or at any point in the shooting phase) then both members of the HW team have to take a save (if applicable) or just die from AP5 or better.

When you change to a 2-wound model, unless the wound is S6 or greater (and such a wound should be easily shifted to a normal guardsman via wound allocation) you assign 1 wound to the HW team. Extra wounds then have to be assigned to the normal guardsmen until everyone has a second wound before a second wound get to the HW team.

This applies in every case, irrespective of when in the shooting phase it happens or how many men are left in the squad.

Only when the HW team has taken 1 wound does it become as vulnerable as a normal guardsman to the next batch of incoming fire (by which time the squad is probably splashed anyway).

Three words:

Heavy. Weapons. Squads.

Current rules: 6 identical models, 4 wounds (any strength) before you lose a gun.
New siamese heavy weapons guys: 3 models, 2 wounds (any strength) before you lose a gun, AND every S6+ wound instagibs a whole gun.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah but how do you throw it forward and it ends up several meters behind you. That's just silly.

BYE

Maybe they throw it back.

Your dealing with two different pressured environments. One in which the atmospheric pressure and the pressure of water pushing down on you would crush and the other where the internal pressure would try to blow out. Should it be amphibious yes. Should it be submersible... maybe but that would out side the scope of any fluff I've read.

I think the chimera is amphibious because it floats. Or at least thats how I've always understood it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah but how do you throw it forward and it ends up several meters behind you. That's just silly.

BYE

Maybe they throw it back.

Visions of brave sergeant nutjob running up to the bunker, pulling the pin on the satchel charge, and throwing the pin...

Simple Answer:

Demo-Charges Bounce.

Like Tiggers?

aka_mythos wrote:

Necros wrote:On that note, how do space marines with helmets off operate in a vacuum? Or are wars only fought on planets where you can breathe?

This would once again be where space marines excel over guard. Power armor does operate in vacuums, though in a vacuum the space marine would likely have to hold his breath and precede to pop (Just because they wear blue and read does not mean they are "Superman")

If I had to give an explanation I'd say their power armor can feed oxygen straight to their lungs via the various bionic ports that interface the armor to the marine. Other than that it'd be a matter of training (not to inhale), dealing with the cold, and getting extremely red in the face as their blood damaged the blood vessels in their face... that last one might not happen they are space marines (HURR!).

The Mucranoid gland "offers a slight degree of protection in a vacuum". (Index Astartes Volume 1, IA: Rites of Initiation, Pg. 5)

H.B.M.C. wrote:Here's hoping that the Hydra mounts four Hydra Autocannons. That'd be some serious firepower there.

BYE

Surprising enough, 4 auto cannons and 2 twin linked auto cannon at BS3 isn't all that diffrent, its 4 hits with the 4 cannons and 3 with the two twin linked, the heavy bolter still only gets 1.5 hits with either set up.

The real questions are.....

Is it still going to be 200 ish points and will they let you put a heavy stubber on it.

Dudes, seriously, satchel charges can misfire, so you don't need an additional mechanism for misfiring satchel charges, you only need the blast rules. What's all the fuzz about?

Greets
Schepp himself

I guess people forget that the railgun can fire a large blast that never materializes if you roll a miss, yet the idea of a demo charge that misses and doesn't materialize freaks people out.

stonefox wrote:I guess people forget that the railgun can fire a large blast that never materializes if you roll a miss, yet the idea of a demo charge that misses and doesn't materialize freaks people out.

um, what? Railgun's large blast rolls for scatter. It always "materializes".

I like rolling scatter dice.

Are the 5ed scatter rules perfect, not close.


Personally, I think that if the target is under 12" away, you only roll 1d6 and minus BS. This would make Blast weapons more in line with rapid fire weapons, in that they are more powerful at close range (which I think they should be).

But as they are right now, I can deal. Yes, sometimes my LRBT shoots itself, but hey, adds some insanity to the game

ObiFett wrote:

stonefox wrote:I guess people forget that the railgun can fire a large blast that never materializes if you roll a miss, yet the idea of a demo charge that misses and doesn't materialize freaks people out.

um, what? Railgun's large blast rolls for scatter. It always "materializes".

Ah, that's right. I've only played a demo game or two of 5th ed.

Wouldn't the most reasonable course of action be to give two options for running heavy weapon squads? Something like:

"Any model may be assigned a heavy weapon, or any two models may be replaced with a heavy weapon team at the following point costs..."

This would still be a (small) "nerf" to guard heavies, as they would lose the ability to "swap" gunner and loader, but it would simplify game play and reduce confusion without requiring elaborate re-basing (which is a very big deal.)

Two wound heavy weapons.

Ho hum, it was too much to ask for to have GW not write in a slowed rule into the new codex.

Irt is also back to the old policy of asticking the finger to older miniatures. Got two mordians and a seperate weapon, it all counts as one stand now, and with the huge size of the heavy weapon stands blast cannot miss.

All this becomes irrelvant, for ordinary squads at least, if you get a special ruler for ordinary troops to take over the guns. Heavy weapon squads are now hosed completely, the only good news is that most high RoF heavy weapons stop at S5. With a good enough price drop, or the ability to use infantry squads as meatshields directly the heavy weapon squads might still be worth it. But I will remain sceptical.

GW has had another of their great ideas, what is the chance they thought it through, let alone playtested. Pretty low I guess.

Maybe they just noticed that nobody would buy their ridicoulus base sets in which you get 5 40mm bases, 2 60mm bases and a whole load of those slowed 25mm bases with a slot of which you never run out of anyway.

I still think that has nothing to do with rules, and more to do with some guy in a suit at GW, screaming 'what do you mean they're getting Nine Heavy weapons out of each Heavy Weapon team box. Nerf that please.'

I will of course be telling GW to kiss my arsh, and using as is, I'll just put them next to one another. Hey if I can give my foes an advantage for placing all my Nobz on large bases, I can take one back for the Guard.

I think for the 20+ points they've effectively knocked off a squad we can live with this "slowed rule." This rule is really a simplification to eliminate something that was unique to the Guard and unaddressed in the core rules. For better or worse it merely simplifies the way they are dealt with in such a way that the core rules are capable of addressing them.

I think it makes sense. The only way two individual models could theoretically be closer is if they were giving each other hugs (and I don't know if the Imperial Guard are as accepting as California)... Two individuals that close to each other would very likely be effected by the same blast or volley of small arms fire.

From a game mechanics stand point, yes we're losing out, but it does make sense.

...On the basing issue I sincerely doubt its to sell bases or to impose on us the purchasing of additional kits. You can still use all those heavy weapons, you just need a single bag of bases or just the bases you threw into your own bag since you didn't use them. And if the concept of buying bases from GW offends you, make some, buy some disks of balsa wood and glue them to that. This is part of the hobby.

I know I'm in the minority but I actually like the HW teams being on one big base. For modeling reasons only though. I think it's cool how you can build em like a mini-diorama. I'd still prefer it was counted as 2 models instead of 2 wounds though...

