Eh, the 6E book hadd as many nerfs as it did buffs (e.g. Chimeras, Vendettas, Manticores, Hydras, etc), it was just a relatively lame re-jiggling of the existing 5E book that didn't fix any of the major problems with the army, it was about as phoned-in as one could get.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I don't think it will be the AM codex in the spring. I think I might know what it is, but I'd prefer to keep it in the family for now, lest my brothers turn to brooding.
I have no doubt BrookM is correct, so no changes. The lack of flamers is odd though.
Not sure if this was posted before but the formations are Cadian Detachments (so they are their own subfaction of the AM ruleswise) and any unit (with a few exceptions) from the AM book can be chosen as Cadian Detachments as well. Character models from this sub-faction may pick relics from BOTH lists simultaneously.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Yeah, the only way these formations are worth a damn is if they are future-proofed to work with a HEAVILY buffed codex coming in the future. Not counting on it.
Can you or someone else please explain to me what you think is wrong with our current codex? I can't really find any major flaws, except the lack of strong formations and a decurion style detachment (which is the norm for newer codices now) and now we have those.
I have no problem competing with my IG army. Sure, against Eldar and Necrons there are problems, but I think our current codex is one of the more balanced ones at the moment, and it's dang fun to play. With this new detachment, the new formations and what not I think it might just become a really strong codex.
What exactly is wrong with our current codex, and what "HEAVY buffs" you speak of do we really need?
in a codex where the only good unit worth taking, is the wyvern, please tell me whats good in the current codex
Greatly disappointed with these formations. They could have done much better.
I hope that when the codex comes out that the book will have some uniqueness to the different regiments...but after seeing these formations...I'm not counting on it. Thus, my IG will still remain in their battle foam bags for another 3 years.
Yeah, not a single drop in points for the baneblade family. I love my IG but this decisively killed any hope I have for the next codex and any enthusiasm I had to work on my army besides the flyers so I can use them with my skitarii.
Ir0njack wrote: Yeah, not a single drop in points for the baneblade family. I love my IG but this decisively killed any hope I have for the next codex and any enthusiasm I had to work on my army besides the flyers so I can use them with my skitarii.
Yeeeah...
These lists aren't meant to update/replace existing rules from what I can tell. It's to eliminate extraneous books. As of now, Escalation is basically unnecessary to exist as its own product.
I understand that you am players are angry that you aren't getting a formation that is super op like the decurion or the Gladius strike force, but I'm surprised you guys aren't more pumped about a formation that encourages you to bring 170 infantry, lol.
I think it would be fun to field such a list personally. I think it can easily fit in 1k games too. Sounds like a good old time.
I think 1k of space marines would struggle to defeat this.
Ir0njack wrote: Yeah, not a single drop in points for the baneblade family. I love my IG but this decisively killed any hope I have for the next codex and any enthusiasm I had to work on my army besides the flyers so I can use them with my skitarii.
Yeeeah...
These lists aren't meant to update/replace existing rules from what I can tell. It's to eliminate extraneous books. As of now, Escalation is basically unnecessary to exist as its own product.
But why not take the opportunity to sensibly adjust points costs that existed before the advent of IKs, Wraithknights, and other LOWs that are significantly cheaper and better? No one was asking for a rewrite of their rules, just take some fething points off the top and make people actually want to play some of these things.
And you might even move some product if you took the herculean effort it takes to edit a couple numbers in Publisher.
eleven11 wrote: I understand that you am players are angry that you aren't getting a formation that is super op like the decurion or the Gladius strike force, but I'm surprised you guys aren't more pumped about a formation that encourages you to bring 170 infantry, lol.
I think it would be fun to field such a list personally. I think it can easily fit in 1k games too. Sounds like a good old time.
I think 1k of space marines would struggle to defeat this.
Us AM players aren't angry because we didn't get an OP formation. We're angry because most of the formations are quite frankly terrible or require an absurd number of models just to run. Most of us don't have 170 Guardsmen. I have 60 Guardsmen, and I've been playing Guard for 3 years now. It doesn't fix any of the problems our codex has, it just makes us buy more models.
I understand that you am players are angry that you aren't getting a formation that is super op like the decurion or the Gladius strike force, but I'm surprised you guys aren't more pumped about a formation that encourages you to bring 170 infantry, lol.
I think it would be fun to field such a list personally. I think it can easily fit in 1k games too. Sounds like a good old time.
I think 1k of space marines would struggle to defeat this.
You do get the point, that even some of the veterans simply don't have that ammount of models to put on the table?
And that it's 1k+ points BARE, without any upgrades. And watcha gonna do, when a heavy flamer dread is gonna drop on you? Smack him with your S3 atacks?
eleven11 wrote: I understand that you am players are angry that you aren't getting a formation that is super op like the decurion or the Gladius strike force, but I'm surprised you guys aren't more pumped about a formation that encourages you to bring 170 infantry, lol.
I think it would be fun to field such a list personally. I think it can easily fit in 1k games too. Sounds like a good old time.
I think 1k of space marines would struggle to defeat this.
Ir0njack wrote: Yeah, not a single drop in points for the baneblade family. I love my IG but this decisively killed any hope I have for the next codex and any enthusiasm I had to work on my army besides the flyers so I can use them with my skitarii.
Yeeeah...
These lists aren't meant to update/replace existing rules from what I can tell. It's to eliminate extraneous books. As of now, Escalation is basically unnecessary to exist as its own product.
But why not take the opportunity to sensibly adjust points costs that existed before the advent of IKs, Wraithknights, and other LOWs that are significantly cheaper and better? No one was asking for a rewrite of their rules, just take some fething points off the top and make people actually want to play some of these things.
And you might even move some product if you took the herculean effort it takes to edit a couple numbers in Publisher.
From what I've seen?
There is literally nothing in this book that actually puts points costs down for AM, barring the Relics. This isn't like Kauyon where the Tau have certain units given adjusted points costs.
This actually does make me think we'll see a new Codex, with pretty drastic overhauls to the main rules, sometime soon.
eleven11 wrote: I understand that you am players are angry that you aren't getting a formation that is super op like the decurion or the Gladius strike force, but I'm surprised you guys aren't more pumped about a formation that encourages you to bring 170 infantry, lol.
I think it would be fun to field such a list personally. I think it can easily fit in 1k games too. Sounds like a good old time.
I think 1k of space marines would struggle to defeat this.
Ir0njack wrote: Yeah, not a single drop in points for the baneblade family. I love my IG but this decisively killed any hope I have for the next codex and any enthusiasm I had to work on my army besides the flyers so I can use them with my skitarii.
Yeeeah...
These lists aren't meant to update/replace existing rules from what I can tell. It's to eliminate extraneous books. As of now, Escalation is basically unnecessary to exist as its own product.
But why not take the opportunity to sensibly adjust points costs that existed before the advent of IKs, Wraithknights, and other LOWs that are significantly cheaper and better? No one was asking for a rewrite of their rules, just take some fething points off the top and make people actually want to play some of these things.
And you might even move some product if you took the herculean effort it takes to edit a couple numbers in Publisher.
From what I've seen?
There is literally nothing in this book that actually puts points costs down for AM, barring the Relics. This isn't like Kauyon where the Tau have certain units given adjusted points costs.
This actually does make me think we'll see a new Codex, with pretty drastic overhauls to the main rules, sometime soon.
there has to be a majour codex adjustment, cause AM in the current form will die with only formations added ...
Is there any info out about anything other than formations (or things mistaken from the imperium/tau book)? This thread is a bit of a mess and I'm looking for consolidated, reliable info.
eleven11 wrote: I understand that you am players are angry that you aren't getting a formation that is super op like the decurion or the Gladius strike force, but I'm surprised you guys aren't more pumped about a formation that encourages you to bring 170 infantry, lol.
I think it would be fun to field such a list personally. I think it can easily fit in 1k games too. Sounds like a good old time.
I think 1k of space marines would struggle to defeat this.
Us AM players aren't angry because we didn't get an OP formation. We're angry because most of the formations are quite frankly terrible or require an absurd number of models just to run. Most of us don't have 170 Guardsmen. I have 60 Guardsmen, and I've been playing Guard for 3 years now. It doesn't fix any of the problems our codex has, it just makes us buy more models.
With no upgrades it's 5 points over 1k, due to the sentinels.
But you don't really need to take these formations to bring a ton of dudes. The IG codex allows you to bring 600+ infantry already in a CAD already. You can do that and not be forced to take sentinels. The new platoon command order is not even very good. It allows you to move and then fire as if you were stationary. Before you could move everything other than the heavy weapons and then issue "forward for the emperor" which would let you fire and then run. This actually gives you more movement than the new one.
I think the biggest frustration for me with this release is that the new formations are a way to spam things. Guard could already spam things. Spam them hard. I was hoping for more diverse formations that would force you to take a diverse list of units and give bonuses that would make those units useful. War Convocation for example makes you take a bunch of weird units, but by giving Canticles of the Omnissiah to them, you find new utility in them. Re-rolling 1s on lasguns does not breathe new life into the guard. I barely want to spend the time shooting the lasguns the first time.
I'm not quitting Guard or throwing a fit about what I deserve. I'll just continue to make lists that include Forgeworld units and armies.
ThirstySpaceMan wrote: Any rumors of named captains returning? I miss the old tallaran guy's rules. I also miss the flavor of fluff theamed builds other than cadian.
Welcome to Dakka Sadly, GW's policy of getting rid of characters without models leaves us waiting for new characters to be created alongside new releases. Given that GW is not keen to charge anything less than $30+ for a plastic clampack now, it would be hard to imagine an IG character of sufficient might to warrant this treatment.
ThirstySpaceMan wrote: Any rumors of named captains returning? I miss the old tallaran guy's rules. I also miss the flavor of fluff theamed builds other than cadian.
Welcome to Dakka Sadly, GW's policy of getting rid of characters without models leaves us waiting for new characters to be created alongside new releases. Given that GW is not keen to charge anything less than $30+ for a plastic clampack now, it would be hard to imagine an IG character of sufficient might to warrant this treatment.
Captain Al'Rahem and Chenkov did have models. Marbo too. Oddly enough I can't think of many characters that did not have a model.
I always assumed they would bring them back via data slates. For example Cypher does not have a current model and he got some fun rules and scenarios. Packaging Marbo with some mini games and scenarios would be pretty awesome.
Also, the IG commissar plastic clam pack is only 21 bucks.
eleven11 wrote: I understand that you am players are angry that you aren't getting a formation that is super op like the decurion or the Gladius strike force,
but I'm surprised you guys aren't more pumped about a formation that encourages you to bring 170 infantry, lol.
I think it would be fun to field such a list personally. I think it can easily fit in 1k games too. Sounds like a good old time.
I think 1k of space marines would struggle to defeat this.
The Decurion is not OP. It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.
170 Guardsmen will cost something like 900 points without any upgrades, leaving 100 points for weapon upgrades. It would be a huge punching bag.
