Uriels_Flame wrote:

 JoeRugby wrote:

Where's my plastic thunderbolt fighter?

Rumor of one more kit for IG/ST; possible flier.

Though if the Valk/Vend rumor is true, may be not needed but cool.

I would paint them directly like P-51 mustangs.

Always wanted to paint one like Roy's fighter in robotech

Guys, Incoming, fire on my target, and bring it down are probably gone. I bet those last 3 orders we haven't seen are the tank orders

If I'm reading that right, 'Take Aim' allows you to assign all hits, including from heavy weapons and suchlike to whoever you want? That could make a lot of deathstar builds very precarious - letting you either avoid the guys with good saves or take out a lynchpin model providing buffs.

All-tank armies seem like they could be nasty, but in a game where you can take an entire army of super-heavy walkers I don't think they will stand out as the most broken option out there.

 Perfect Organism wrote:
If I'm reading that right, 'Take Aim' allows you to assign all hits, including from heavy weapons and suchlike to whoever you want? That could make a lot of deathstar builds very precarious - letting you either avoid the guys with good saves or take out a lynchpin model providing buffs.

All-tank armies seem like they could be nasty, but in a game where you can take an entire army of super-heavy walkers I don't think they will stand out as the most broken option out there.

No it gives the ability to assign hits if they roll 6s. Unlike eldar pathfinders where all hits are precision shots.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Guys, Incoming, fire on my target, and bring it down are probably gone. I bet those last 3 orders we haven't seen are the tank orders

See, I have heard bring it down was still in. Wouldn't mind Incoming going away, seeing as it really didn't do much. I HOPE fire on my target stays, but if it is between that or bring it down, I would much rather have bring it down.

chaos0xomega wrote:
So... still no love for the Praetorians, eh?

Who needs GW?
http://victoriaminiatures.highwire.com/products/victorian-guard?pagesize=12
plus maybe:
http://victoriaminiatures.highwire.com/products/highland-guard?pagesize=12

Pics off Itunes

The only thing I don't like about the Hydra is how far back the gunner is located; from the top-down view it appears that he is at least 3-4 feet away from the screen. Had he been placed much further forward, the whole assembly would look much more unified and user friendly. Furthermore, he's so far back that the centrifugal force would toss him off the vehicle when the turret traverses. Had he been placed closer to the targeting screen, the force would push him forward into the gun harness rather than away from it.


The Wyvren on the other hand is simply awful. They clearly were desperate to make a alternate build for the hydra, and had no particular inspiration or vision for what it would be. The only difference compared to the Hydra are that the gun barrels are swapped for stubby, large caliber ones.

1. Side-mounted large caliber guns look horrible and simply wouldn't work properly
2. They use the same gun assembly as the Hydra's autocannons, so it's clear that the Wyvren's expended shell could never fit out of the ejection port. (this is especially funny given they actually describe the ejection port as "cavernous" lol)
3.The magazine looks like it can hold one, maybe two rounds. This would make the Wyvern an absolute nightmare to load and fire, and the basilisk would be able to maintain a higher rate of fire using fewer crew members. There's no way the two crew members are able to work the Wyvren by themselves.

In essence, if the whole vehicle didn't tear itself apart after firing one volley, the guns would immediately jam, and once the spent shell casings were removed and the magazines reattached, they would only be able to fire one more volley before having to reload and reattach each magazine again.

Rules wise, are they any rumors for what it's shooting profile will be? Something more like the Thunderfire Cannon rather than a Whirlwind I assume?

The wyvern main armament is a mortar, mortars generally do not eject casings, they fire the entire round out of the bore. So no jamming in that respect.

 Toburk wrote:
The only thing I don't like about the Hydra is how far back the gunner is located; from the top-down view it appears that he is at least 3-4 feet away from the screen. Had he been placed much further forward, the whole assembly would look much more unified and user friendly. Furthermore, he's so far back that the centrifugal force would toss him off the vehicle when the turret traverses. Had he been placed closer to the targeting screen, the force would push him forward into the gun harness rather than away from it.


The Wyvren on the other hand is simply awful. They clearly were desperate to make a alternate build for the hydra, and had no particular inspiration or vision for what it would be. The only difference compared to the Hydra are that the gun barrels are swapped for stubby, large caliber ones.