I don't know why they couldn't have just used the rules for Guardian heavy weapons, where the HW is simply a representation and can be fired from the gunner. It would seem like that would also work very well for IG and not be uncharacterful in any way.

i just cant seem to wrap my head around the idea of a single str 6+ weapon killing 2 men.

"holy cow sir, that melta just ripped through both jones and jenkins in one go... "

kinda odd....

How do we really know the 1 str 6 hit will kill both though? maybe HW teams will be immune to instant death?

Even from the IG codex that Inferno Cannons, Multilasers, and Krak grenades are S6, those things are suppose to kill. Its not just killing two men it killing two men who are only about 2 feet apart as opposed to the 6+ feet everyone else can spread out to. If these weapons are as dangerous as they're suppose to be two guys standing that close should be treated as a single entity at the scope and scale this game takes place.

The idea is that for a heavy weapon to fire you need two people operating it.

In the realm of nerfing this is soooooo incredibly minor.

usernamesareannoying wrote:i just cant seem to wrap my head around the idea of a single str 6+ weapon killing 2 men.

I'd say that that probably didn't even cross their minds.

BYE

Janthkin wrote:
Heavy. Weapons. Squads.

Current rules: 6 identical models, 4 wounds (any strength) before you lose a gun.
New siamese heavy weapons guys: 3 models, 2 wounds (any strength) before you lose a gun, AND every S6+ wound instagibs a whole gun.

We don't know how the squads will be equipped though.

Last wave of rumors I heard made it sound like all squads (of any type) will be 10 strong.

Standard infantry have ten guys with one heavy weapon and one special.

Assault squads will have ten guys with three assault weapons

and heavy weapons squads will have ten guys with three heavy weapons.

If that is indeed how they did it, then the heavy weapons units will be able to allocate the strength 6+ stuff to single models for a bit before they end up losing a heavy weapon.

We also don't know how much cheaper they are going to be... I saw 15 point lascannon in those warseer rumors somewhere.

aka_mythos wrote:Even from the IG codex that Inferno Cannons, Multilasers, and Krak grenades are S6, those things are suppose to kill. Its not just killing two men it killing two men who are only about 2 feet apart as opposed to the 6+ feet everyone else can spread out to. If these weapons are as dangerous as they're suppose to be two guys standing that close should be treated as a single entity at the scope and scale this game takes place.

Sorry Mythos but that's a fluff justification to explain a rules abstraction. That just doesn't work. The Multi-Laser doesn't kill anyone else in the unit when they stand close to one another, so your analogy falls apart right there.

aka_mythos wrote:In the realm of nerfing this is soooooo incredibly minor.

3-Model Heavy Weapon squads say otherwise...

BYE

Necros wrote:How do we really know the 1 str 6 hit will kill both though? maybe HW teams will be immune to instant death?

Honestly if they have eternal warrior im not going to worry about it, that would put them on par with how they are now ( well sorta) and might cut down on the confusion of the whole two models one base thing ( not that I really see the issue with it, all mine are old metal catachan ones based seprately.).

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sorry Mythos but that's a fluff justification to explain a rules abstraction. That just doesn't work. The Multi-Laser doesn't kill anyone else in the unit when they stand close to one another, so your analogy falls apart right there.

A multi-laser... some sort of gatling or high rate of fire laser gun is spraying an area with fire. This game abstracts 1000 shots per minute as heavy 3... the sum total of so many shots are only 3 dice. Are you telling me that two guys standing about a foot apart would not be hit by the same general spray of fire, say 1/3 of 1000 shots?
The individual models in a squad are on circles that would average to 2-3 ft radii around them. Meaning any two base to base models are 5-6 ft apart and will never be as close to each other as a heavy weapons team. And who really marches their guards side by side, they're spaced out even more. But a heavy weapon team would have to stand next to each other, a foot or two, apart to operate their weapon.

It is far from a perfect analogy, but if the idea of multiple models close to each other count as a single entity hold true for things like nurglings and ripper swarms, I think it would for two guys huddled around a heavy weapon.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:In the realm of nerfing this is soooooo incredibly minor.

3-Model Heavy Weapon squads say otherwise...

The question is if the cost of a 20pt a squad reduction is this nerfing of heavy weapon teams how much of that would you pay back to keep them as they are?

aka_mythos wrote:Are you telling me that two guys standing about a foot apart would not be hit by the same general spray of fire, say 1/3 of 1000 shots?

As I just said, you're using fluff to justfy a rules abstraction, and it doesn't hold up. It's like when GW tried to explain away how Blood Rage did not make Daemon Princes with Daemonic Flight fly any faster by saying 'Being angry doesn't make a Jump Pack move faster', odd when most people modelled wings into their DP's, something that could conceivably flap faster if you were more agitated. It doesn't explain it, nor does it explain similar situations where it should happen.

If your reasoning why a HW Team can be wiped out by a single S6 shot is 'they're standing near one another', then the same should apply to all Guardsmen. I can put them base-to-base and have them coser together than the two guys mounted on the 60mm base, and I won't lose multiple men to a single S6 Multi-Laser hit. If your claim is that the base they're on represents a 3 foot radius, then how much of an area does a 60mm base cover? A lot more, and they can be further apart than Guardsmen on two bases touching one another. So that line of thinking doesn't hold up either.

So, again, using a fluff justification to explain a rules abstraction doesn't hold up. 'They stand near each other' doesn't hold up, especially when everyone else in the squad can stand near (or nearer) to one another as well.

BYE

aka_mythos wrote:The question is if the cost of a 20pt a squad reduction is this nerfing of heavy weapon teams how much of that would you pay back to keep them as they are?

I wouldn't pay anything. Why? Because they shouldn't be multi-wound models in the first place, that's why.

They're cheaper because their HW's are being costed correctly (rather than 25 points for a damned BS3 Lascannon, it's 15, and so on), not because they are becoming pissweak T3 W2 models.

BYE

The thing that frustrates me the most in reading this thread is that we still don't know what rules are involved here.

What if they are immune to instant death?

H.B.M.C. wrote:If your reasoning why a HW Team can be wiped out by a single S6 shot is 'they're standing near one another', then the same should apply to all Guardsmen. I can put them base-to-base and have them coser together than the two guys mounted on the 60mm base, and I won't lose multiple men to a single S6 Multi-Laser hit. If your claim is that the base they're on represents a 3 foot radius, then how much of an area does a 60mm base cover? A lot more, and they can be further apart than Guardsmen on two bases touching one another. So that line of thinking doesn't hold up either.

I agree a 60mm base is too large but I think that is a separate issue. The models being required to be modeled on a 60mm large base is silly. The idea of them being a single 2 wound model I'm fine with. Operating a heavy weapon two individuals would be close enough to be hurt by single volleys of larger weapons fire and there weapon would restrict their ability to avoid it.

We lose a lasgun and we die a little easier, that's less than a 20+ point decrease.

H.B.M.C. wrote:So, again, using a fluff justification to explain a rules abstraction doesn't hold up. 'They stand near each other' doesn't hold up, especially when everyone else in the squad can stand near (or nearer) to one another as well.