If I were to field 170 Guardsmen, I would expect them to eat up 1500 pts with normal upgrades, +500 pts Transport = 2000 pts. That would be part of a 4k or 5k game, not a 1k game.
ThirstySpaceMan wrote: Any rumors of named captains returning? I miss the old tallaran guy's rules. I also miss the flavor of fluff theamed builds other than cadian.
Welcome to Dakka Sadly, GW's policy of getting rid of characters without models leaves us waiting for new characters to be created alongside new releases. Given that GW is not keen to charge anything less than $30+ for a plastic clampack now, it would be hard to imagine an IG character of sufficient might to warrant this treatment.
Captain Al'Rahem and Chenkov did have models. Marbo too. Oddly enough I can't think of many characters that did not have a model.
I always assumed they would bring them back via data slates. For example Cypher does not have a current model and he got some fun rules and scenarios. Packaging Marbo with some mini games and scenarios would be pretty awesome.
Marbo probably is never coming back.
The only Guard model that was dropped who did not have a model was Lukas Bastonne, who literally got introduced for one book and was gone the next. Shame too because I liked his fluff.
I think a better way to discuss this is that we won't see any new Guard character without a boxed set, because even Tank Commanders come with a "bodyguard" ruleswise.
Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:Well all of these formations are coming from the Tau campaign book correct? So we have yet to see any info about the actual codex.
I shall remain, cautiously optimistic.
When do you tnink we'll see this codex? I think Q1 2016 isn't happening, and if it was, then shouldn't the codex be on the way to the publisher by now? If so, wouldn't it have made sense to have adjusted points costs on the SHTs in Mont'ka if in fact there was a points adjustment in the new codex? Which would seem to indicate to me either:
1) Earliest new IG codex Q2 2016, or (more depressingly)..
2) No significant changes to new IG codex bar some terribad formations if Mont'ka is an indication of their new (old?) IG design philosophy.
ThirstySpaceMan wrote: Any rumors of named captains returning? I miss the old tallaran guy's rules. I also miss the flavor of fluff theamed builds other than cadian.
Welcome to Dakka Sadly, GW's policy of getting rid of characters without models leaves us waiting for new characters to be created alongside new releases. Given that GW is not keen to charge anything less than $30+ for a plastic clampack now, it would be hard to imagine an IG character of sufficient might to warrant this treatment.
Captain Al'Rahem and Chenkov did have models. Marbo too. Oddly enough I can't think of many characters that did not have a model.
To GW, metal models are a thing of the past. They would never put a character into a new codex that only had a metal model because they do not intend on making more. Anything that was ported to Finecast was an exception to that rule. Anything still in metal available at your FLGS or on GW's online store is backstock that once expened, will not be replaced.
I always assumed they would bring them back via data slates. For example Cypher does not have a current model and he got some fun rules and scenarios. Packaging Marbo with some mini games and scenarios would be pretty awesome.
I'm glad the dataslate theory was proven false. It would have been a ridiculous concept to have to pay additional money for things that should have simply been included in the codex.
Also, the IG commissar plastic clam pack is only 21 bucks.
That was then, this is now. But if I recall, many of us balked at that price for a plastic, monopose model at the time. How silly were we, huh?
Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:Well all of these formations are coming from the Tau campaign book correct? So we have yet to see any info about the actual codex.
I shall remain, cautiously optimistic.
When do you tnink we'll see this codex? I think Q1 2016 isn't happening, and if it was, then shouldn't the codex be on the way to the publisher by now? If so, wouldn't it have made sense to have adjusted points costs on the SHTs in Mont'ka if in fact there was a points adjustment in the new codex? Which would seem to indicate to me either:
1) Earliest new IG codex Q2 2016, or (more depressingly)..
2) No significant changes to new IG codex bar some terribad formations if Mont'ka is an indication of their new (old?) IG design philosophy.
That's predicated solely upon the idea of the SHTs being in the new book AND that this current book wouldn't reprint Escalation's statlines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote: Lukas Bastonne and Mogul Kamir both did not have models, but then again, they weren't exactly stellar choices.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I don't think it will be the AM codex in the spring. I think I might know what it is, but I'd prefer to keep it in the family for now, lest my brothers turn to brooding.
Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:Well all of these formations are coming from the Tau campaign book correct? So we have yet to see any info about the actual codex.
I shall remain, cautiously optimistic.
When do you tnink we'll see this codex? I think Q1 2016 isn't happening, and if it was, then shouldn't the codex be on the way to the publisher by now? If so, wouldn't it have made sense to have adjusted points costs on the SHTs in Mont'ka if in fact there was a points adjustment in the new codex? Which would seem to indicate to me either:
1) Earliest new IG codex Q2 2016, or (more depressingly)..
2) No significant changes to new IG codex bar some terribad formations if Mont'ka is an indication of their new (old?) IG design philosophy.
That's predicated solely upon the idea of the SHTs being in the new book AND that this current book wouldn't reprint Escalation's statlines.
Every new codex has had a LOW entry since GKs, correct? Baneblade variants are the IG's LOW, so they will reprint the rules in the newest IG dex when it's made. They don't need 9 separate pages. At most, a 2-page spread detailing options, just like they do for Leman Russ variants. So, I think it's a pretty safe assumption no new codex for the next 4-6 months or a really bad one sooner.
Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:Well all of these formations are coming from the Tau campaign book correct? So we have yet to see any info about the actual codex.
I shall remain, cautiously optimistic.
When do you tnink we'll see this codex? I think Q1 2016 isn't happening, and if it was, then shouldn't the codex be on the way to the publisher by now? If so, wouldn't it have made sense to have adjusted points costs on the SHTs in Mont'ka if in fact there was a points adjustment in the new codex? Which would seem to indicate to me either:
1) Earliest new IG codex Q2 2016, or (more depressingly)..
2) No significant changes to new IG codex bar some terribad formations if Mont'ka is an indication of their new (old?) IG design philosophy.
That's predicated solely upon the idea of the SHTs being in the new book AND that this current book wouldn't reprint Escalation's statlines.
Every new codex has had a LOW entry since GKs, correct? Baneblade variants are the IG's LOW, so they will reprint the rules in the newest IG dex when it's made. They don't need 9 separate pages. At most, a 2-page spread detailing options, just like they do for Leman Russ variants. So, I think it's a pretty safe assumption no new codex for the next 4-6 months or a really bad one sooner.
See, that's assuming that we're going to see the Baneblade as the IG's LoW. I can think of a few other things that could make an appearance in that slot.
In any regards, who knows. Maybe this is going to be another case where Guard get a book right before a new edition? Maybe an edition that isn't outright hostile to vehicles!
JohnHwangDD wrote: It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.
This won't make you feel any better, but I don't think that's how GW writes these books and codices. I think their goal is to best approximate the fluff and create a way to recreate the book battles on the table top. That's why in these campaign books you see aliens battling a host of Imperial forces. So to compare power levels, you should take into account the knight formations and space marine formations that can be found in these books. The Necron, Tau and Eldar books need to contain everything necessary to fight all the Imperium books, so they tend to be more powerful.
A platoon of guardsmen might not be strong. But a platoon of guardsmen being led by a White Scar librarian conclave with the item that grants ignore cover has a bit more juice.
For those players who want to collect and play a single codex, this might be frustrating, but that's the cinematic vision that GW is trying to achieve.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.
This won't make you feel any better, but I don't think that's how GW writes these books and codices. I think their goal is to best approximate the fluff and create a way to recreate the book battles on the table top. That's why in these campaign books you see aliens battling a host of Imperial forces. So to compare power levels, you should take into account the knight formations and space marine formations that can be found in these books. The Necron, Tau and Eldar books need to contain everything necessary to fight all the Imperium books, so they tend to be more powerful.
A platoon of guardsmen might not be strong. But a platoon of guardsmen being led by a White Scar librarian conclave with the item that grants ignore cover has a bit more juice.
For those players who want to collect and play a single codex, this might be frustrating, but that's the cinematic vision that GW is trying to achieve.
Yeah, it's really not.
That's what players ASSUME that GW is trying to achieve.
Wow, just saw the rules for the Emperor's Shield. I get that GW wants to sell models (they tricked me into buying another Tactical Squad for the Battle Demi-Company), but the number needed is absurd for the Guard. So either you can play tanks or...nothing at all. That is pretty lame.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.
This won't make you feel any better, but I don't think that's how GW writes these books and codices. I think their goal is to best approximate the fluff and create a way to recreate the book battles on the table top. That's why in these campaign books you see aliens battling a host of Imperial forces. So to compare power levels, you should take into account the knight formations and space marine formations that can be found in these books. The Necron, Tau and Eldar books need to contain everything necessary to fight all the Imperium books, so they tend to be more powerful.
A platoon of guardsmen might not be strong. But a platoon of guardsmen being led by a White Scar librarian conclave with the item that grants ignore cover has a bit more juice.
For those players who want to collect and play a single codex, this might be frustrating, but that's the cinematic vision that GW is trying to achieve.
Yeah, it's really not.
That's what players ASSUME that GW is trying to achieve.
"GW is trying to be cinematic!" or "GW is unjustly punishing me!" are both player assumptions. One makes more sense to me than the other, but it's true that we don't know which one is correct since GW never talks to the player base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
casvalremdeikun wrote: Wow, just saw the rules for the Emperor's Shield. I get that GW wants to sell models (they tricked me into buying another Tactical Squad for the Battle Demi-Company), but the number needed is absurd for the Guard. So either you can play tanks or...nothing at all. That is pretty lame.
Like I said above, we didn't need the formation to be able to take 165 guardsmen. We could already take 630+ in a combined arms detachment.
I do have 200+ painted guardsmen and I'm still not going to take this formation. Who has the time to move all those jerks? One time I took 3 40 man platoons and I never want to calculate that many lasgun shots ever again.
See, that's assuming that we're going to see the Baneblade as the IG's LoW. I can think of a few other things that could make an appearance in that slot.
If they make a Leviathan, will you buy me one, Kan Pretty please?
In any regards, who knows. Maybe this is going to be another case where Guard get a book right before a new edition? Maybe an edition that isn't outright hostile to vehicles!
I'm trying to decide which one of those options is more terrifying.
See, that's assuming that we're going to see the Baneblade as the IG's LoW. I can think of a few other things that could make an appearance in that slot.
If they make a Leviathan, will you buy me one, Kan Pretty please?
I wasn't thinking of the Leviathan, but man...now I kinda want one. So no, I won't buy you one but I hope we get one!
I was thinking more of the Marauder Bomber or some kind of bulk transport.
In any regards, who knows. Maybe this is going to be another case where Guard get a book right before a new edition? Maybe an edition that isn't outright hostile to vehicles!
I'm trying to decide which one of those options is more terrifying.
BrookM wrote: I'd love to hear the reasoning behind his removal, as I too have fond memories of the bastard. He once took down a Riptide all by himself.
Because he's too obvious a Rambo-copy, down to the anagram of a name. Same reason they removed Sherlock Obiwan Clousseau.