1. Side-mounted large caliber guns look horrible and simply wouldn't work properly
2. They use the same gun assembly as the Hydra's autocannons, so it's clear that the Wyvren's expended shell could never fit out of the ejection port. (this is especially funny given they actually describe the ejection port as "cavernous" lol)
3.The magazine looks like it can hold one, maybe two rounds. This would make the Wyvern an absolute nightmare to load and fire, and the basilisk would be able to maintain a higher rate of fire using fewer crew members. There's no way the two crew members are able to work the Wyvren by themselves.

In essence, if the whole vehicle didn't tear itself apart after firing one volley, the guns would immediately jam, and once the spent shell casings were removed and the magazines reattached, they would only be able to fire one more volley before having to reload and reattach each magazine again.

Rules wise, are they any rumors for what it's shooting profile will be? Something more like the Thunderfire Cannon rather than a Whirlwind I assume?

The Rules for the wyvern are several pages back. I could probably add something snarky, but I'll let it at that.

To Ravenous D : Also discussed several pages back, the order itself confers precise shots to the entire unit shooting. Recall that the Sniper special rule confers Precise Shot on 6's. Your reading is not the same as the card is now. While it could very well be errata/FAQ 'd, right now the Take Aim order is rather brutal

 Kroothawk wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
So... still no love for the Praetorians, eh?

Who needs GW?
http://victoriaminiatures.highwire.com/products/victorian-guard?pagesize=12
plus maybe:
http://victoriaminiatures.highwire.com/products/highland-guard?pagesize=12

Don't forget Col Gravis and Curious Constructs.

 kir44n wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
The only thing I don't like about the Hydra is how far back the gunner is located; from the top-down view it appears that he is at least 3-4 feet away from the screen. Had he been placed much further forward, the whole assembly would look much more unified and user friendly. Furthermore, he's so far back that the centrifugal force would toss him off the vehicle when the turret traverses. Had he been placed closer to the targeting screen, the force would push him forward into the gun harness rather than away from it.


The Wyvren on the other hand is simply awful. They clearly were desperate to make a alternate build for the hydra, and had no particular inspiration or vision for what it would be. The only difference compared to the Hydra are that the gun barrels are swapped for stubby, large caliber ones.

1. Side-mounted large caliber guns look horrible and simply wouldn't work properly
2. They use the same gun assembly as the Hydra's autocannons, so it's clear that the Wyvren's expended shell could never fit out of the ejection port. (this is especially funny given they actually describe the ejection port as "cavernous" lol)
3.The magazine looks like it can hold one, maybe two rounds. This would make the Wyvern an absolute nightmare to load and fire, and the basilisk would be able to maintain a higher rate of fire using fewer crew members. There's no way the two crew members are able to work the Wyvren by themselves.

In essence, if the whole vehicle didn't tear itself apart after firing one volley, the guns would immediately jam, and once the spent shell casings were removed and the magazines reattached, they would only be able to fire one more volley before having to reload and reattach each magazine again.

Rules wise, are they any rumors for what it's shooting profile will be? Something more like the Thunderfire Cannon rather than a Whirlwind I assume?

The Rules for the wyvern are several pages back. I could probably add something snarky, but I'll let it at that.

To Ravenous D : Also discussed several pages back, the order itself confers precise shots to the entire unit shooting. Recall that the Sniper special rule confers Precise Shot on 6's. Your reading is not the same as the card is now. While it could very well be errata/FAQ 'd, right now the Take Aim order is rather brutal

I'm going to abuse the hell out of it and FFTE! with Cypher.

Get a 30~ man blob with Cypher, shoot, run, re-roll if low due to Cypher's conferred fleet to the entire unit, use Take Aim! To give Cypher automatic precision shots and snipe out the nastiest thugs with the heavy duty weapons easily with the 2 plasma pistol shots and 2 bolt pistol shots at BS10 and with the unit's own special weapons.

55 point prescience Inquisitor for extra pain as well.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
I'm going to abuse the hell out of it and FFTE! with Cypher.

Get a 30~ man blob with Cypher, shoot, run, re-roll if low due to Cypher's conferred fleet to the entire unit, use Take Aim! To give Cypher automatic precision shots and snipe out the nastiest thugs with the heavy duty weapons easily with the 2 plasma pistol shots and 2 bolt pistol shots at BS10 and with the unit's own special weapons.

55 point prescience Inquisitor for extra pain as well.

Pretty sure you wont be able to issue more than 1 order per turn to a unit.

 Perfect Organism wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
I'm going to abuse the hell out of it and FFTE! with Cypher.