There are only two ways to justify anything. As a matter of fairness in balancing rules or as abstraction of fluff. From a fairness vantage we gain far more than we've lost. From an abstraction we have what I've previously said. You seem to want things both ways and neither all at the same time.

I would rather have them on two 25mm bases, just because modeling terrain to accomodate a 60mm base is kind of annoying. I try to make impassible corridors/catwalks to limit terminator/dreadnought access for things, and these giant bases put them in the latter category.
Now, I agree that 60mm bases make for cool mini dioramas, but from a game play perspective, I think a man with a giant gun and a man with reloading stuff on their own 25mm bases is not too much to ask. Or even a gun on a seperate base like the Eldar weapons.

aka_mythos wrote:
...On the basing issue I sincerely doubt its to sell bases or to impose on us the purchasing of additional kits. You can still use all those heavy weapons, you just need a single bag of bases or just the bases you threw into your own bag since you didn't use them. And if the concept of buying bases from GW offends you, make some, buy some disks of balsa wood and glue them to that. This is part of the hobby.

The problem is I think the missile Launchers look cooler on their own bases, like the old Tallarn figs, it has nothing to do with basing issues.
All my Lascannons, Autocannnons and Heavy bolters where on the big bases anyway. Mortar I had one fig and Mortar on the large base. Although I can live with Mortars on the big one. I just like my Missile launchers free of big bases, especially when in a Hardened vet squad or something similar where you'd imagine them poking out from behind a wall to fire on the fly.

My mortars are on 40mm bases along with the gunner, the loader is on his own base.

This just in: "Fluff arguments for rules are stupid!"

You may now go back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

What it if it is an intended nerf?

Did you hear the part about guardsmen being only 4 points?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:
...On the basing issue I sincerely doubt its to sell bases or to impose on us the purchasing of additional kits. You can still use all those heavy weapons, you just need a single bag of bases or just the bases you threw into your own bag since you didn't use them. And if the concept of buying bases from GW offends you, make some, buy some disks of balsa wood and glue them to that. This is part of the hobby.

The problem is I think the missile Launchers look cooler on their own bases, like the old Tallarn figs, it has nothing to do with basing issues.
All my Lascannons, Autocannnons and Heavy bolters where on the big bases anyway. Mortar I had one fig and Mortar on the large base. Although I can live with Mortars on the big one. I just like my Missile launchers free of big bases, especially when in a Hardened vet squad or something similar where you'd imagine them poking out from behind a wall to fire on the fly.

I agree with all that. I have mine based the same way. I'm just going to magnetize my current bases on to larger bases so I can just put them off and on as appropriate.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The question is if the cost of a 20pt a squad reduction is this nerfing of heavy weapon teams how much of that would you pay back to keep them as they are?

I wouldn't pay anything. Why? Because they shouldn't be multi-wound models in the first place, that's why.

They're cheaper because their HW's are being costed correctly (rather than 25 points for a damned BS3 Lascannon, it's 15, and so on), not because they are becoming pissweak T3 W2 models.

I'm looking at the squad as a whole because it isn't just a matter of two models. This is an all or nothing prospect. You have to compare what is with what it will be. While you might not like the two wound model you get that and a squad for 40pts and all the new rules to boot; as opposed to what it is now. For me this just comes down to the fact that all the benefits we gain greatly outweigh the down side of a 9 model squad. I asked the question I did because the simple fact is without this I'm sure the cost our infantry would be a bit higher.

From a rules stand point here's the simple justification, all other rationale aside: it simplifies and standardizes the IG to the core rules.
In the edition of one stop shopping for core rules we've USRs and this is no different.

Necros wrote:I know I'm in the minority but I actually like the HW teams being on one big base. For modeling reasons only though. I think it's cool how you can build em like a mini-diorama. I'd still prefer it was counted as 2 models instead of 2 wounds though...

Thanks to True LOS, overly scenic bases cause problems. You can't take your own terrain with you, but what if you can't see someone's body? I already have arguments with people about the fact that a jumppack can also be "wings" but when you are shooting someone from behind you have to now figure out if the head would be visible through the wings/pack...

I'm not explaining it well but I'm tiring of everything claiming cover and not being able to shoot half the stuff I can "see" but for somereason also can't...

Also why I hate that new ratling model leaning against a post like he is hiding.

On a different subject:

With the new vehicle damage table and subsequent reduction in power of long range AT weapons, coupled with the increase in LR side armor, the lumbering behemoth rule, and all the armor busting goodies that IG will get (vanquisher cannons, HH variant melta cannons, etc) what effect do people think this may have on the overall metagame? It honestly looks like the Russ is now exactly what it's supposed to be, the hardest hitting, most killy MBT and that IG armor heavy lists (assuming no squadron rule, since we haven't seem anything on that recently) consisting of 3 leman russ tanks of some variant, 3 hellhound variants, and a buttload of infantry may become extremely taxing for some armies, needing large amounts of either heavy anti-tank weapons, mobile hard hitting CC weapons to get into the tanks, and a tremendous amount of anti-infantry capability as well.

I'm not sure how my Chaos would deal with 3 Executioner LR's (assuming say 225pts?), 3 meltacannon HH's (assuming 120pts?), and 120something infantry without simply being overwhelmed by firepower and model count. My tau would seem to be in a very similar situation, having great anti-tank firepower, but maybe not enough, and nowhere near enough anti-infantry capability.

aka_mythos wrote:From a rules stand point here's the simple justification, all other rationale aside: it simplifies and standardizes the IG to the core rules.
In the edition of one stop shopping for core rules we've USRs and this is no different.

Simplifies? It adds a multiwound model to a squad of single-wound models, with all of the complicated implications that has for wound allocation, and the attendant arguments about "You have to remove whole models," vs. the actual wound allocation rules.

Yeah, if that's "simple," I'll take the old way any day.

Vaktathi wrote:On a different subject:

With the new vehicle damage table and subsequent reduction in power of long range AT weapons, coupled with the increase in LR side armor, the lumbering behemoth rule, and all the armor busting goodies that IG will get (vanquisher cannons, HH variant melta cannons, etc) what effect do people think this may have on the overall metagame? It honestly looks like the Russ is now exactly what it's supposed to be, the hardest hitting, most killy MBT and that IG armor heavy lists (assuming no squadron rule, since we haven't seem anything on that recently) consisting of 3 leman russ tanks of some variant, 3 hellhound variants, and a buttload of infantry may become extremely taxing for some armies, needing large amounts of either heavy anti-tank weapons, mobile hard hitting CC weapons to get into the tanks, and a tremendous amount of anti-infantry capability as well.

I'm not sure how my Chaos would deal with 3 Executioner LR's (assuming say 225pts?), 3 meltacannon HH's (assuming 120pts?), and 120something infantry without simply being overwhelmed by firepower and model count. My tau would seem to be in a very similar situation, having great anti-tank firepower, but maybe not enough, and nowhere near enough anti-infantry capability.

Mechanized Guard were already a problem for many armies in non-KP missions. A few more weapons options for the (now cheaper) Chimerae will increase the number of hulls on the table, while also increasing the "parking lot" problems such armies are prone to have.