BrookM wrote: I'd love to hear the reasoning behind his removal, as I too have fond memories of the bastard. He once took down a Riptide all by himself.
Because he's too obvious a Rambo-copy, down to the anagram of a name. Same reason they removed Sherlock Obiwan Clousseau.
Doubt it
the collect... oh Tazyn is still about. and hes probably one of the coolest characters in the Necron book.
I'd be happy with a Commando character type unit that you could equip yourself but i liked him. I like Ork hunters but if the SG are back ill just wait for new diggas i waited 12 years now for SOB so there we go.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.
This won't make you feel any better, but I don't think that's how GW writes these books and codices. I think their goal is to best approximate the fluff and create a way to recreate the book battles on the table top. That's why in these campaign books you see aliens battling a host of Imperial forces. So to compare power levels, you should take into account the knight formations and space marine formations that can be found in these books. The Necron, Tau and Eldar books need to contain everything necessary to fight all the Imperium books, so they tend to be more powerful.
A platoon of guardsmen might not be strong. But a platoon of guardsmen being led by a White Scar librarian conclave with the item that grants ignore cover has a bit more juice.
For those players who want to collect and play a single codex, this might be frustrating, but that's the cinematic vision that GW is trying to achieve.
if you need a second codex to make AM competitive, then you have to admit, that codex AM is crap
NuggzTheNinja wrote: This is quite a long thread filled with wishful thinking, given the source. I thought people had finally figured out that Vela is FOS.
The original topic turned into wishlisting, followed by concrete discussion on the upcoming IG rules in Mont'ka and Battlegroup Hammerblow. I haven't given BOLS any thought, tbh. I'm sure the mods'll lock it down in the next few days. Then we wait until the next batch of manure rolls in from the fields
Because the Mont'Ka campaign book is Cadian, I think it leaves room to assume (hope) they will release a new codex (wish full thinking) for the other Guard armies. They could have used this book to consolidate all armies by calling it an Astra Militarum detachment, but chose to specifically indicate it is a Cadian force. Now, I'm wondering if the alleged Tyranid vs AM campaign will actually lead to a new codex; or instead be Tyranid vs Catachans only, and include a new detachment for them only in one of the campaign books.
Findslo wrote: Because the Mont'Ka campaign book is Cadian, I think it leaves room to assume (hope) they will release a new codex (wish full thinking) for the other Guard armies. They could have used this book to consolidate all armies by calling it an Astra Militarum detachment, but chose to specifically indicate it is a Cadian force. Now, I'm wondering if the alleged Tyranid vs AM campaign will actually lead to a new codex; or instead be Tyranid vs Catachans only, and include a new detachment for them only in one of the campaign books.
I mean, I'm hoping for Tzeentch Demonkin too....
I don't think we can assume rules for Catachan/Tallarn/Steel Legion et al are coming based on this campaign book having Cadian specific rules. Cadian's are the 'poster boys' for the Guard, just like Khorne is for Chaos. When Khorne Demonkin was released, everybody just assumed they'd be following up with the other 3 chaos gods. But nothing so far, aside from some vague rumours about a plastic Lord of Change.
Sad Panda has yet to be wrong. He was the first to rumor Khorne Daemonkin, and right from the beginning pointed out there won't be any other Daemonkin book. Later he posted also no new Chaos Space Marine Codex in 2015 and no Tzeentch Daemonkin specificially although many rumors said otherwise. All this turned out to be true.
It is sad for AM players. I would not wait for an AM codex book between Mont'Ka and Q3 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Exactly, GoonBandito
alasta wrote: Can't wait to see the cadian warlord traits in English. Looks like there's one that boosts the BS of something? and more master of ordnance love.
Heh.
I posted the translations (cross-checked them against the Mont'ka Glossary, so no translation issues--just translated the Warlord trait's name and matched it with the Glossary) earlier. Here you go:
Warlord Traits
Master Orator: Your Warlord has the Zealot special rule.
Dead-Eye Shot: Add 2 to your Warlord's Ballistic Skill, and 1 to the Ballistic Skill of models in his unit.
Artillery Veteran: Once per game, your Warlord can make an Artillery Bombardment as though he were a Master of Ordnance.
Unflappable Stoicism: Friendly units that are part of a Cadian Detachment do not take Morale tests for suffering 25% or more casualties while they are within 12" of your Warlord.
Above the Thundering Guns: Your Warlord has the Voice of Command special rule. If your Warlord already has the Voice of Command special rule, he can issue one additional order each turn.
Staunch Traditionalist: Friendly characters that are part of Cadian Detachments must issue and accept challenges wherever possible. If there is more than one friendly model with a rule that has this effect in a challenge, you may select which model issues or accepts the challenge. When fighting in challenges, friendly Characters that are part of Cadian Detachments can reroll failed To Hit and To Wound rolls.
That's really weird to give them a dueling warlord trait that seems more at home with an army like Black Templars, I don't recall Cadians having a very strong sense of dueling pride? They seem to come off as more pragmatic and disciplined rather than bound by codes of martial honour, given that doesn't get you very far against the rampant cultist and CSM activity near the Eye of Terror.
Dead-Eye Shot: Add 2 to your Warlord's Ballistic Skill, and 1 to the Ballistic Skill of models in his unit.
BS of 6 sounds funny but there is nothing to shoot with :(
Heh.
Remember that you can take a Tank Commander as a Warlord. So a BS6 Tank Commander and his BS4 Tank Bodyguard, given Kabe's Herald, issuing Orders to all the Leman Russ tanks.
ALL THE SPLIT-FIRE ORDNANCE SHENANIGANRY!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimskul wrote: That's really weird to give them a dueling warlord trait that seems more at home with an army like Black Templars, I don't recall Cadians having a very strong sense of dueling pride? They seem to come off as more pragmatic and disciplined rather than bound by codes of martial honour, given that doesn't get you very far against the rampant cultist and CSM activity near the Eye of Terror.
"Cadian Blood" brought up duels, but it didn't seem to be "pride in their skill as duelists" but rather "pride in their skill compared to outsiders". Thade beat the snot out of the Commissar assigned to the unit, simply because he wasn't a Cadian.
wrt the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon requirements and the bundle GW were doing for it - it looks like they've changed the wording on the website. It doesn't say "contains everything you need to run an Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon" anymore, rather "34 models in total, for an awesome Astra Militarum strike force".
February will hear the Saga of the Clickbait Slayer.
I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.
GoonBandito wrote: wrt the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon requirements and the bundle GW were doing for it - it looks like they've changed the wording on the website. It doesn't say "contains everything you need to run an Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon" anymore, rather "34 models in total, for an awesome Astra Militarum strike force".
They did the same thing with the "Rapid Insertion Force" last week, despite it still matching the requirements.
As of right now, the only things reading what is effectively "this bundle has everything to build a bundle as found in Mont'ka"? Counterstrike Cadre, Ranged Support Cadre, Riptide Wing.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I don't think it will be the AM codex in the spring. I think I might know what it is, but I'd prefer to keep it in the family for now, lest my brothers turn to brooding.
Brooding?
Tyranids confirmed! You heard it here first!
Hmmm...
Lest my brothers turn to brooding
Brothers turn to brooding
Brothers Brooding
Brood Brothers
Hold onto your denim pants guys, Genestealer cult confirmed!
JohnHwangDD wrote: It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.
This won't make you feel any better, but I don't think that's how GW writes these books and codices. I think their goal is to best approximate the fluff and create a way to recreate the book battles on the table top. That's why in these campaign books you see aliens battling a host of Imperial forces. So to compare power levels, you should take into account the knight formations and space marine formations that can be found in these books.
The Necron, Tau and Eldar books need to contain everything necessary to fight all the Imperium books, so they tend to be more powerful.
A platoon of guardsmen might not be strong. But a platoon of guardsmen being led by a White Scar librarian conclave with the item that grants ignore cover has a bit more juice.
For those players who want to collect and play a single codex, this might be frustrating, but that's the cinematic vision that GW is trying to achieve.
No, GW claims that they do internal playtesting, so IG should be just as strong as any other recent Codex, specifically Necrons & SMs.
SM's are strong enough by themselves. SM don't need Knights to be competitive. SM are on par with Knights and Necrons.
A platoon of Guardsmen should be points equivalent to a IKT, and a IG formation should be points equivalent to Decurion. And in those campaign books, they also highlight actions by individual Imperial forces. An IG Battalion or Battle Group. A SM Company. A Knight Lance.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It is the new normal, and the IG should be at that same power level when using whatever formations they get. That would be balanced and fair.
This won't make you feel any better, but I don't think that's how GW writes these books and codices. I think their goal is to best approximate the fluff and create a way to recreate the book battles on the table top. That's why in these campaign books you see aliens battling a host of Imperial forces. So to compare power levels, you should take into account the knight formations and space marine formations that can be found in these books.
The Necron, Tau and Eldar books need to contain everything necessary to fight all the Imperium books, so they tend to be more powerful.
A platoon of guardsmen might not be strong. But a platoon of guardsmen being led by a White Scar librarian conclave with the item that grants ignore cover has a bit more juice.
For those players who want to collect and play a single codex, this might be frustrating, but that's the cinematic vision that GW is trying to achieve.
No, GW claims that they do internal playtesting, so IG should be just as strong as any other recent Codex, specifically Necrons & SMs.
SM's are strong enough by themselves. SM don't need Knights to be competitive. SM are on par with Knights and Necrons.
A platoon of Guardsmen should be points equivalent to a IKT, and a IG formation should be points equivalent to Decurion. And in those campaign books, they also highlight actions by individual Imperial forces. An IG Battalion or Battle Group. A SM Company. A Knight Lance.
GW doesn't claim any play testing as they don't communicate their design philosophy to us. We are left guessing about their intention and how much play testing occurs.
As for points. Five hundred points of grots is not going to be nearly as useful as 500 points of knights in most cases.
It's not unreasonable for you to expect that the IG codex should be as good as the Tau codex. However, that's generally setting yourself up for disappointment. Just like expecting that 500 points of Orks wil be as good as 500 points of Tau. Taking a combined arms approach will make your lists more competitive for Imperials as independent character force multipliers make up for the gross point mismanagement on the part of GW.
If/when Orks get a new Codex, I would expect them to be points competitive with Tau.
500 points of Necrons / SMs / Tau should match fairly against 100 pts of IKTs; 500 points of Guard should also match that 500 pts of IKTs. And when Orks are upgraded, 500 pts of Orks should match 500 pts of IKTs. .
Right now, taking a combined approach is stupid because IKTs do everything IG could do, but better and cheaper. There are no force multipliers for IKTs. And the same holds for SMs, who also categorically outclass IG.
I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.
It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.
Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.
I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.
However it's kind of annoying as Mont'Ka is £45 which is more than a codex would have cost and all I want from it are the Cadian formations!!
I know it has lots of other stuff for other armies too but I don't understand the rationale of saving players money by not having to buy a codex only for them to have pay more for the campaign book....
But in terms of updating rules via formations I think it's a great idea and think the Tau model works well, and avoides power creep which we've had for a while whilst we wait for new Codexes.