Get a 30~ man blob with Cypher, shoot, run, re-roll if low due to Cypher's conferred fleet to the entire unit, use Take Aim! To give Cypher automatic precision shots and snipe out the nastiest thugs with the heavy duty weapons easily with the 2 plasma pistol shots and 2 bolt pistol shots at BS10 and with the unit's own special weapons.

55 point prescience Inquisitor for extra pain as well.

Pretty sure you wont be able to issue more than 1 order per turn to a unit.

Uh, yes, I'm aware of this obviously

Concerns of durability tend to become pretty much non-existent when even walking into crappy area terrain gives your Guardsmen a 3+ cover save with Cypher's shrouded.

Kolbalt266 wrote:
Pics off Itunes

Surprised the Inquisition is still called the Inquisition and not the Hoopidus boopidus or whatever bs.

You mean like Ordos Malleus, Hereticus and Xenos.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Worrisome is the notion that you'll be able to field an Armored Company. I remember the dark days of 3rd edition with the IG Armored Company being all kinds of broken, only this time around you don't need to ask permission before you play it.

If someone brings an armoured company and you don't wanna play it because it is completely broken or no fun to play just don't play them. You need permission to field anything, you can't force your opponents to play with you. I do the same thing with triptide players or people who spam wave serpents. I play this game for fun, if I don't see a game being fun for me I won't play it. If it hurts your feelings than too bad, maybe you should have thought about how your opponent feels before fielding the most broken army you can.

I don't think anyone is going to have too many problems against an armored company list in 6E. It's one of those things that sounds scary on paper but really is very easy to defeat unless you just try to sit there and shoot at it from across the board in a pitched gunfight.

I dunno. Armored Company implies Tanks being Troops if you are running a Tank Commander. Tanks being Troops means Tanks being Scoring. Now that dedicated transports aren't scoring in 6V, that means Imperial Guard will have the only AV 14F, AV13S scoring unit for most missions. Stick a squadron of 3 tanks on an objective, give them an Allied DA Librarian with PFG for the 4++, and you have an extremely durable unit that can sit on an objective AND shoot enemies off other objectives assuming LoS.

It won't be necessarily auto-win, but it will make winning much easier if you are playing competently.

 Happygrunt wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Guys, Incoming, fire on my target, and bring it down are probably gone. I bet those last 3 orders we haven't seen are the tank orders

See, I have heard bring it down was still in. Wouldn't mind Incoming going away, seeing as it really didn't do much. I HOPE fire on my target stays, but if it is between that or bring it down, I would much rather have bring it down.

Do we actually know that tank orders are coming? Did I miss that? Genuinely asking. If not, it seems way more likely to me we'll have junior and senior officer orders, like before. Tanks already have a heap of utility without orders. Not so infantry squads. It's also not very cinematic to have tanks perform dramatically differently because someone shouted at them down the string & tin can device the IG use in place of radio, but it fits well with boots on the ground, they're classic movie tropes - yelling "Get down!" or "Fire at will!" at squads of men and turning a firefight around, etc.

 kir44n wrote:
I dunno. Armored Company implies Tanks being Troops if you are running a Tank Commander. Tanks being Troops means Tanks being Scoring.

Not automatically. Just because a vehicle is a troop doesn't override the no scoring restriction. It doesn't for Orks (who can make Deff Dreads troops) and it doesn't for the current Forgeworld Armoured Battlegroup list. Even so, killing tanks once you close distance isn't spectacularly hard, especially if you get to the side/rear or into melee

Now that dedicated transports aren't scoring in 6V, that means Imperial Guard will have the only AV 14F, AV13S scoring unit for most missions. Stick a squadron of 3 tanks on an objective, give them an Allied DA Librarian with PFG for the 4++, and you have an extremely durable unit that can sit on an objective AND shoot enemies off other objectives assuming LoS.

even assuming they could score, if anything gets to melee range all three tanks go bye-bye just as easily as a couple chimeras would however, and they'd have to advance to take an objective in most cases putting them at greater risk of assault or an opponent DS'ing behind them or whatnot. There are other units in the game however of comparable durability/resiliency that are scoring units that don't seem to raise the same kind of ire.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Guys, Incoming, fire on my target, and bring it down are probably gone. I bet those last 3 orders we haven't seen are the tank orders

See, I have heard bring it down was still in. Wouldn't mind Incoming going away, seeing as it really didn't do much. I HOPE fire on my target stays, but if it is between that or bring it down, I would much rather have bring it down.