Really, it boils down to this: either there's a fix for KP issues in the new codex, or there's not. If the former, people will have to squeeze in a few more Autocannons to their lists. If the latter, then Guard will have no impact on the (tournament) metagame, as you can't take an army with "auto-loses KP missions" as a special rule, and expect to do well.

Janthkin wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:From a rules stand point here's the simple justification, all other rationale aside: it simplifies and standardizes the IG to the core rules.
In the edition of one stop shopping for core rules we've USRs and this is no different.

Simplifies? It adds a multiwound model to a squad of single-wound models, with all of the complicated implications that has for wound allocation, and the attendant arguments about "You have to remove whole models," vs. the actual wound allocation rules.

Yeah, if that's "simple," I'll take the old way any day.

It simplifies it in the way that the core rule actually covers the rules for multi-wound models so your opponents don't need to look at your rules.

aka_mythos wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:From a rules stand point here's the simple justification, all other rationale aside: it simplifies and standardizes the IG to the core rules.
In the edition of one stop shopping for core rules we've USRs and this is no different.

Simplifies? It adds a multiwound model to a squad of single-wound models, with all of the complicated implications that has for wound allocation, and the attendant arguments about "You have to remove whole models," vs. the actual wound allocation rules.

Yeah, if that's "simple," I'll take the old way any day.

It simplifies it in the way that the core rule actually covers the rules for multi-wound models so your opponents don't need to look at your rules.

They didn't before. The only complication arose out of modeling two men on a 60mm base, which is a modeling issue, rather than a rule issue. Otherwise, per 5e rules, it's just a squad with four wound allocation "buckets" - 6 grunts, sergeant, special weapons guy, and 2 HW guys. Allocate and move on.

You honestly think fewer people will be confused by this two-wound "single guy modeled as two guys on one giant base," than by the current rules? You honestly think there will be fewer requests to look at the codex when you allocate a wound to that two-wound entity, as opposed to just pulling the loader as a casualty?

(But as for complicated - who else remembers getting a save from the blast shield on heavy bolters & autocannons?)

The Lascannon in 2nd Ed counted as Heavy Cover for the crew, but that was it as far as odd 2nd Ed special weapons.

BYE

The more I think about 2 wound heavy weapon teams, the more sense it makes.

- One less attack in close combat makes sense for a team carrying heavy equipment

- The loader shouldn't really be firing a lasgun if he's meant to be loading the gun

- High strength attacks could hit the heavy weapon itself (this is 40k, the weapon is bigger than the crew), effectively neutralising the team (or causing an ammo explosion killing the team).

As long as the point costs reflect the nerf, I'm fine with the change from a fluff perspective.

I do prefer the look of ML teams on 25mm bases, though. I was planning to have mostly missile launchers in my new guard army, too. So from a modelling perspective I'm unhappy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The Lascannon in 2nd Ed counted as Heavy Cover for the crew, but that was it as far as odd 2nd Ed special weapons.

BYE

Upon further reflection, I believe you're right. Something to do with it being a separate model, instead of a go-kart.

Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure how my Chaos would deal with 3 Executioner LR's (assuming say 225pts)

Is this with or without the Plasma Cannon Sponsons? (Assuming they get them.)

15 Plasma Cannon shots a turn...help!

Though on second thought, theoretically with the Manticores, you could get nine Str 10 Ap 4 large blasts...that are barrage...that's just not right.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:i just cant seem to wrap my head around the idea of a single str 6+ weapon killing 2 men.

I'd say that that probably didn't even cross their minds.

BYE

Yet no one complains when a krak missile kills a dozen rippers. Just desserts I say!

They should just make Guard Squads T3 W10 models that can fire multiple weapons in a turn. Much simpler.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:They should just make Guard Squads T3 W10 models that can fire multiple weapons in a turn. Much simpler.

BYE

till a single krak gernade kills that entire squad,huh?
lol this is just too rich.

BoxANT wrote:What it if it is an intended nerf?

Did you hear the part about guardsmen being only 4 points?

And this is supposed to justify this how?

Guard should be 4 pts each because as it stands they are the same points as an ork who by the way is better stat wise in almost every way.

king-newmic wrote:till a single krak gernade kills that entire squad,huh?
lol this is just too rich.

Yahuh, that's right. Then we can go out and buy War of the Ring bases for all our Guard squads, making deployment and casualty removal much easier and quicker.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yahuh, that's right. Then we can go out and buy War of the Ring bases for all our Guard squads, making deployment and casualty removal much easier and quicker.

BYE

While saying Stelek's name three times doesn't do anything I think we need to be real careful about repeating this one.

I dont worry about the tanks in a imperial guard army I worry about the fact hat if guard really are 4 points a model then I can possibly face a army taht can infliltrate with 400 models.


4 points is just way to low it seems seriously.

Chiming in for the hell of it. IF the Heavy weapons bases work out as discussed, oh well. I like Large bases, they give me flexibility on the deep strike. They allow me to get more guard squads into combat on the counter charge, and they have better modelling potential.
I play with both sets and frankly I prefer the one base rule.

Either way with this new dex, I'm going to have a lot more Tanks on the field, heavy weapons? they'll play a roll but only once they've reached their objective.

If they fix kill points, give me cheaper troops and a whole lot of new vehicles, then I'm a happy Camper...

So far things are looking good.


Cheers,
A

HBMC
Actually, I like the idea of W2 models and let me explain why:
Obviously IG are a weapons army. In 5th it is VERY easy to take out a Heavy weapon, special weapon or sergeant, special character simply by inflicting a lot of wounds. IG are low toughness and will consistently see 6/8 wounds from shooting. That means that you can get really lucky in shooting at an IG and effectively kill the HW crew and no one else. Its kinda like ork nobs who always seem to survive even when the rest of the unit is wiped out.

I think this is a smart move for 5th, and makes the HW crew more resilient in game play terms. Now, cost might be an issue but I do think they will live longer.

I'm more annoyed at it from a modelling perspective. Some of us don't have any of the newer models, and soem of us have more old than new (I have 4-full platoons of metal Guardsmen, and only two of plastic). Most of my Heavy Weapons are not on bases, and all the crew are on regular bases (except the newer plastic ones, but even the loaders are on standard bases).

Making what is very much a distinct set of models into a single model is annoying for those of us who have never used them in that manner and don't base them like GW does.

BYE

not that it helps people with current armies, but i magnetized the loaders
on 28mm Bases. and the firer is glued on the 60mm base with the weapon.

BoxANT wrote:What it if it is an intended nerf?

Did you hear the part about guardsmen being only 4 points?

It doesn't really "balance" guard heavy weapons if you make them much cheaper, but require people to rebase their miniatures. IG armies have more heavy weapon models than some armies have miniatures. This is not a trivial procedure.

I don't like 2-wound HW teams for a lot of reasons, but the modeling aspect is far and away my biggest problem. I feel it's a terrible way to treat people who play with metal IG. These are the players who have already spent two to three times as much money for their IG armies as people playing with modern plastics.