I just think the data sheets for the formations would be better published in weekly White Dwarf (which I think most of them are but not all of them?).
I know it has lots of other stuff for other armies too but I don't understand the rationale of saving players money by not having to buy a codex only for them to have pay more for the campaign book....
The rationale of saving players money? Highly, highly, doubt that GW consider that.
StraightSilver wrote: I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.
It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.
Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.
I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.
Don't forget that Tau did get a new codex. So I don't think we have seen the end of codex's. Using campaigns to refresh armies is a cool way to go though, so hopefully they continue that.
StraightSilver wrote: I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.
It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.
Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.
I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.
Don't forget that Tau did get a new codex. So I don't think we have seen the end of codex's. Using campaigns to refresh armies is a cool way to go though, so hopefully they continue that.
Tau didn't actually get a new Codex though, they got the old one with the formations from Kauy'On (sp?) and GW explicitly stated that if you already had the old one you shouldn't buy the new one, so technically it was a reprint rather than a new 'Dex. So possibly we may see a reprinted AM/IG Codex but I doubt it will have any changes to the existing one.
In terms of saving palyers money I actually think the new CEO has grasped thhe concept that players have felt a bit cheated as far as Codexes are concerned, I certainly felt that way about the Imperial Knights and Space Marine Codexes.
But I also think they realise that Codexes actually stall new model production so they will possibly go altogether at some point as they have done in Age of Sigmar.
StraightSilver wrote: I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.
It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.
Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.
I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.
However it's kind of annoying as Mont'Ka is £45 which is more than a codex would have cost and all I want from it are the Cadian formations!!
I know it has lots of other stuff for other armies too but I don't understand the rationale of saving players money by not having to buy a codex only for them to have pay more for the campaign book....
But in terms of updating rules via formations I think it's a great idea and think the Tau model works well, and avoides power creep which we've had for a while whilst we wait for new Codexes.
I just think the data sheets for the formations would be better published in weekly White Dwarf (which I think most of them are but not all of them?).
i dont think this will work. AM can't be fixed with formations alone ... especialy when the majority of the formations is "useless" and if GW wants to sell miniatures they should try to create a game setting where the codices are equal so that every player has the chance to win. nobody buys miniatures from a game system that makes no fun playing.
Tau did get a new codex for all intents and purposes. The new book has a different layout, some cool new artwork and a couple of new units + the formations. That's all I want out of a new codex personally.
The only lame thing about the codex was the re-used cover artwork, I got the LE version so I'm not too annoyed but still...
As for GW looking to save people money, they are not really. Since if you are a tau player you pretty much had to buy montka and kauyon which costs you 90 pounds to replace the tau codex and farsight enclaves which were 50 pounds. So GW can use this method to make even more dolla, Hurray!
StraightSilver wrote: I honestly don't think we will be seeing a new IG/Am Codex, or for that matter new Codexes (Codices) in the future at all.
It seems that GW have realised that people don't want to keep buying hard back books every time the rules change but it also means that they aren't constrained by the Codex when they want to release new models.
Tau were a good example of this - they got several brand new models (Stormsurge, Shieldwall, Ghostkeel etc) released without having to publish a new book.
I think this is the way things will now be done, in other words campaign books that update or refresh existing Codex books without having to produce a new Codex.
However it's kind of annoying as Mont'Ka is £45 which is more than a codex would have cost and all I want from it are the Cadian formations!!
I know it has lots of other stuff for other armies too but I don't understand the rationale of saving players money by not having to buy a codex only for them to have pay more for the campaign book....
But in terms of updating rules via formations I think it's a great idea and think the Tau model works well, and avoides power creep which we've had for a while whilst we wait for new Codexes.
I just think the data sheets for the formations would be better published in weekly White Dwarf (which I think most of them are but not all of them?).
i dont think this will work. AM can't be fixed with formations alone ... especialy when the majority of the formations is "useless" and if GW wants to sell miniatures they should try to create a game setting where the codices are equal so that every player has the chance to win. nobody buys miniatures from a game system that makes no fun playing.
Not alone, but I think it can fix the majority of the problems. IG are a victim of power creep combined with the fictional reality that they can't be as individually as tough as Marines. Marines have no limit so there is no limit to their power creep. Fictionally IG on a unit to unit basis can never be as powerful as marines. So without increasing the power of individual units GW can only increase the number of models and units taken relative to the other or increase the synergistic advantages of taking combinations of units. The latter being what formations do. The quality and how worthwhile those formations are a different issue but it's a step in the right direction when the main distinction of IG is its numerical superiority of units that are suppose to work together rather than be individually powerful.
I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.
The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.
This seems to be a consistent problem with the cheaper armies (DE, SoB etc.) - especially in terms of characters. They start off cheap, but don't get any discounts on wargear. So, as soon as you start trying to tool them up, the difference in cost between them and, say, a tooled-up marine HQ quickly diminished - to the point where you're just not getting enough of a discount to justify the drastic drop in damage output and survivability.
Special/heavy weapons aren't quite as bad, but it's still an issue - especially when you consider upgrades as a % of a model's base cost. e.g. a marine pays ~100% of his cost for a plasmagun. A guardsman pays 300% of his base cost. Is he getting 3 times as much value as the space marine?
It's partially a problem with how so much of everything has been cost down. As a majority of things have become cheaper you end up with fractional cost differences that add up to greater and greater discrepancies.
The % cost of special and heavy weapons relative to base model cost is made all the worse when your base model costs are higher than they should be. So you have these stacking of excessive costs that then show up in any army many more times because high model count armies have that many more units. If a marine book has something miss cost it might only show up once or twice in a given army but in IG that miss cost will show up 8 or 9 times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.
I agree cost is an issue but if these bonus rules outside the unit entry are allowed to go far enough it can make up for cost disparagy. Formations make synergy more tangible that's why in that sort of scheme it's important.
aka_mythos wrote: It's partially a problem with how so much of everything has been cost down. As a majority of things have become cheaper you end up with fractional cost differences that add up to greater and greater discrepancies.
The % cost of special and heavy weapons relative to base model cost is made all the worse when your base model costs are higher than they should be. So you have these stacking of excessive costs that then show up in any army many more times because high model count armies have that many more units. If a marine book has something miss cost it might only show up once or twice in a given army but in IG that miss cost will show up 8 or 9 times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.
I agree cost is an issue but if these bonus rules outside the unit entry are allowed to go far enough it can make up for cost disparagy. Formations make synergy more tangible that's why in that sort of scheme it's important.
But there is no synergy in the current cadian formations. Its just more oft the same with some useless special rules. Who needs 260 lasgun shots at a single target. (Just example emperors shield company)
vostroyan second born wrote: But there is no synergy in the current cadian formations. Its just more oft the same with some useless special rules. Who needs 260 lasgun shots at a single target. (Just example emperors shield company)
Sounds like you're not forging that narrative correctly.
No seriously, I'm not (completely) trying to be snarky about this. We make fun of 'forging a narrative', but it's the way they do this.
Are 260 Lasgun shots actually useful? Not really. But does it forge a narrative? In the minds of those writing these rules, it does, therefore it gets written.
aka_mythos wrote: It's partially a problem with how so much of everything has been cost down. As a majority of things have become cheaper you end up with fractional cost differences that add up to greater and greater discrepancies.
The % cost of special and heavy weapons relative to base model cost is made all the worse when your base model costs are higher than they should be. So you have these stacking of excessive costs that then show up in any army many more times because high model count armies have that many more units. If a marine book has something miss cost it might only show up once or twice in a given army but in IG that miss cost will show up 8 or 9 times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.
I agree cost is an issue but if these bonus rules outside the unit entry are allowed to go far enough it can make up for cost disparagy. Formations make synergy more tangible that's why in that sort of scheme it's important.
But there is no synergy in the current cadian formations. Its just more oft the same with some useless special rules. Who needs 260 lasgun shots at a single target. (Just example emperors shield company)
Have you read the wording?
You can issue to "any number of units" in the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. You have 15 Infantry Squads all told, at minimum. So if you wanted to, you could do FRSRF on a number of Infantry Squads and then have the Platoon Commanders in each Platoon issue "Fire and Advance"(Fire as though you were stationary, despite moving) to those squads which have Heavy Weapons and didn't already fire.
It is kind of like the "Coordinated Attack" that we just saw the Tau get, where you can choose how many units/when to issue the order to fire at a target.
RAW? You can issue the Order to as many units as you would like in the Company. so you can issue FRSRF twice in a turn, bringing 5-7 Infantry Squads in for one big ol' mass of shooting against two targets.
You can then use the Platoon Commander's Order for any remaining units(HWTs, etc) and get to do "Fire and Advance" as well without it costing the Platoon Commander his actual Order.
It might SEEM unwieldy at first glance, but the more I've been looking/thinking about it...the more amusing this can be.
Yes i know the wording and i have to damit that it was not the best example.
But i still think that the cadian formations could/should have been better. If you look at the detachement you have to take >1000pt guardsman without anything or about 700-800pt tanks as core units. This is ridiculous.
I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.
I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.
Yes i know the wording and i have to damit that it was not the best example.
But i still think that the cadian formations could/should have been better. If you look at the detachement you have to take >1000pt guardsman without anything or about 700-800pt tanks as core units. This is ridiculous.
There is no reason you have to take these formations; so we're no worse off then before we got them. While it doesn't seem like the easiest army to use... it strikes me as very appropriate for true Cadian armies and it strikes me as GW taking the fluffy company composition charts and translating them into formation. I think these play to the type of battle doctrine Cadians have been shown to use.
Unlike the formations of other armies these aren't auto-take. Unless someone just happens to play this sort of army I don't see other people building to it. Tank armies are the ones that come out on top; even if they're a bit overpriced this helps.
I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.
Dwarves might be earlier than that.
The hint with the Saga of was too subtle?
It was. Space Wolves-related?
I guess I'd be stupid to hope that Chaos might get thrown a bone?
At this rate, they may as well just squat Chaos Marines and be done with it...
There is no reason you have to take these formations; so we're no worse off then before we got them. While it doesn't seem like the easiest army to use... it strikes me as very appropriate for true Cadian armies and it strikes me as GW taking the fluffy company composition charts and translating them into formation. I think these play to the type of battle doctrine Cadians have been shown to use.
The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.
The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.
The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.
The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.
I disagree. Catachans make more use of HWTs and sentinels than tanks. Cadians, imo, should be about BIG GUNS. Ground-to-orbit nukes, massed artillery and demolisher pie plates.
The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.
The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.
I disagree. Catachans make more use of HWTs and sentinels than tanks. Cadians, imo, should be about BIG GUNS. Ground-to-orbit nukes, massed artillery and demolisher pie plates.
Where do you guys get your Cadian info from? Cadia is about disciplined las-gun shooters, entrenched in WW:I- esque trenches, supported by heavy artillery and loads of LRBT companies.
The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.
The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.
Wouldn't Vallahans use more in the way of conscripts though?