Do we actually know that tank orders are coming? Did I miss that? Genuinely asking. If not, it seems way more likely to me we'll have junior and senior officer orders, like before. Tanks already have a heap of utility without orders. Not so infantry squads. It's also not very cinematic to have tanks perform dramatically differently because someone shouted at them down the string & tin can device the IG use in place of radio, but it fits well with boots on the ground, they're classic movie tropes - yelling "Get down!" or "Fire at will!" at squads of men and turning a firefight around, etc.

Tank commanders, specific traits and orders 'confirmed' in one of the WD scans on page 115 of this thread.

Yeah, the game environment for vehicles in 3rd is a bit different from 6th. AC won't even be a blip.

 sierra 1247 wrote:
The wyvern main armament is a mortar, mortars generally do not eject casings, they fire the entire round out of the bore. So no jamming in that respect.

While its true that mortars generally do not eject casings, why would GW mention the vehicle's "cavernous" ejection ports?

T

 plastictrees wrote:

Tank commanders, specific traits and orders 'confirmed' in one of the WD scans on page 115 of this thread.

Cheers. This thread is impossible unless you follow it round-the-clock, and that's made harder by all the bitching. Tank orders... that's fething weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timd wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:
The wyvern main armament is a mortar, mortars generally do not eject casings, they fire the entire round out of the bore. So no jamming in that respect.

While its true that mortars generally do not eject casings, why would GW mention the vehicle's "cavernous" ejection ports?

T

Because WD writers don't know what the feth they're talking about either?

well what if a tank HQ can give orders to troops like a company command squad? maybe that is what they meant

jae4x4 wrote:
well what if a tank HQ can give orders to troops like a company command squad? maybe that is what they meant

Generally, tanks can order tanks and infantry order infantry. At least, that is how the FW ABG list dose it, and it is beginning to sound eerily similar to what we will be getting in the main IG book.

Everybody prep for two special weapon vet squads then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kir44n wrote:
I dunno. Armored Company implies Tanks being Troops if you are running a Tank Commander. Tanks being Troops means Tanks being Scoring. Now that dedicated transports aren't scoring in 6V, that means Imperial Guard will have the only AV 14F, AV13S scoring unit for most missions. Stick a squadron of 3 tanks on an objective, give them an Allied DA Librarian with PFG for the 4++, and you have an extremely durable unit that can sit on an objective AND shoot enemies off other objectives assuming LoS.

It won't be necessarily auto-win, but it will make winning much easier if you are playing competently.

Troops dose not mean scoring. Look at ABG. The tanks are troops, yes, but they are not scoring. Unless it is explicitly stated otherwise, vehicals cannot score.

 kir44n wrote:
I dunno. Armored Company implies Tanks being Troops if you are running a Tank Commander. Tanks being Troops means Tanks being Scoring. Now that dedicated transports aren't scoring in 6V, that means Imperial Guard will have the only AV 14F, AV13S scoring unit for most missions. Stick a squadron of 3 tanks on an objective, give them an Allied DA Librarian with PFG for the 4++, and you have an extremely durable unit that can sit on an objective AND shoot enemies off other objectives assuming LoS.

It won't be necessarily auto-win, but it will make winning much easier if you are playing competently.

Except for the fact that the Armored company can take tanks as troops but they still don't score.

If IG got tanks as troops they wouldn't be able to score in the regular codex

Does anyone have any idea what vehicles from the regular Imperial Guard army Codex carry over into the new Stormtroopers' specialty Codex (Militarum Tempestus)? Do they still have Leman Russ tanks? Basilisks? Manticores?

 BrassScorpion wrote:
Does anyone have any idea what vehicles from the regular Imperial Guard army Codex carry over into the new Stormtroopers' specialty Codex (Militarum Tempestus)? Do they still have Leman Russ tanks? Basilisks? Manticores?

To my knowledge, they got Valkyries/vendettas, chimeras and the Taurox. That's it. Supposed to be more "special forces" like.

To be fair, I am coloring my expectations through Rose-tinted Glasses. I was operating under the assumption that a Tank commander might make tanks scoring troops, similar to how a primary detachment of Imperial Knights makes Imperial Knights scoring. I suppose this is viewed as a slim proposition based on some of the reactions.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Perfect Organism wrote:
If I'm reading that right, 'Take Aim' allows you to assign all hits, including from heavy weapons and suchlike to whoever you want? That could make a lot of deathstar builds very precarious - letting you either avoid the guys with good saves or take out a lynchpin model providing buffs.