As I said earlier, the easiest and fairest solution is for GW to give players two HW options: Replace a single lasgun model with a HW model, and have the "loader" model have no in-game rules, or replace two models with a two-wound "HW team" model. Neither option is as powerful as the current HW team rules, but it seems to be the simplest way to deal with the (largely non-existent) "problem" of IG heavy weapons basing.

Seriously, the last 4+ pages have been about the 2-wound heavy weapon teams? Really?

I guess the fact that that issue is all HBMC has to bitch about is a win for the developers.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

We ain't seen the rules yet Ozzy. Only a summary. I'm savin' my bile for the moment.

BYE

18 pages on just a summary... We have way too much time on our hands (and I'm including myself in that...).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well as long as GW remains so needlessly tightlipped about what's coming out in an hour's time, let alone 3 months, it's not like we'll have much else to discuss.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm more annoyed at it from a modelling perspective. Some of us don't have any of the newer models, and soem of us have more old than new (I have 4-full platoons of metal Guardsmen, and only two of plastic). Most of my Heavy Weapons are not on bases, and all the crew are on regular bases (except the newer plastic ones, but even the loaders are on standard bases).

Making what is very much a distinct set of models into a single model is annoying for those of us who have never used them in that manner and don't base them like GW does.

BYE

I would rather have consistency across the game, modeling and base wise, even at the expense of a few gamers that have to adapt. I have seen too many gamers use their old base sizes to their advantage.

Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

But, am I the only one that sees the benefits of a two wound base that is immune to instant death (if that is the case)? You essentially get to "hide" the loader from the wound allocation rules. Blasts will only cause a single wound to the base. Hell, those things are true even if they aren't immune to instant death.

Ozymandias wrote:18 pages on just a summary... We have way too much time on our hands (and I'm including myself in that...).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Aren't you in a movie in a few weeks?

Do you honestly believe they're going to give Eternal Warrior to Guardsmen? Really?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Do you honestly believe they're going to give Eternal Warrior to Guardsmen? Really?

BYE

And if they do, it will obviously be "balanced" by giving them Vulnerable to blasts, too.

Mahu wrote:Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

I'd disagree. I think the old metal Catachan Missile Launcher team on separate bases looks much better than two models stuck on a big ass circle.

Between the new LRBTs, the new chimeras, the new hellhounds, and new artillery, I am actually thinking about running with zero infantry based heavy weapons (meltas and flamers baby).

That could very well be the way to go. That'll solve your 2-wound HW team problem for ya!

Yes. Not use the models I've spent lots of money on. That's an excellent solution.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Well as long as GW remains so needlessly tightlipped about what's coming out in an hour's time, let alone 3 months, it's not like we'll have much else to discuss.

Since when has that been a justification for derailing a thread? "There was nothing else to discuss." Bloody pathetic. This forum is called News & Rumors, not Rants & Suppositions.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Well as long as GW remains so needlessly tightlipped about what's coming out in an hour's time, let alone 3 months, it's not like we'll have much else to discuss.

Since when has that been a justification for derailing a thread? "There was nothing else to discuss." Bloody pathetic. This forum is called News & Rumors, not Rants & Suppositions.

Well, we're discussing rumors. By definition, that's going to involve suppositions. If that was a bad thing, this forum would just be called "News."

Personally, I'm trying not to get too bothered by the rumors of 2-wound HW teams because we don't really know if they will be mandatory or optional. But I'll admit that I'm troubled by posters who think that making this change mandatory is a good thing. It's a "innovation" that few IG players were clamoring for. It has the potential to invalidate older models, and from a games design standpoint it is extremely messy.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Since when has that been a justification for derailing a thread? "There was nothing else to discuss." Bloody pathetic. This forum is called News & Rumors, not Rants & Suppositions.

We are discussing it Aggy. Calm down.

BYE

Can someone please explain why you would be forced to rebase your HW teams?

At the moment, both guardsmen in a HW team are treated as seperate models. For those with the older models this is dead easy, just take them off one at a time. No-one is saying that the new-model HW teams should be ripped off their large base and based seperately because this matches with the current way the rules work. You just place a wound marker on the base if only one of them dies.

Similiarly, under the forthcoming version, when the single 2-wound model dies, you remove the large 2-man base OR both older-version models. If the team takes one wound, you put a wound marker down on a large base or (conveniently) remove one of the two team members.


i.e. from a modelling point of view (drum roll please)...


...NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!!!


In game terms there is a slight change in the way that wounds are allocated to the unit. In some circumstances it makes the HW team more survivable, in others, slightly more vulnerable (feel free to Mathhammer it yourself if you don't believe this). As has been pointed out, however - it's cheaper. This surely more than makes up for the fact that in some (not all) circumstances it's slightly easier to kill - because as we all know killing guardsmen was sooo difficult before...


Just my $0.02 but I think people are making mountains out of molehills.

Oh wait, its the interwebz...

Mahu wrote:Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

I'm pretty sure that this is also cool:


Anyway, I support the right to have hw teams on separate bases simply because it opens up some cool converting doors.

The large bases wouldnt be so big a deal if they wernt manditory. They are fine if you play on a flat surface with no terrain. But if you do use terrain they are a PITA to get into or out of terrain. They are also very inconveniant to pack and un-pack.
I just made a 60mm ring out of some sturdy wire and when I place my HW teams I just make sure they both fit under the ring. Problem solved.

Centurion.

Aren't the HW bases 65mm, not 60mm? In fact, I just measured one. They are 65mm.

GW measures them from the top, not the bottom rim.

Not a problem, I just wrapped the wire around a spare base, so it is the correct size.

Centurion.

BrookM wrote:GW measures them from the top, not the bottom rim.

Are you sure? I bought 25mm base bottoms for some bases and they appear to match the bottom of the bases perfectly. I'm just curious also because it makes absolutely no sense to not measue the base at its widest point...

C'mon guys - what's 5mm between friends, ey?

BYE

Wars have been started over lesser things, plus that gamer on the other side of the table is sometimes a friend, sometimes the enemy, more often than not a gentle caressing rear end in a top hat.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Do you honestly believe they're going to give Eternal Warrior to Guardsmen? Really?

BYE

It's no more rediculous then 5 pages of discussion on a stat. line in a summary.

Besides, this is Games Workshop we are talking about, when did their decisions become rational?

Mahu wrote:

I would rather have consistency across the game, modeling and base wise, even at the expense of a few gamers that have to adapt. I have seen too many gamers use their old base sizes to their advantage.

Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

But, am I the only one that sees the benefits of a two wound base that is immune to instant death (if that is the case)? You essentially get to "hide" the loader from the wound allocation rules. Blasts will only cause a single wound to the base. Hell, those things are true even if they aren't immune to instant death.

I also would like to see consistency across the game. So as soon as Marines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Chaos, etc etc all have to base their heavy weapons as two wound models on a single large base, then we'll have consistency. Until then, they're throwing in a needless complication and a modelling pain in the butt for those of us with hundreds of old-school miniatures.

But Don, the spaz mariens are superhumans! they don't need 2 people to carry heavy weapons!

stonefox wrote:But Don, the spaz mariens are superhumans! they don't need 2 people to carry heavy weapons!