You look at the fluff pages that shows the composition of a SM company and following SM formations you get an army that looks like that when you take Demi-companies. You look at the fluff pages that present a chart with the composition of a Cadian company and it always shows these large platoons akin to these formations. The only reason a company of Cadians would ever be composed of as few infantry models as people play is if they'd been whittled down over the course of a campaign or were a group assigned to some special mission.
The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.
The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.
I disagree. Catachans make more use of HWTs and sentinels than tanks. Cadians, imo, should be about BIG GUNS. Ground-to-orbit nukes, massed artillery and demolisher pie plates.
I think the difference between Cadian and Catachan would largely be the loss of the secondary formation that allows tanks in a troop like role, with instead some sort of formation making use of veterans and sentinels sorta leading the way for a greater number of smaller platoons.
Tyranids in January is nonsense. Fyreslayers.
Imp. Guard in February is nonsense. Space Wolves.
Not counting possible 1-week things (think Seraphon), only multi-week releases.
All I needed to hear. Thanks for the info SP!
Oh well, I did jokingly predict that SW's would get their 7.5 update before anything Chaos got looked at... And Guard are essentially getting an on-the-fly 7.5 update, even if it's a huge f-you in the way the rules themselves are being released.
So that only leaves BA's, Orks, Dark Eldar, Vanilla Marines, Necrons, Tau, Eldar and Tyranids left to go before Chaos gets anything!
Where do you guys get your Cadian info from? Cadia is about disciplined las-gun shooters, entrenched in WW:I- esque trenches, supported by heavy artillery and loads of LRBT companies.
That's what I mostly said: Pie plates (Demolishers, but could be other Russ tanks) and artillery.
And ground to orbit nukes, because why not? Especially when living so close to Eye of Terror. Also, if I remember correctly, one of Eisenhorns books had the scene were cadians trained their guns as soon as Gregor started landing
And if it's not out of the realms of possibilities, is there anything at all for Chaos coming in 2016? We're really starting to feel like the 'new' SoB at this point.
Edit
Also K'vor was right about at least 1 more rumor. Way back when Tau were being rumored he called the Breachers over on ATT before they came out (the only one I believe). Also all of the other correct Tau rumors that were floating around he was also basically saying. IIRC that is.
Ir0njack wrote: Well, new IG dex or not I'm still gonna be waiting for it to come out whenever it does. I can only hope that Sadpanda is either:
A: Wrong, and we'll be getting the update to put us on par with the other dexes
or
B: Right, but when the dex does hit we get a really ice update with cool goodies.
Outside of brand new units, the thing that AM/IG really need are:
A) An actual Veterans kit
B) A proper update to the basic Infantry Squad kit that gives 1x each special weapon and a couple power weapon options for the Sergeant. I'm sure it's also possible for GW to put the heavy weapon options into a newly redesigned kit, meaning they could also get rid of the single heavy weapon team kit while they're at it.
C) A Roughrider kit, though honestly at this point, they're so awful they could just as easily get dropped from the book altogether and almost no one would notice/complain.
Other than that, the Guard model line is pretty much complete. If anything, GW could get away with making Guard into at most a 2 week release, as there's so little model support that's really needed right now. (unlike Chaos Marines, who are at the point of requiring a DE level re-boot of the entire model line!)
Ir0njack wrote: Well, new IG dex or not I'm still gonna be waiting for it to come out whenever it does. I can only hope that Sadpanda is either:
A: Wrong, and we'll be getting the update to put us on par with the other dexes
or
B: Right, but when the dex does hit we get a really ice update with cool goodies.
Outside of brand new units, the thing that AM/IG really need are:
A) An actual Veterans kit
B) A proper update to the basic Infantry Squad kit that gives 1x each special weapon and a couple power weapon options for the Sergeant. I'm sure it's also possible for GW to put the heavy weapon options into a newly redesigned kit, meaning they could also get rid of the single heavy weapon team kit while they're at it.
C) A Roughrider kit, though honestly at this point, they're so awful they could just as easily get dropped from the book altogether and almost no one would notice/complain.
Other than that, the Guard model line is pretty much complete. If anything, GW could get away with making Guard into at most a 2 week release, as there's so little model support that's really needed right now. (unlike Chaos Marines, who are at the point of requiring a DE level re-boot of the entire model line!)
imho the guard needs more than just cadian style troops.
Vostroyans would be fun and steel legion too (personly i do not like pretorians or mordian or catachans but thats not the point)
the AM is a huge fighting force coming from millions of planets this should be represented by the model range .... only cadian trooers is boring
They're in metal or Finecast. The likelihood of them putting another regiment into plastic is astronomically low. Hell, they don't even stock Catachans in their own stores anymore.
B) A proper update to the basic Infantry Squad kit that gives 1x each special weapon and a couple power weapon options for the Sergeant. I'm sure it's also possible for GW to put the heavy weapon options into a newly redesigned kit, meaning they could also get rid of the single heavy weapon team kit while they're at it.
And price them like a regular tactical squad? No thanks, I'd rather buy those special weapons off bits sellers.
Veterans - only if they are multi part. There are soooo many ways to kitbash them, I personally don't see the need for an actual kit.
CragHack wrote: But you can take those Thunderbolts np? At least Battlescribe sais so. Just that hey cost, both points and cash.
Thunderbolts are Forge World.
In THEORY? Yeah, it's easy-peasy. But in practice, it's a very different story. Some people won't play against Forge World stuff no matter if you give them a points advantage or anything like that. They just feel that everything FW is "broken".
Hell, I know of someone who thinks my Vulture Gunship with twin Punisher Gatling Cannons is as powerful as a Knight.
CragHack wrote: Than they'd have to (or I wouldn't mind), pretty much, include ALL OF THE NAVY
I would love for that to happen, but I don't know how to do so without going kind of bonkers...
We'd need a Vulture kit(it's VERY different to the Valkyrie. Only shared components are the wings and tail booms), a Lightning kit, and a Thunderbolt/Avenger kit.
And for funsies, let's throw in a Marauder/Marauder Destroyer double kit. Because if anyone should have the first Codex Superheavy Flyer, by god it's the Guard!
Gamgee wrote: I was talking about the thing posted from K'vor.
Edit
Also K'vor was right about at least 1 more rumor. Way back when Tau were being rumored he called the Breachers over on ATT before they came out (the only one I believe). Also all of the other correct Tau rumors that were floating around he was also basically saying. IIRC that is.
I'd prefer that vendettas stay in their role as small transport/gunship AND we have vulture/thunderbolt/lightining/avenger squadrons. In plastic of course as I've already thrown down for a avenger and balk at the thought of paying that much again for anything that isn't a superheavy.
On a side note I really don't really understand the hate that vendettas get, when they were under priced yeah but now? Is it fluff reasons cause I don't see wyverns or bullgryn garnering nearly as much hate and they suddenly popped out of nowhere too.
Vendettas, to me, are garbage because they're a Robin Cruddace creation that was horribly shoehorned in with the previous Guard book.
The Vendetta was going to be a Forge World unit for the Elysians for the "Raid on Kastorel-Novem" book taking a role similar to that of the upgunned "Huey" transport helicopters during the Vietnam War/modern heliborne forces that were used as escorts for the main heliborne forces.
In the context of that knowledge?
The Vendetta made perfect sense! It was for when you had more transports than you did gunships to escort them and when you needed the gunships to be doing something else.
With the IG book, it got put in to be some kind of half-cocked "Razorback" equivalent.
Without the framework of the Elysian list, an army that had no tanks or artillery? It falls apart.
And Bullgryn/Wyverns might have "suddenly popped out of nowhere", but it's not a huge leap to think of Ogryn armored and given slabs of tank armor to hold the line or a rapid-firing mortar.
Ir0njack wrote: I'd prefer that vendettas stay in their role as small transport/gunship AND we have vulture/thunderbolt/lightining/avenger squadrons. In plastic of course as I've already thrown down for a avenger and balk at the thought of paying that much again for anything that isn't a superheavy.
On a side note I really don't really understand the hate that vendettas get, when they were under priced yeah but now? Is it fluff reasons cause I don't see wyverns or bullgryn garnering nearly as much hate and they suddenly popped out of nowhere too.
I think the problem with the vendetta is, that its just a valkyrie with different weapons and no a seperate unit. There is no need for the vendetta in this form ... There should be the vulture but not that cheap valkyrie clone.
I would love to see the Thunderbolt fighter but the thought of what GW would do to it along with the bast price of the kit makes me balk at the same time.
Kanluwen wrote: Vendettas, to me, are garbage because they're a Robin Cruddace creation that was horribly shoehorned in with the previous Guard book.
I don't think these are creations of the rules writers. These guys get the models and the task to write rules for them (with the goal of making them sell). That's about it.
Kanluwen wrote: Vendettas, to me, are garbage because they're a Robin Cruddace creation that was horribly shoehorned in with the previous Guard book.
I don't think these are creations of the rules writers. These guys get the models and the task to write rules for them (with the goal of making them sell). That's about it.
That's true of NOW. In 2008 when the first Codex: Imperial Guard with the Valkyrie/Vendetta actually in the list came out? That wasn't as true as you think it was.
How many kits came out with that book which fit that bill? Basically just the Deathstrike. The remainder of the kits were new variants on old vehicles(the Leman Russ/Hellhound chassis) or ports of FW kits (Valkyrie and Manticore).
Heck, the Hydra got put into that book and didn't see a model until we got Codex: Astra Militarum.
The Vendetta, on the other hand, was something that Forge World released with Imperial Armour Volume 8 but Cruddace shoehorned it into the Guard book because he thought the Guard needed some kind of "smaller transport capacity with more guns".
I have it on good authority that the Vendetta, as it was going to be released in IA8? It wasn't going to be able to carry troops at all.
I wouldn't mind Vendettas not being able to carry any troops 3 flying TL lascannons for 125 points? Omg, yes! 3 TL Lascannons for 175 points? Eeeeeh. And the sheer fact, that we had something that was on par with - at that time op - hell turkeys made them even more awesome
Hydra did have a FW model. But the poor Hydra was (and still is) one of those "meh" choices...
CragHack wrote: I wouldn't mind Vendettas not being able to carry any troops 3 flying TL lascannons for 125 points? Omg, yes! 3 TL Lascannons for 175 points? Eeeeeh. And the sheer fact, that we had something that was on par with - at that time op - hell turkeys made them even more awesome
Hydra did have a FW model. But the poor Hydra was (and still is) one of those "meh" choices...
Hydra did have a FW model, but that goes with what I was saying.
The only things that were really "new" in there were variations of basic tanks, FW products put into the book, variants on Hellhounds, and the Deathstrike.
Oh and a single character (Lukas Bastonne) who never got a model and was cut when the book got redone.
The first codex introduction of the Vendetta did NOT have a reduced transport capacity, it was 12 models, just like the Valkyrie. It wasn't until Astra Militarum that the capacity was slashed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Oh and a single character (Lukas Bastonne) who never got a model and was cut when the book got redone.