All-tank armies seem like they could be nasty, but in a game where you can take an entire army of super-heavy walkers I don't think they will stand out as the most broken option out there.

No it gives the ability to assign hits if they roll 6s. Unlike eldar pathfinders where all hits are precision shots.

Except it doesn't say 6's give Precision Shots, it simply says the unit gains Precision Shot. Compare that to the wording for Sniper weapons and Characters, which say something along the lines of 6's to hit result in Precision Shots.

Though I think it's probably intended to be only 6's, that's not how it's worded.

That's how I interpret it.

Precision shots only occur on a 6. You shoot normally and any 6's you roll to hit you can place the hit on a specific model in a squad. You then roll to wound against that specific model and if you get a wound, then the model makes its save against that wound if is has one (Armor, Cover, or Invulnerable) as normal.

I can see it being useful if you want to force a wound or two on a sergeant or equivalent character in a squad near your line (Veteran Sergeant, Exarch, Warlock, etc.)

Good times. I'm excited to see some more of this info come down the pipe in the near future. Maybe one more new tank revealed this weekend? We'll see.

Take it easy for now.

-Red__Thirst-

Unless Games Workshop tm the dead latin language, they should just stop creating nonsense names.

I would hope the ST codex allows for more than just valks/chimeras but seeing as they are the most effective I'll take it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And armored company was awesome when they came out.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
That's how I interpret it.

Precision shots only occur on a 6. You shoot normally and any 6's you roll to hit you can place the hit on a specific model in a squad. You then roll to wound against that specific model and if you get a wound, then the model makes its save against that wound if is has one (Armor, Cover, or Invulnerable) as normal.

I can see it being useful if you want to force a wound or two on a sergeant or equivalent character in a squad near your line (Veteran Sergeant, Exarch, Warlock, etc.)

Yeah, I think that's what is intended, but its definitely not how it's worded. The reason precision shots for snipers and characters happen on a 6 is because it is specifically stated in their respective rules that it only happens on a 6.

Sniper rifles:

"each To Hit roll of a 6 results in a Precision Shot"

For Characters:
"If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots. Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated agaisnt a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit"

So a Precision shot = you allocate the wounds. The fact they occur on 6's is due to the way the Sniper and Character rules are worded... the "Take Aim!" order is not worded the same way.

Though I think it's intended to only be 6's otherwise it ends up being very powerful, give the order to an infantry blob with a couple of Lascannons and watch special weapons vanish.

Well what exactly does the precision shot entry in the BRB say?

If it doesn't get errata'd the low guardsman may have just become the greatest shot in the galaxy.

Not that I'd complain.

And that shows us again how much GW's design team reads and playtests their own rules

M.

I've been thinking about swapping the tracks for wheels and using the tracks to make some rapiers. as the transport would look nicer with wheels IMO.

 Las wrote:
Well what exactly does the precision shot entry in the BRB say?

If it doesn't get errata'd the low guardsman may have just become the greatest shot in the galaxy.

Not that I'd complain.

This is the EXACT entry for precision shots, page 63 of the BRB. Sniper rule directs to this entry to understand precision shots

PRECISION SHOTS
If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots.
Rounds from Precision Shots are allocated against
a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit,
as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal
rules for wound allocation. This means that Precision Shots
can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or
even characters! A character that has a Precision Shot Wound
allocated to it can still make a Look Out, Sir roll

The guard order does not grant the sniper rule. It grants Precision Shots. This is how Precision Shots are worded in the BRB.

 brochtree wrote:
I've been thinking about swapping the tracks for wheels and using the tracks to make some rapiers. as the transport would look nicer with wheels IMO.

GENIUS!
Thanks for this marvelous idea.

 Las wrote:
Well what exactly does the precision shot entry in the BRB say?

If it doesn't get errata'd the low guardsman may have just become the greatest shot in the galaxy.

Not that I'd complain.

Interestingly enough, Precision Shot is a rule that is only spelled out in the Characters section, not the Special Rules section. In there, it specifies that "any of your character's shots roll 6 to hit, these are Precision Shots", following which, it explains what Precision Shot does. Sniper similarly points out that a weapon with "Sniper" or a model with the same, benefits from the "special rule" of "Precision Shot" on a to hit of 6.