Phhhbbbtttttttttttttttttt You gonna be at the Rapid Fire tourney on the 7th? Maybe AI can get Matt to let me run an IG list based on the current rumors...........

Back on topic.
Seriously, since the weapon is not degraded in performance by the loss of a crew member, why didn't they take this opportunity to derail the whole two-man heavy weapon team concept and make IG heavy weapons single man items. Provides a little more vulnerability to the heavy weapon, eliminates questions about how that loader counts for wound allocation (altho the two-wound model also does this), basically simplifies and streamlines the whole thing, But nope, instead we're apparently going to get two-wound heavy weapons. 'S allright, the two models btb are the heavy weapon team. Cause I'm not rebasing all my RT-era IG heavy weapons.

Well instead of female dogging about what we dont know, I would rather female dog about what we do. Just looking at the sheets I would have to rate to russ's in the following order of power.

Vanquisher Cannon
Demolisher Cannon
Battle Cannon
Exicutioner Plasma cannon
Punisher Gattling Cannon
Eradicator Nova.

However I do not see the points costs supporing this list

I'm expecting a reduction in cost for the Leman Russ Vanquisher, perhaps a slight reduction for the Leman Russ Battle Tank too

Vanquisher either needs a reduction in cost or an increase in BS to justify the high cost.

Against certain lists that Punisher goes up dramatically.

Additionally, the line between the Demolisher and the BC I think is a bit more blurred. Range has to factor in there somewhere.

Even though the vanquisher will probably pen every time vs AV 14, it still misses half the time and cover negates it half the time. Unless you really, really need to guarantee a roll on the chart for a land raider or something I don't think it will be worth it. You might get one or two pens over the course of the entire game. I haven't compared it to lascannon teams or melta gunners but overall it seems lackluster, especially when melta gunners get +1 on the chart and will most likely ignore cover.

Yes but I think the 24 inch range of the punisher limits its utility. If it had a 36inch range that matched the heavy bolters, than I would put it right up there with the battle canon and demolisher (I agree that these guns are so close togther in power that any ranking is subjective). I do however think that the nova canon is rubbish that will not be seen in most lists. The vaquisher is at the top, because in a pinch it is also a battle canon. The utility is worth the points. the next 4 i think are fairly tight in power ranking, and again the nova on the bottom of the heap.

Also the ex plasma canon I think is either near the top or near the bottom depending on how the rules work for it. If it is heavy d3, and the templates are like barrage templates in that you roll scatter for the first, and the next two touch, than I think it is on the weak side. If it is true heavy 3, where you roll scatter three times... well personally I think that is a bit more powerfull.

Hmm...I’m still skeptical it just seems to good for it to be all real. Just seems like a lot of overlap. I hope most of its real as it would be a valiant attempt at brining back the power of shooting armies in an edition that favors assaults (it would also give other shooty armies some hope).

As to the points per LR i would assume there is some base cost (should be cheap) and you then buy upgrades and guns for that. I believe most of these tanks will wind up in the 90-190 points range depending on layout.

I am more concerned about how much guardsmen will be costing. I keep hearing 4 points for guard but then what are conscripts squads 2 points per? Next thing your going to tell me is that GW will be releasing plastic trenchcoat guard that don't cost me an arm and a leg to get.

Ultimately I will be holding my judgment on the guard till I can get the new dex in my hands.

don_mondo wrote:

stonefox wrote:But Don, the spaz mariens are superhumans! they don't need 2 people to carry heavy weapons!

Phhhbbbtttttttttttttttttt You gonna be at the Rapid Fire tourney on the 7th? Maybe AI can get Matt to let me run an IG list based on the current rumors...........

Back on topic.
Seriously, since the weapon is not degraded in performance by the loss of a crew member, why didn't they take this opportunity to derail the whole two-man heavy weapon team concept and make IG heavy weapons single man items. Provides a little more vulnerability to the heavy weapon, eliminates questions about how that loader counts for wound allocation (altho the two-wound model also does this), basically simplifies and streamlines the whole thing, But nope, instead we're apparently going to get two-wound heavy weapons. 'S allright, the two models btb are the heavy weapon team. Cause I'm not rebasing all my RT-era IG heavy weapons.

You all are forgetting the upside of this 2 wound change: You can now model heavy weapon teams as a single Ogryn carrying a heavy weapon, which I think would look fantastic in a regular infantry squad.

And before anyone mentions it, you can model the ogryn with a bloody bandage to represent 2 wounds instead of 3.

foil7102 wrote:Also the ex plasma canon I think is either near the top or near the bottom depending on how the rules work for it. If it is heavy d3, and the templates are like barrage templates in that you roll scatter for the first, and the next two touch, than I think it is on the weak side. If it is true heavy 3, where you roll scatter three times... well personally I think that is a bit more powerfull.

I think it will be a true heavy 3 ( it lost 18 inchs of range from the IA one), I also have a feeling it will able to have the plasma cannon sponsons ( its on a demolisher templete {11 back armor}). All that combined with the lumbering rule and your looking at 5 plasma templetes, 3 heavy bolter shots, and 3 heavy stubber shots a turn, thats alot of killing power period, that kills orks, marines, tau, deamons, necrons, and little puppy dogs all with the same ease.

I honestly think its the best varient on the summary list , heck even if it only gets heavy bolter sponsons thats still 3 templetes of plasma goodness, 9 heavy bolter shots and 3 heavy stubber shots. the only thing that setup dosen't kill as well is marines and necrons,....... and puppies.... puppies are evil. even with cover saves thats alot of hits to role saves for.

Im just hopeing its under 180 points or around there so i can fit it into the 1000 point build.

BrookM wrote:Vanquisher either needs a reduction in cost or an increase in BS to justify the high cost.

There is the upside of now being able to fire the Lascannon alongside the Vanquisher cannon, since it is no longer an Ordinance weapon.

don_mondo wrote:

Mahu wrote:

I would rather have consistency across the game, modeling and base wise, even at the expense of a few gamers that have to adapt. I have seen too many gamers use their old base sizes to their advantage.

Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

But, am I the only one that sees the benefits of a two wound base that is immune to instant death (if that is the case)? You essentially get to "hide" the loader from the wound allocation rules. Blasts will only cause a single wound to the base. Hell, those things are true even if they aren't immune to instant death.

I also would like to see consistency across the game. So as soon as Marines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Chaos, etc etc all have to base their heavy weapons as two wound models on a single large base, then we'll have consistency. Until then, they're throwing in a needless complication and a modelling pain in the butt for those of us with hundreds of old-school miniatures.

Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.


They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.

They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

Umm, most of my heavy weapons are on self-propelled carriages. No one has to carry them - they drive them around like go-karts. Except, of course, for the missile launchers, but soldiers carry those around by themselves right now.

Ooooh, it's a fluff battle now eh?

Guard have servitors that have no problems chugging along carrying heavy bolters in one arm.


edit: But yeah, modelling 2-wound Ogryns would be pretty cool. That is, until the next edition when they'll change it up again and you'll need to remind everyone that those auto- and lascannons are are really ripper guns. But modelling them would be cool initially.