BrookM wrote: The first codex introduction of the Vendetta did NOT have a reduced transport capacity, it was 12 models, just like the Valkyrie. It wasn't until Astra Militarum that the capacity was slashed.
Yup, that's my bad. There was a blurb published that talked about how "like the Razorback, the Vendetta sacrifices carrying capacity for its armaments" but that was bunk.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh and a single character (Lukas Bastonne) who never got a model and was cut when the book got redone.
Mogul Kamir did not receive a model either.
Kamir had an older model still available at that time though. Just for like a year or so, but he was still available.
Kanluwen wrote: Kamir had an older model still available at that time though. Just for like a year or so, but he was still available.
Picture? Link? Source?
I'm thinking of the Attilan Rough Riders that were available individually at the time and a conversion that got featured. My bad.
Doesn't change my point any if I can't remember things in precise detail that are from 2008(and/or earlier). Bastonne and Kamir didn't get models, but Kamir WAS a character that existed in 2nd edition and still has been mentioned.
Bastonne existed for one edition and was gone, even being written out of the damn fluff. Just like the ability to actually field friggin' Kasrkin based armies.
I want my Griffon Mortars back in the codex. I love the Wyvern, and I do like the Basilisk, but how about they put the Griffon back in, since it serves as an intermediate step between the two?
It's Ordnance, so it gets some of the benefits and drawbacks of the Basilisk (Though not as many) while being moderately high strength (ST:6) and decent AP (AP:4). It's large blast, but still twinlinked and won't mulch infantry quite as much as the Wyvern with no Shred no Ignores Cover.
Bring back the Griffon, the artillery tank we both need, and deserve!
Just my opinion on that.
As for the rest of the codex, I would love to see some of the elite choices made to be actually useful and not joke/gimmick level. Why would you EVER field a unit of Wyrdvane Psykers when you can get a ML 1 Psyker that's an Independent Character for 10 points less than a base squad of Wyrdvanes. Ogryns can be useful in some situations but are vastly overcosted, as are ALL of the Hellhound variants.
The entire codex needs a rebalance from top to bottom to include addressing costs, and addressing the fact that two of the defining tanks in the Guard arsenal, the Leman Russ and Leman Russ Demolisher are both nigh useless as gun platforms because of the Ordnance rule making all other weapons snap fire only when the main gun fires. Bring back Lumbering Behemoth so that these tanks can once again fire to full effect and ignore the stupid snap fire all weapons other than the ordnance weapon rule.
That's what I'd like to see. Mostly pipe dreams I'm sure, but a man can dream.
Red__Thirst wrote: Bring back Lumbering Behemoth so that these tanks can once again fire to full effect and ignore the stupid snap fire all weapons other than the ordnance weapon rule.
I don't see why we need yet another special rule in this game. Just make the guns "primary weapon", it's literally the same thing as ordinance but without the snap shot penalty.
The Griffon counts as a Wyvern, simple as that. Better, too.
No, it isn't.
The Wyvern does d!ck all to armor of any kind. The Griffon is more of a general all-rounder and it's large blast, plus versus armor it rolls 2D6 (taking the highest of the two dice) thanks to being ordnance for the armor penetration roll at ST:6. It can also double-out T:3 models with more than one wound (They are somewhat rare, granted, but there are a few Multi-wound T:3 models out there floating around) all while being twinlinked, just like the Wyvern, and at the same range as the Wyvern.
I'm not calling the Griffon superior to the Wyvern, nor am I calling the Wyvern superior to the Griffon, I'm saying they both fill a particular niche and each has a unique role in the army. You want to mulch infantry, bring a Wyvern. You want to drop heavy artillery shells, bring a Basilisk (Or a Manticore), you want something that is in the middle of the two, then grab a Griffon.
That said, I've run both, and honestly I prefer the Griffon for the sheer utility of it. It's only 10 points more expensive than a Wyvern, and I can kill infantry and threaten a lot of tanks I run up against most days. My pair of Griffon tanks have killed more Rhino and Chimera based chassis than you can shake a stick at, and they usually kill swaths of infantry as well with a couple of ST:6, AP:4 large blasts landing fairly accurately thanks to the mortar being twinlinked.
To each their own. You prefer the Wyvern, more power to you! I just much prefer the Griffon if given the option to run one personally. Hopefully it will re-appear with an updated Basilisk as a combo tank kit (Basilisk/Griffon) a-la the Hydra/Wyvern kit.
alleus wrote: I am absolutely in love with the Wyvern. It doesn't matter if the thing you're shooting at has armour when it has to take 20 saves.
Looking forward to getting my new atrillery pieces for the Emperor's Wrath formation. Looks sick!
Wyverns are absolutely brutal, and undercosted to the degree of an Eldar unit.
Vendettas, I'd love to see them go to 145 points or so, 6 man capacity, and give it and the valkyrie the Strafing Run and Gunship (may not choose to Skyfire even thouh it is a flier) rule. Then add a plastic Thunderbolt kit as Air Superiority.
alleus wrote: I am absolutely in love with the Wyvern. It doesn't matter if the thing you're shooting at has armour when it has to take 20 saves.
Looking forward to getting my new atrillery pieces for the Emperor's Wrath formation. Looks sick!
When I say armor, I mean something with an Armor Value, as Shred doesn't work against something with an armor value (Re-rolling failed to-wound is nice, but doesn't help against armor value) and being ST:4 and barrage you're (usually) only ever hitting side armor with that ST:4 hit. Sadly, there are only a few tanks/vehicles out there that have AV:10 sides (Most chimera variants, I.G. Sentinels, Ork trukks, Eldar war-walkers and Vypers, and Dark Eldar vehicles are the only ones I can think of).
That's what I meant when I said Armored Targets. Wyvern tanks can kill terminators without issue (all be it somewhat slowly) due to volume of wounds inflicted/saves forced. The few times I've run a Wyvern they usually do well, especially for their points cost.
alleus wrote: I am absolutely in love with the Wyvern. It doesn't matter if the thing you're shooting at has armour when it has to take 20 saves.
Looking forward to getting my new atrillery pieces for the Emperor's Wrath formation. Looks sick!
When I say armor, I mean something with an Armor Value, as Shred doesn't work against something with an armor value (Re-rolling failed to-wound is nice, but doesn't help against armor value) and being ST:4 and barrage you're (usually) only ever hitting side armor with that ST:4 hit. Sadly, there are only a few tanks/vehicles out there that have AV:10 sides (Most chimera variants, I.G. Sentinels, Ork trukks, Eldar war-walkers and Vypers, and Dark Eldar vehicles are the only ones I can think of).
That's what I meant when I said Armored Targets. Wyvern tanks can kill terminators without issue (all be it somewhat slowly) due to volume of wounds inflicted/saves forced. The few times I've run a Wyvern they usually do well, especially for their points cost.
Just clarifying. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
I think thats kind of the point with of the wyvern, its not supposed to be killing tanks, its dedicated anti-infantry. Meaning you need to get your anti tank else where (and which the guard can have a few fun options, like Vanquishers, Demolishers, Medusa, and Rapier Laser destroyers)
If you like Str 6 all rounders ive had great success with Eradicators, and they are cheap and hard to kill to boot!
I've always played my guard as having a select amount of specialized units then cramming the extra spaces with men to clog the engines of your foes. Ive also discovered that going MSU on 10 man infantry squads and giving them krak grenades is also an amazing way to get anti-tank
JohnHwangDD wrote: AFAIC, it's a difference between HE and AT warheads, and they should be combined.
yes the LRBT should be able to switch between HE and AP shells in each shooting pahse. as acombination of Vanqisher and LRBT.
But this is Imperium tech.....so they would have to unload the gun, rub some mystical ointment on it to make the spirits feel better, then reload the shells, assuming they actually got some and the Anti-Tank rounds weren't accidentally sent to a world with no tanks =P
And technically, I could actually field one legally:
1+ Command Battlegroup Command 1 Company Command Squad (in Chimera) 1 Commissar I only have 6 Russes, so this has to be a CCS
Core (0-3 per Command)
"Emporer's Fist" Tank Company 1 Tank Commander (in LRBT, w/ 2nd LRBT) 3 Leman Russ Squadrons (1 Demolisher ea.) 1 Enginseer No way I'm fielding 170 Guardsmen (plus Sentinels)!
Auxiliary (0-3 per Core) "Emporer's Blade" Assault Company 1 Company Command Squad (in Chimera) 3 Veterans Squads (in Chimeras) 2 Hellhound Squadrons (1 ea)
"Emporer's Shield" Infantry Platoon 1 Platoon Command Squad 5 Infantry Squads 4 Heavy Weapon Squads (HB, Mortar, 2x ML) 2 Special Weapon Squads (Melta & Plasma) 1 Conscript Squad +1 Sentinel This ESIP would be over 100 models and over 1,000 pts! Problem is, points costs being what they are, it's just not going to be competitive. Even with limited Move through Cover and/or Move & Shoot. Probably better to take a regular Infantry Platoon or something.
Overall, I think the minimum Command & Core comsumes roughly 1,000 pts, and adding any Aux is like 1,000 pts each. Very unwieldy for army building.
And technically, I could actually field one legally:
1+ Command Battlegroup Command
1 Company Command Squad (in Chimera)
1 Commissar
I only have 6 Russes, so this has to be a CCS
Core (0-3 per Command)
"Emporer's Fist" Tank Company
1 Tank Commander (in LRBT, w/ 2nd LRBT)
3 Leman Russ Squadrons (1 Demolisher ea.)
1 Enginseer
No way I'm fielding 170 Guardsmen (plus Sentinels)!
Auxiliary (0-3 per Core)
"Emporer's Blade" Assault Company
1 Company Command Squad (in Chimera)
3 Veterans Squads (in Chimeras)
2 Hellhound Squadrons (1 ea)
"Emporer's Shield" Infantry Platoon
1 Platoon Command Squad
5 Infantry Squads
4 Heavy Weapon Squads (HB, Mortar, 2x ML)
2 Special Weapon Squads (Melta & Plasma)
1 Conscript Squad
+1 Sentinel
This ESIP would be over 100 models and over 1,000 pts! Problem is, points costs being what they are, it's just not going to be competitive. Even with limited Move through Cover and/or Move & Shoot. Probably better to take a regular Infantry Platoon or something.
Overall, I think the minimum Command & Core comsumes roughly 1,000 pts, and adding any Aux is like 1,000 pts each. Very unwieldy for army building.
so to summarize the Mon'ka book fro AM 1. the cadian tetachment is crap and its unlikely to be played, cause too expensive
2. some (two) good formations
3. GW did not use the chance to buff the AM (imho this "update" will not increase AM sales)
And technically, I could actually field one legally:
1+ Command Battlegroup Command
Core (0-3 per Command)
"Emporer's Fist" Tank Company
Auxiliary (0-3 per Core)
"Emporer's Blade" Assault Company
"Emporer's Wrath" Artillery Company
"Emporer's Shield" Infantry Platoon
Overall, I think the minimum Command & Core comsumes roughly 1,000 pts, and adding any Aux is like 1,000 pts each. Very unwieldy for army building.
so to summarize the Mon'ka book fro AM 1. the cadian tetachment is crap and its unlikely to be played, cause too expensive
2. some (two) good formations
3. GW did not use the chance to buff the AM (imho this "update" will not increase AM sales)
1. If you are a treadhead, and don't mind taking a CCS, this doesn't hurt you. If you own an Enginseer, you get to field 5+ Leman Russes in 4 units. The ESIC is completely unplayable, and definitely not worth the points invested.