The order card doesn't say anything about needing a specified roll to get "Precision Shot", and so I expect a day 1 FAQ.

Ork mobs with painboys and other assorted infantry characters are going to love that order as is :O

M.

I think its safe to say that while the rule says, right now, that technically all the shots are precision shots, doing it against another player is probably a bad idea. It's pretty clear that the order was only intending for you to get the shot on 6's. If it was allowing all hits to be allocated at will, it would be a very expensive order and extremely powerful.

It'll probably be part of a day 1 errata, but if it isn't, players will remember the IG guys who abused it and odds are they will avoid playing you.

This is no comment on whether its "right" or "wrong", merely that if you try to play it that way, people WILL remember it. Especially when their own special loophole becomes available.

So while I may technically be able to play that way, I certainly wouldn't. Its hard enough to find a good group these days without ticking off the other players.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I think its safe to say that while the rule says, right now, that technically all the shots are precision shots, doing it against another player is probably a bad idea. It's pretty clear that the order was only intending for you to get the shot on 6's. If it was allowing all hits to be allocated at will, it would be a very expensive order and extremely powerful.

It'll probably be part of a day 1 errata, but if it isn't, players will remember the IG guys who abused it and odds are they will avoid playing you.

This is no comment on whether its "right" or "wrong", merely that if you try to play it that way, people WILL remember it. Especially when their own special loophole becomes available.

So while I may technically be able to play that way, I certainly wouldn't. Its hard enough to find a good group these days without ticking off the other players.

A worse idea than Vendetta spam, screamerstar, or any other lamented tactic with how things are? Lets actually play with the orders with the new dex before we declare it the most broken thing in the world that's guaranteed to be fixed immediately.

And again, if you read my post, I didn't make one comment on whether it was game breaking, "right or wrong", or anything like that. I just stated that that's how most OTHER players will probably view it.

Think what your reaction would be as a non IG player. Some IG player walks into your store, plays a game vs you, and suddenly says "that 40 man platoon with lascannons and plasma all have precision shot this turn for all their hits, not just 6's." If Tau or Eldar got an ability like that, people would be having a cow right now.

That's all I'm saying. Other players will not like the rule being played that way and will probably view you the same as a guy who ran screamerstar, vendetta spam, whatever.

I don't give a gak how you play it, just realize that others will

When you make comments such as "It will probably recieve a day 1 erratta" and "other plays will remember you played it this way", it implies either a negative connotation, or that others may. If it is your negative connotation, my statement stands. if you are merely implying that others may feel upset about it, bugger for them. In a game where we've had to deal with Nob Wound rotating, Screamerstars, Deep Striking Landraiders, and other schenanigans, I will NOT stare a gift-horse in the mouth, even if it means I can use lascannons to snipe a character and all specials out of a squad.

I play the game by the rules. Morality or preceptions of jackassery quite simply do not factor into it. If you play against people that cry unfair, tell them to play by the European Team Championship ruleset. I play with the understanding that this game will never be made fair by Games-Workshop, and there are certain things that are extremely difficult to deal with. But the point is I don't stop playing with someone over it. I move on to the next game.

 kir44n wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I think its safe to say that while the rule says, right now, that technically all the shots are precision shots, doing it against another player is probably a bad idea. It's pretty clear that the order was only intending for you to get the shot on 6's. If it was allowing all hits to be allocated at will, it would be a very expensive order and extremely powerful.

It'll probably be part of a day 1 errata, but if it isn't, players will remember the IG guys who abused it and odds are they will avoid playing you.

This is no comment on whether its "right" or "wrong", merely that if you try to play it that way, people WILL remember it. Especially when their own special loophole becomes available.

So while I may technically be able to play that way, I certainly wouldn't. Its hard enough to find a good group these days without ticking off the other players.

A worse idea than Vendetta spam, screamerstar, or any other lamented tactic with how things are? Lets actually play with the orders with the new dex before we declare it the most broken thing in the world that's guaranteed to be fixed immediately.

I'm not going to say it's worse than whatever spammy lists are around right now, but it would be pretty damned powerful and makes sniper squads pretty damned pointless. Why buy a sniper who wounds on a 4, the enemy still gets their armour save and needs a 6 to pick out a special weapon in a squad when you can instead just order a Heavy Weapons unit of Lascannons to fire at a unit, all of them can pick their targets, wounding on a 2+ and no armour saves allowed.