Janthkin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.

They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

Umm, most of my heavy weapons are on self-propelled carriages. No one has to carry them - they drive them around like go-karts. Except, of course, for the missile launchers, but soldiers carry those around by themselves right now.

Well your carriage has a wound then.

Guard have servitors that have no problems chugging along carrying heavy bolters in one arm.

So do the space marines, they're overexpensive and stupid. You can have them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

Mahu wrote:

I would rather have consistency across the game, modeling and base wise, even at the expense of a few gamers that have to adapt. I have seen too many gamers use their old base sizes to their advantage.

Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

But, am I the only one that sees the benefits of a two wound base that is immune to instant death (if that is the case)? You essentially get to "hide" the loader from the wound allocation rules. Blasts will only cause a single wound to the base. Hell, those things are true even if they aren't immune to instant death.

I also would like to see consistency across the game. So as soon as Marines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Chaos, etc etc all have to base their heavy weapons as two wound models on a single large base, then we'll have consistency. Until then, they're throwing in a needless complication and a modelling pain in the butt for those of us with hundreds of old-school miniatures.

Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.


They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

You've lost me on that one. Yeah, let's make their rules different from everyone else (rules, mind you, not fluff) and you call that consistent?

Oh, I'm sorry your right. You know what? Lets take the tyranids biomorphs away too. No one else has those. Ork mob rule? Thats out. They shall know no fear? Well that ones totally unfair. Daemons? Gone!

You've lost me on that one. Yeah, let's make their rules different from everyone else (rules, mind you, not fluff) and you call that consistent?

I'm talking fluff consistency. If everything was consistent model and rulewise there would be one army. Two man weapon teams is a realistic portrayal of a heavy weapon. Otherwise why not just give every trooper a heavy bolter, since clearly he can iron man it all by himself.

ubermosher wrote:And before anyone mentions it, you can model the ogryn with a bloody bandage to represent 2 wounds instead of 3.

it is a cool modelling idea (and would work well with catachans IMHO) but you'd also have to model the ogryn toothless with bowed legs to indicate his scurvy and rickets (justifying his drop to t3) and possibly a stephen hawking-like wheelchair for his MD/MS (dropping his strength to 3).

edit:
what i am excited about is to finagle my why into having a legal ogryn "command squad" that is viable (but not necessarily great) on the table and not just a conversion. ogryn squad including bonehead, attached commissar, nork (with commissar), and kell for the standard.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes. Not use the models I've spent lots of money on. That's an excellent solution.

Well, seriously, H.B.M.C., how many games do you really get to use all your models that you've spent money on anyway?

foil7102 wrote:Well instead of female dogging about what we dont know, I would rather female dog about what we do. Just looking at the sheets I would have to rate to russ's in the following order of power.

Vanquisher Cannon
Demolisher Cannon
Battle Cannon
Exicutioner Plasma cannon
Punisher Gattling Cannon
Eradicator Nova.

However I do not see the points costs supporing this list

Well, considering we don't know what the points cost for these will be I don't know how much we can really make a solid comparison of these yet either. That said, I think there's one thing that people are forgetting about the Vanquisher. All we know about the Vanquisher's cannon is that it is Heavy 1, S8 AP2 with some special rule for Armor Pen. I think folks are assuming that because Vanquishers under FW and the AC rules used to either be able to use Vanquisher shells or regular Battle Cannon shells that you could still use it for a Battle Cannon. If that's still the case with this new addition, then, yes, Vanquishers will be where its at. But we don't know that. GW could just give them Vanquisher shells and nothing else, making them dedicated Anti-Tank. If that's the case, they'll still have some use, for sure, but not nearly as much as if they can also throw pie-plates. Because really, what you want is to be able to use Vanquisher rounds in the early game while you get rid of tanks and pie-plates in the late game for getting rid of pesky infantry.

I used to think that Demolishers had it over LRBTs. But that 24" range for the Demolisher cannon is really limiting - particularly compared to the 72 inches of a Battle cannon. Don't get me wrong, I think Demolishers have a place - particularly against Deep Striking opponents. But if the rumors about LRBT squadrons are true, I'd rather take 3 LRBTs and 2 Demolishers than 3 Demolishers. Heck, I might prefer to take 5 LRBTS over 3 LRBTs and 2 Demolishers simply for the number of pies I can hit the other side of the board with on Round 1.

What does everyone think is better vs termies; the demolisher or whatever variation of executioner(plas) that could be in the new dex?

Death By Monkeys wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes. Not use the models I've spent lots of money on. That's an excellent solution.

Well, seriously, H.B.M.C., how many games do you really get to use all your models that you've spent money on anyway?

He could do it in Apocalypse!!!


p.s. I can't believe you're still talking about the whole base issue.

foil7102 wrote:
Vanquisher Cannon
Demolisher Cannon
Battle Cannon
Exicutioner Plasma cannon
Punisher Gattling Cannon
Eradicator Nova.

What sort of weapon is the Eradicator Nova? Is it an energy weapon of some kind? A projectile? Could it have some kind of special rule we're not aware of?

At this point, I'm happy with the LRBTs and Demolishers I currently have, but I'd be interested in adding a Executioner or two to the mix if the turret looks good.

As for the Chimera chassis weapons, I really like the idea of missile weapons. I think those and the Melta Cannon would look ace along side my Witch-Hunters, my Sisters' Melta-Weaponry and their Exorcist missile launchers. I'll probably sign up for a few Deathstrikes and Manticores.

How would you rank the Chimera chassis weapons?

MikeK wrote:What does everyone think is better vs termies; the demolisher or whatever variation of executioner(plas) that could be in the new dex?

The new executioner has 3 shots, albeit at a smaller blast, but has a longer range, triple the number of shots, and can fire it's main gun in addition to the sponson and hull weapons, and if the Executioner can get Plasma cannon sponsons, thats a potential 5 S7 AP2 small blasts plus a lascannon against a termi squad as opposed to either a single S10 Ap2 large blast or 2 plasma cannons and a lascannon.

I think it's a no-brainer, especially with the same armor.

George Spiggott wrote:I'm expecting a reduction in cost for the Leman Russ Vanquisher, perhaps a slight reduction for the Leman Russ Battle Tank too

If they get that rule that allows them to move and fire everything, combined with the AV13, I can see their cost going up. If the move-and-fire rule is still trumped by firing Ordnance (ie. firing the Battlecannon still stops you from using your HBs) then the price will probably still go up, 'cause GW usually doesn't think these sorts of things through. On the other hand, I do expect some level of consistent pointing with these new tanks (other than the Executioner, which will be OMGWTFBBQOVERPRICED!) because GW still isn't FW, and, for the most part, understands comparative pricing.

BYE

ph34r wrote:Even though the vanquisher will probably pen every time vs AV 14, it still misses half the time and cover negates it half the time. Unless you really, really need to guarantee a roll on the chart for a land raider or something I don't think it will be worth it. You might get one or two pens over the course of the entire game. I haven't compared it to lascannon teams or melta gunners but overall it seems lackluster, especially when melta gunners get +1 on the chart and will most likely ignore cover.