2. the formations I call out above are "good" relative to the other formations, but not "good" in an absolute sense. Words like "tepid", "lukewarm", "mediocre" come to mind, along with phrases like "phoned in" and utterances like "meh". They certainly aren't close to par with something like Decurion / Gladius, which is where they need to be if GW is to pretend things are "balanced". The other formations like the Valk one are OK, if you were already taking them.
3. The formations aren't compelling. I feel no need to buy Ogryns or Psykers or whatnot. In fact, the 20 models I had considered to stand in as my Psykers are just going to be regular Infantry Squads, which I thought I had an excess of, hence standing them in as Psyker units... I will eventually convert up "count as" Nork and "count as" Sentinels, because they're inexpensive enough to tack onto a Platoon or CCs that they might be playable. Also, I'd need to acquire and build a couple more Enginseers for the various formations. So, I might buy, maybe, 2 Enginseers off eBay. And maybe some conversion bitz.
Is Sad Panda some kind of mystical GW insider or something? Or just a sage with Nostradamus like perceptions?
I love how so many people in the comments are saying that can't be right at all and that Sad Panda is speaking bullgak because BoLS posted rumors a while back saying that Imp Guard and Tyranids were getting major updates,
Space Wolves? They can be given an update with a rather small amount of work. Port the Champions of Fenris stuff into the main Codex, come up with a "Space Wolf Great Company" detachment and boom--you've basically got the book done.
Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and Guard? They're going to require more work. They require some pretty hefty points changes on things, along with some rules shifts.
Space Wolves? They can be given an update with a rather small amount of work. Port the Champions of Fenris stuff into the main Codex, come up with a "Space Wolf Great Company" detachment and boom--you've basically got the book done.
Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and Guard? They're going to require more work. They require some pretty hefty points changes on things, along with some rules shifts.
That's essentially true for Blood Angels as well. Hopefully Space Wolves getting some form of new stuff is a good sign for Blood Angels as well. They did just get a new model out of nowhere.
Space Wolves? They can be given an update with a rather small amount of work. Port the Champions of Fenris stuff into the main Codex, come up with a "Space Wolf Great Company" detachment and boom--you've basically got the book done.
Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and Guard? They're going to require more work. They require some pretty hefty points changes on things, along with some rules shifts.
I unferstand. GW tries to generate money with little to none work by "redoing" a Codex which does not need an update. But they ignore the fact that by neglecting so many other factions they anger their customers with the result they will loose interest. And nobody buys and paints the models cause they are so beautiful. They buy, cause they wanna play but without proper rule set there is no game to play.
godardc wrote: I really hope it isn't a new codex for the SW...
More flying boats? Survivors of the Sob's that attacked the space wolves had a change of heart and now fight at their side as the walkuren?
Grimnar can now ride on his pet sea dragon into battle!
GoliothOnline wrote: Army of expendables getting more codecies? Ugh.. All I want for Christmas ( I guess next year) is a fully functional, non garbage, Chaos dex.
Rules can't "fix" the problems with Chaos Marines... Currently almost our entire model is still stuck in 3rd edition. Without new models, we can't get new & better options, which is where we really fall down in 7th.
Plasma guns & Autocannons were fine when everyone else had roughly similar guns. Nowadays though, everyone except for Chaos get access to 3-4+ shot S6/7 weapons. Plasma guns & Autocannons can't compete against that, nor can Havoc launchers compare to cheap Razorbacks & Drop Pods w/Deathwind launchers, while we're stuck with the worst Land Raider pattern of all.
We need options rather than just pts decreases, but first of all we need our model massively overhauled to give us those options!
Jesus, SW's just got a book like a year ago, if they're getting a replacement in what, like 14/15 months after their last book, while IG start approaching 3 years, and CSM's start rolling over onto their 4th, I'll be flabbergasted.
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus, SW's just got a book like a year ago, if they're getting a replacement in what, like 14/15 months after their last book, while IG start approaching 3 years, and CSM's start rolling over onto their 4th, I'll be flabbergasted.
My guess would be another campaign involving Space Wolves or some new models like what Blood Angels had happen this past month. Rerelease of Krom Dragongaze (as a Space Wolves Wolf Lord similar to how Captain Karlaen became Blood Angels Captain in Terminator) and new plastic model of some sort.
Unfortunately GW doesn't update Codexes and models and that "need" updating.
They update Codexes that they believe will allow them to sell the most models for a quick return.
However their logic is flawed.
Chaos Space Marines don't sell because they need a new Codex and a model update. Do that and they will sell.
It's an age old argument that GW doesn't seem to able to comprehend.
The case was the same for Dark Eldar, they were one of the worst selling armies in the range because their Codex and models were frankly weak at best.
They got a great update and sold well, sadly as a dark Eldar player the subsequent Codex then killed them again (in my opinion).
I won't mention the "other" army that has been neglected for years but I think Chaos deserves an update not least because they are the iconic bad guys in the fluff.
But they need so much investment I think GW would prefer to make a quick buck at the start of the year - hence more Space marines which are a guaranteed seller.
Chaos - the Marines especially so, are at the point where they would effectively be considered an entirely brand new army release.
We have a whopping 3 non-vehicle kits that are worth keeping. (Termie Lord/Sorc, Raptors/Warptalons & Possessed)
Every other non-vehicle kit is pure garbage that's woefully incomplete, and/or, now 10-15+ years old and badly showing it.
Our basic vehicle kits, (Rhino + Land Raider based kits), need new options to bring them up to par with their equivalents across everyone else's similar options.
At least in this case, the basic kit is fine - we just need an additional sprue for new options, and a re-cut of the Chaos upgrade frame.
Unfortunately, GW doesn't see any potential profit to be made from a Chaos release, as the current risk is likely extremely high. They don't believe that their target audience like or want to play "the bad guys".
Little Timmy and younger teens identify a lot more with 'Superman in super armour', than they do with the ultimate evil doers. Thus, Space Marines of all Loyalist flavours, big stampy robots, ninja space elves and mech suit fest will get the love.
I honestly would not be surprised at all if Chaos doesn't get a 7th ed update of any kind... GW was happy to let us rot away in 5th with no support, and they missed the boat big time in 6th when they had a golden opportunity to re-visit the basic Chaos Marine kit and/or Havocs.
Instead, we got a small release of 3 plastic kits and yet more Finecrap.
Keep in mind that Chaos Marines are also the only in-store available army that's still missing entire units!
Is Sad Panda some kind of mystical GW insider or something? Or just a sage with Nostradamus like perceptions?
I love how so many people in the comments are saying that can't be right at all and that Sad Panda is speaking bullgak because BoLS posted rumors a while back saying that Imp Guard and Tyranids were getting major updates,
Lost Souls indeed.
I once looked at the comments section in BoLS, and the abbyss looked back at me.
At this point I think I'd be happier if they just left CSM alone until FW releases more HH plastics and then redo the whole line based on those. Or maybe they should just shelve the faction in 40k altogether and just let FW the Specialist Studio do the rules and models. Obviously the main studio is incapable/unwilling to do them justice.
Experiment 626 wrote: Chaos - the Marines especially so, are at the point where they would effectively be considered an entirely brand new army release.
We have a whopping 3 non-vehicle kits that are worth keeping. (Termie Lord/Sorc, Raptors/Warptalons & Possessed)
Every other non-vehicle kit is pure garbage that's woefully incomplete, and/or, now 10-15+ years old and badly showing it.
Huh? The Dinobots are new and complete. Same with the Hellturkey. Plus, GW just provided brand new generic CSMs, CSM Termies & CSM Dreads - you just have to buy them all at once... Plus Cultists!
Experiment 626 wrote: Chaos - the Marines especially so, are at the point where they would effectively be considered an entirely brand new army release.
We have a whopping 3 non-vehicle kits that are worth keeping. (Termie Lord/Sorc, Raptors/Warptalons & Possessed)
Every other non-vehicle kit is pure garbage that's woefully incomplete, and/or, now 10-15+ years old and badly showing it.
Huh? The Dinobots are new and complete. Same with the Hellturkey. Plus, GW just provided brand new generic CSMs, CSM Termies & CSM Dreads - you just have to buy them all at once... Plus Cultists!
I did say non-vehicle kits though!
The so-called dinobots + Hellturkey are definitely cool looking kits. But outside of the new Raptors/Warptalons and Possessed kits, all of our infantry kits are on par with the basic Catachan Squad in terms of both looks and incompleteness...
Hell, we don't have a single plastic combi-weapon for our PA models yet! And our only available plastic heavy weapon is a god damned Heavy bolter!
We have the tiniest armoury selection of any 40k army, and yet GW can barely manage to give us 50% of those options!
It's so laughably bad, that even gakking Sisters of Battle have an easier time getting their basic weapon upgrades than Chaos Marines do... The only way we can get half our options is to pay the "Chaos Tax" and buy a bunch of Imperial kits.
I'm pretty sure that CSM still use the 30k weapons and armor, so the BAC plastics all work, providing a classic ML in addtion to the Combi-weapon. And DV has those cultists...
My Sisters are only 1k of Allies, and I bought enough stuff back when they were in production. No idea what their availability is today.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm pretty sure that CSM still use the 30k weapons and armor, so the BAC plastics all work, providing a classic ML in addtion to the Combi-weapon. And DV has those cultists...
My Sisters are only 1k of Allies, and I bought enough stuff back when they were in production. No idea what their availability is today.
Experiment 626 wrote: Chaos - the Marines especially so, are at the point where they would effectively be considered an entirely brand new army release.
We have a whopping 3 non-vehicle kits that are worth keeping. (Termie Lord/Sorc, Raptors/Warptalons & Possessed)
Every other non-vehicle kit is pure garbage that's woefully incomplete, and/or, now 10-15+ years old and badly showing it.
Huh? The Dinobots are new and complete. Same with the Hellturkey. Plus, GW just provided brand new generic CSMs, CSM Termies & CSM Dreads - you just have to buy them all at once... Plus Cultists!
It's a shame the dinobots are trash for what their specialty is supposed to be. Throw a Maulerfiend at anything with an initiative and its basically screwed, basic Dreads have a good chance if annihilating it in CC before it even gets to attack (poor rules)
Let's not speak of the trash-platform, hades Autocannon on a walker with bs3 for nearly 200 points is almost as bad if not worse than the dreaded defilers, jack of all trades master of none.
At this point, I'd rather them just squat us and get it over with. We can be the unseen army no one is aware of, just not in actuality playable. Screw it, I'd rather play with bottle cap space Marines than or play dough Eldar if things keep going at this pace
JohnHwangDD wrote: Maybe the real answer for CSM really is spiky Marines?