Well put. A BS3 Vanquisher is bloody pathetic and will be surpassed in efficiency by just about any other anti-tank the IG has.

I'm hoping that the rumored Inquisitor HQ choice is still in there somewhere.

I really don't want to start another army, but if I can play with some of the new units by adding them to my existing Inquisition force (sort of), then it will be all good!

Especially as I'll probably be able to field the 4 squads of Stormtroopers to help do this...

Alpharius wrote:I'm hoping that the rumored Inquisitor HQ choice is still in there somewhere.

He'd be in the summary if he was.

BYE

don_mondo wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.


They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

You've lost me on that one. Yeah, let's make their rules different from everyone else (rules, mind you, not fluff) and you call that consistent?

Could it be possible that future 'weapons teams' (even for other races) will be based in a similar fashion - and IG are the first to receive such treatment? I mean, could be a wild guess, but it is possible.

As for the result of such a move by GW - I guess it really just needs to be looked at in perspective. I would guess that most people won't have an issue with folks continuing to use the old HW versions they use now. It would seem that the only time this would become a real issue, is in a tournament setting - at which point, you just have to ask yourself, "is it important enough to me to participate"? If it is - you'll probably get the new HW's, paint 'em up, and press on. I guess I just don't see it as a big deal as others do.

The only issue I really have so far, based on what we've seen, are 4pt Guardsmen. To me, that seems too low. Just a first impression, tho. Not really a whine or complaint, but more a concern than anything. Time and lot of table-play will tell if its unfounded or not.

I am not an IG player, but have several in the area I play in. I am always very excited for folks to get their new codex books - it's like Christmas, and seeing friends energetic and excited about their army of choice is very cool to me. That feeling of contentment is echoed here, seeing a lot of you IG folks excited about your new book. I truly am happy for you guys.

Thinking less about the logistics of the two wounds or rebasing aspect of the HW team, how do we think this is going to work as an option in the codex? Will it just be a (rather awkward) choice of dropping two guard for one HW, keeping the 10 man squad we have now (even though technically it's only 9 models)? Will GW down the route of having them as a add on to a 10 man unit, in a similar fashion to advisors, giving you 10 guard and one heavy weapon thing?

If you think about the simplest way for GW to make the new infantry squad box (if it happens), it's using current sprues, which means a box would have 10 Cadians and a HW option, so it would make some sort of sense to let you use all the options you get in the box.

Just a thought.

And if they do that every Guard player has to go out and buy more Lasgunners to make their squads legal again, or reorganise everything to make it legal. Same thing applies if HW squads are 10-men each (or 7 really, with 3 of the models having 2 wounds each).

BYE

You guys DO know that the new $22 ten man box is just 2 of the current 5 man Cadian sprues, right?

H.B.M.C. wrote:If it's on top of 10 men then it makes packing the box pretty easy - just halve the current size of the Cadian/Catachan box and just slide in he two HW sprues. Instant 12-man box, and every Guard player has to go out and buy more Lasgunners to make their squads legal again.

BYE

you know that Makes so much sense its scary. it would also mean every squad would pick up a lasgun shot not lose it and 11 wounds would have to be done to reach the heavy weapon.

I just think its really hopeful thinking on our part though.

Vladsimpaler wrote:You guys DO know that the new $22 ten man box is just 2 of the current 5 man Cadian sprues, right?

No.

Do you?

Care to show us where this has been stated/shown/previewed/confirmed?

BYE

Vladsimpaler wrote:You guys DO know that the new $22 ten man box is just 2 of the current 5 man Cadian sprues, right?

I've heard it's 10+HW in every rumor. If you have some late-breaking updates, please share.

My word, are we really on 20 pages?! Methinks GW are onto a winner with this Codex. Why all the sudden love for Imperial Guard? Is is it the 20+ tanks, the toughness 5 Ogryns, the sleek new Valkyrie, or do we just all identify best with the common human grunt?

Flashman wrote:My word, are we really on 20 pages?! Methinks GW are onto a winner with this Codex. Why all the sudden love for Imperial Guard? Is is it the 20+ tanks, the toughness 5 Ogryns, the sleek new Valkyrie, or do we just all identify best with the common human grunt?

Common Grunt! Although there's also the part of me that likes sheer numbers, but dislikes green football hooligans .

'Cause it's been a while since there's been a new Guard Codex, and from the looks of things we're not getting a dud like the 'Chaos' Codex, but something more akin to the new Marine or Ork 'Dex, something that is both worth playing and exciting as well.

Of course, it might all fall flat on its face if they don't deal with the KP issue (auto-lose 1/3rd of all missions ain't fun), but at the end of the day we're getting a bitz-laden Command Squad and a plastic Valk. Difficult to top that (plastic Thunderhawk would do it though!). I'm going to buy a box'o'twenty Guardsmen this week just so I have spare bodies to use all the stuff in the Command Squad box.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Alpharius wrote:I'm hoping that the rumored Inquisitor HQ choice is still in there somewhere.

He'd be in the summary if he was.

BYE

Good point.

I am now sad.

Looks like H.B.M.C.s IG purchases are going to keep GW afloat for a while, so they can stop worrying about the credit crunch.

I think the KP issue might be resolved by hiding all infantry behind a row of tanks and not venturing out until everything has been flattened by ordnance barrages and hellstrike missiles.

Yeah why can't we all get some bailout money for new IG purchases.

People in Australia are. AUD$900 from the Government to just about everyone. It's absurd, but it's buying me two Shadowswords, a few Command Squad boxes, all the new metals and my wing of Valks.

BYE

AAAHHHH I hate you guys thats just awesome. I wish Obama would do that for me. I would love to buy me a bunch of Shadowswords and all the other new IG stuff.

Ghost in the Darkness wrote:AAAHHHH I hate you guys thats just awesome. I wish Obama would do that for me. I would love to buy me a bunch of Shadowswords and all the other new IG stuff.

I'd love it if Brown tossed a few hundred quids my way, but that's not going to happen, so I'll have to cut down on my monthly beer and pizza bills to get my hands on the new kit I'm gonna need.

H.B.M.C. wrote:People in Australia are. AUD$900 from the Government to just about everyone. It's absurd, but it's buying me two Shadowswords, a few Command Squad boxes, all the new metals and my wing of Valks.

BYE

These tanks need a sticker: "brought to you by......"

Flashman wrote:My word, are we really on 20 pages?! Methinks GW are onto a winner with this Codex. Why all the sudden love for Imperial Guard? Is is it the 20+ tanks, the toughness 5 Ogryns, the sleek new Valkyrie, or do we just all identify best with the common human grunt?

Identifying with the common grunt. The men and women of the Guard are the unsung heroes. It is really easy to get in the character of Joe Guardman. The Astartes are brainwashed genemodified killing machines, Orks are psychotic bipedal fungi and the Tyranids are just totally alien.

Hrm. It appears the Cadian Battleforce has been removed from both the UK and US online stores. The Catachan Battleforce was removed from the UK online store.

Just thought I'd mention it for those looking to stock up before hand. Like me. Time to go loot some FLGS!