I'm at the point where if it's between what we've been getting and getting rolled into C:SM done well, I might opt for the latter. If we got Legion Tactics which also unlock the most iconic units (Daemon Prince, Daemon Engines etc) and BB level allies with Daemons if you take those tactics it would probably be a big improvement.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Plus, GW just provided brand new generic CSMs, CSM Termies & CSM Dreads - you just have to buy them all at once... Plus Cultists!
I hope this is a joke. Because otherwise it holds the same weight as saying someone can buy the SM tactical squad box (the one that gets revamped in virtually every edition) and add some spikes and green-stuffed mutations here and there.
As for the dinobots, pretty decent models, but rules-wise they seem to have been designed for 5th edition (as they probably were), and as such lagging two entire editions behind.
Space Wolves? They can be given an update with a rather small amount of work. Port the Champions of Fenris stuff into the main Codex, come up with a "Space Wolf Great Company" detachment and boom--you've basically got the book done.
Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and Guard? They're going to require more work. They require some pretty hefty points changes on things, along with some rules shifts.
Ahahahah, no. Actually, what Vostroyan Second Born, and you, fail to understand, is that Games Workshop do not care for fairness, never have, never will.
vostroyan second born wrote: GW tries to generate money with little to none work by "redoing" a Codex which does not need an update. But they ignore the fact that by neglecting so many other factions they anger their customers with the result they will loose interest. And nobody buys and paints the models cause they are so beautiful. They buy, cause they wanna play but without proper rule set there is no game to play.
Stop complaining. Act. There are dozens of awesome other games you might start.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Maybe the real answer for CSM really is spiky Marines?
I'm at the point where if it's between what we've been getting and getting rolled into C:SM done well, I might opt for the latter. If we got Legion Tactics which also unlock the most iconic units (Daemon Prince, Daemon Engines etc) and BB level allies with Daemons if you take those tactics it would probably be a big improvement.
But then they wouldn't be objectively worse than SM, which is kind of the point. Gotta make sure little Timmy's space marines have some badguys to beat.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Plus, GW just provided brand new generic CSMs, CSM Termies & CSM Dreads - you just have to buy them all at once... Plus Cultists!
I hope this is a joke. Because otherwise it holds the same weight as saying someone can buy the SM tactical squad box (the one that gets revamped in virtually every edition) and add some spikes and green-stuffed mutations here and there.
WTF? BaC is 30k stuff - the same stuff worn and used by the same CSM in 40k after 10k years of the Long War. It is not even close to being the same, because SM Tacticals are loyalist from the 40k era, wearing mk.7 & mk.8 armor, not mk4 & mk5 Heresy era gear.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Plus, GW just provided brand new generic CSMs, CSM Termies & CSM Dreads - you just have to buy them all at once... Plus Cultists!
I hope this is a joke. Because otherwise it holds the same weight as saying someone can buy the SM tactical squad box (the one that gets revamped in virtually every edition) and add some spikes and green-stuffed mutations here and there.
WTF? BaC is 30k stuff - the same stuff worn and used by the same CSM in 40k after 10k years of the Long War. It is not even close to being the same, because SM Tacticals are loyalist from the 40k era, wearing mk.7 & mk.8 armor, not mk4 & mk5 Heresy era gear.
"Mark VII armour, also known as the “Aquila,” “Imperator” or “Eagle” armour, was developed during the Horus Heresy, and remains in use as the most common form of power armour ten thousand years later. It represents the final major development of Mark 6 armour."
JohnHwangDD wrote: Plus, GW just provided brand new generic CSMs, CSM Termies & CSM Dreads - you just have to buy them all at once... Plus Cultists!
I hope this is a joke. Because otherwise it holds the same weight as saying someone can buy the SM tactical squad box (the one that gets revamped in virtually every edition) and add some spikes and green-stuffed mutations here and there.
WTF? BaC is 30k stuff - the same stuff worn and used by the same CSM in 40k after 10k years of the Long War. It is not even close to being the same, because SM Tacticals are loyalist from the 40k era, wearing mk.7 & mk.8 armor, not mk4 & mk5 Heresy era gear.
It's the same if you consider that one would want/need to chaos-ify both to get the 40k chaos aesthetic (spikes, mutations, all that). Neither BaC nor a Tactical squad are directly comparable to actual CSM units as sold, one is the correct type of armour (30k) but lacks 40k chaos identifying elements and the other is 40k armour (normally not used by old school chaos boys who survived 10k years) and also lack 40k chaos identifying elements. In both cases you have some work to do to fit them into a regular 40k Chaos army.
mk.7 was developed during the heresy, but not fielded in any significant amount.
It's like noting that the F-35 and the Reagan carrier were developed today, which is completely different from having functional air wings or carrier groups in the air or on blue water.
JohnHwangDD wrote: mk.7 was developed during the heresy, but not fielded in any significant amount.
(...)
mk.4, mk.5 and mk.6 are the armors of CSM.
Because allCSM were alive during the Heresy?
It's been 10000 years. People die, and some other people rebel against the Imperium and end up falling to Chaos. The Dark Mechanicum is also supposed to be doing something other than looking evil inside their spiky robes.
Anyway the models in Betrayal at Calith are not 40k Chaos Space Marines. They're 30k Chaos Space Marines, and they clearly do not fit the aesthetics CSM have adhered to since their first appearance in Rogue Trader. You may convert them to represent Chaos Space Marines, same as you can convert anything into something else. The newest kits released for CSM are still the Raptors, Dinobots & Hellturkey from 6th edition, as well as the Dark Vengeance models.
Disclaimer: I'd have no issues at playing against someone using the BaC models to represent CSM, but that doesn't make them "proper" CSM models as far as the GW model line concerns me.
JohnHwangDD wrote: mk.7 was developed during the heresy, but not fielded in any significant amount.
It's like noting that the F-35 and the Reagan carrier were developed today, which is completely different from having functional air wings or carrier groups in the air or on blue water.
mk.4, mk.5 and mk.6 are the armors of CSM.
No, it was developed and fielded en masse at the end of Horus Heresy, however, the loyalists were the one who developed and fielded it, so the traitors never got around to use it. Still, that's the 10.000 year old traitors, far from every traitor marine are even close to being that old and there are plenty of newer traitor marine, like the Crimson Slaugther.
JohnHwangDD wrote: mk.7 was developed during the heresy, but not fielded in any significant amount.
It's like noting that the F-35 and the Reagan carrier were developed today, which is completely different from having functional air wings or carrier groups in the air or on blue water.
mk.4, mk.5 and mk.6 are the armors of CSM.
No, it was developed and fielded en masse at the end of Horus Heresy, however, the loyalists were the one who developed and fielded it, so the traitors never got around to use it. Still, that's the 10.000 year old traitors, far from every traitor marine are even close to being that old and there are plenty of newer traitor marine, like the Crimson Slaugther.
Plus it's entirely possible for the CSM to have taken armor off of the Loyalists, they take lots of stuff from them, why not armor too?
Korinov wrote:
Because allCSM were alive during the Heresy?
It's been 10000 years. People die, and some other people rebel against the Imperium and end up falling to Chaos. The Dark Mechanicum is also supposed to be doing something other than looking evil inside their spiky robes.
Anyway the models in Betrayal at Calith are not 40k Chaos Space Marines. They're 30k Chaos Space Marines, and they clearly do not fit the aesthetics CSM have adhered to since their first appearance in Rogue Trader. You may convert them to represent Chaos Space Marines, same as you can convert anything into something else. The newest kits released for CSM are still the Raptors, Dinobots & Hellturkey from 6th edition, as well as the Dark Vengeance models.
Disclaimer: I'd have no issues at playing against someone using the BaC models to represent CSM, but that doesn't make them "proper" CSM models as far as the GW model line concerns me.
Within the Eye of Terror there is a planet where Khorne resurrects Orks over and over again because he like watching them fight. If he can do that with mere play things you'd think he could do more for his worshipers. That said within the warp and the Eye of Terror where Chaos Marines reside time does not flow the same way it does in our reality. Some parts of the warp only days may have passed since the Heresy despite it having been 10,000 years for the Imperium.
You're right, not all CSM were alive during the Heresy and not all Renegade chapters affiliate with Legions, Chaos Gods, or the Dark Mechanicum. As far as BaC models go its just as good at representing loyalist or legionaries because of the diversity on both sides, so it doesn't really matter. There are some Renegade Chapters that would probably better represented by using the Loyalist Codex and loyalist marine models so I don't people would complain there either.
I don't believe BaC alters what GW will do for CSM. BaC is regarded as the first major release for the new GW:SS division. So unless they're blurring the lines so soon after drawing them I think BaC is to be regarded as separate and distinct from GW's main studio's efforts.
I think in the long run, there will be some blurring of lines. I think GW will eventually promote cross play between 30k and 40k and will find some way to make that work. Where they will say if you want to play Chaos Legionaries use those 30k rules with these tweaks. Meanwhile I think GW proper will continue to push CSM as this very disorganized rag-tag army that doesn't really follow their own fluff.
JohnHwangDD wrote: According to the Fluff, the CSM in 40k are the same CSM from 30k because time is different in the Warp.
Many of them are still the remnants of the Traitor Legions. The sad books we've been getting of late are more dedicated to recent renegades who immediately destroy or abandon all their superior tech because reasons.
JohnHwangDD wrote: According to the Fluff, the CSM in 40k are the same CSM from 30k because time is different in the Warp.
But not all of them are. When asked a couple years back one of GW's game developers said their opinion its only about half of the CSM are the remnants of the Legions.
You take that and you consider that among those former legionaries most are fractured and don't retain any affiliation or organizational remnants of their past Legion and it becomes clear that is a relatively narrow portion of CSM that people want represented by Legion rules.
Given that GW has spent roughly a decade moving away from Legions in 40k (for 30k only), that's not surprising. However, way back when I started 40k...
Jeez, was the Orks Codex bad enough to warrant getting another 7th ed. book? That's much less believable for me than Guard. It's like 6 months younger than our already relatively recent codex. Not that I'd blame an Ork player for enjoying the attention
I suspect Nids first-- however, this comes from a heftier number of unsubstantiated claims online, including but not limited to Bell of Lost Cause, but the majority of what I've read claimed bugs first, guard following. Poor Chaos.
EDIT: By the way, what's this thread doing in not rumors and news? Thread contained many rumors and was even entitled as such. I know a number had little substance to them, but others did have quite a bit to them, till we discovered the Montz'Kha book. Just sayin'.
master of ordinance wrote: Wait, you mean that we are not getting a new codex this year but space wolves are?!
Yup. Don't be surprised if Orks, Tyranids, and Blood Angels get a redo before AM as well.
I dont even.... Whats the matter, TWC not strong enough?!
They are probably going to make a fluffy formation of two, release a few new plastics, and sell a new codex at $10 more than the last one. Probably at least one formation composed completely of TWC.
Pretty please?