Honestly I would be pretty excited if that means my sabre platforms get auto precision shots. Even if you need 6's, with TL that's a good chance.

At the same time I totally agree that it would be ridiculously powerful.

precision shots are only on 6's calm yourselves

jae4x4 wrote:
precision shots are only on 6's calm yourselves

Reread the exact rules for Precision shots higher up the page, taken directly from page 63 of the BRB if you don't take it at face value.

 PuddlePirate wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:

Have we seen the heads in the red box?

Right is from the hellhound and left is from the baneblade

I want that green, and I want that orange, right now. What colors are those!?!?

 kir44n wrote:

 Las wrote:
Well what exactly does the precision shot entry in the BRB say?

If it doesn't get errata'd the low guardsman may have just become the greatest shot in the galaxy.

Not that I'd complain.

This is the EXACT entry for precision shots, page 63 of the BRB. Sniper rule directs to this entry to understand precision shots

PRECISION SHOTS
If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots.
Rounds from Precision Shots are allocated against
a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit,
as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal
rules for wound allocation. This means that Precision Shots
can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or
even characters! A character that has a Precision Shot Wound
allocated to it can still make a Look Out, Sir roll

The guard order does not grant the sniper rule. It grants Precision Shots. This is how Precision Shots are worded in the BRB.

The only precedent for getting precision shots is on a to hit roll of a 6. I believe there are a few units that may get them on 5s, or something, but the baseline is a to hit roll of 6, so odds are that is what the order means.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not going to say it's worse than whatever spammy lists are around right now, but it would be pretty damned powerful and makes sniper squads pretty damned pointless.

I'm not actually convinced that Ratlings had much of a use in the first place. Bless 'em. I don't think they've been changed for three editions (apart from gaining Stealth and becoming cheaper), so maybe GW will change them slightly this time around so that they have more of a use.

 BunkerBob wrote:

 PuddlePirate wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:

Have we seen the heads in the red box?

Right is from the hellhound and left is from the baneblade

I want that green, and I want that orange, right now. What colors are those!?!?

Hmmm, orange is probably Tau light Ochre and i will assume the dark green is Caliban Green and the lighter is probably Castellan Green

Heafstaag wrote:

 kir44n wrote:

 Las wrote:
Well what exactly does the precision shot entry in the BRB say?

If it doesn't get errata'd the low guardsman may have just become the greatest shot in the galaxy.

Not that I'd complain.

This is the EXACT entry for precision shots, page 63 of the BRB. Sniper rule directs to this entry to understand precision shots

PRECISION SHOTS
If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots.
Rounds from Precision Shots are allocated against
a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit,
as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal
rules for wound allocation. This means that Precision Shots
can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or
even characters! A character that has a Precision Shot Wound
allocated to it can still make a Look Out, Sir roll

The guard order does not grant the sniper rule. It grants Precision Shots. This is how Precision Shots are worded in the BRB.

The only precedent for getting precision shots is on a to hit roll of a 6. I believe there are a few units that may get them on 5s, or something, but the baseline is a to hit roll of 6, so odds are that is what the order means.

All of Illic Nightspear's shots (and his unit of Pathfinders) are Precision Shots regardless of roll.

"Sharpshot: Shots fired by models with this special rule (excluding Snap Shots) are always precision shots."

It appears that the intent is that there is a distinction between the rule regarding 6's to hit and the hits which can be allocated by the firing player. However they gave both concepts exactly the same name, which undermines any attempt to figure out which of the two they're talking about.

Heafstaag wrote:

 kir44n wrote:

 Las wrote:
Well what exactly does the precision shot entry in the BRB say?

If it doesn't get errata'd the low guardsman may have just become the greatest shot in the galaxy.

Not that I'd complain.

This is the EXACT entry for precision shots, page 63 of the BRB. Sniper rule directs to this entry to understand precision shots

PRECISION SHOTS
If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots.
Rounds from Precision Shots are allocated against
a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit,
as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal
rules for wound allocation. This means that Precision Shots
can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or
even characters! A character that has a Precision Shot Wound
allocated to it can still make a Look Out, Sir roll

The guard order does not grant the sniper rule. It grants Precision Shots. This is how Precision Shots are worded in the BRB.

The only precedent for getting precision shots is on a to hit roll of a 6. I believe there are a few units that may get them on 5s, or something, but the baseline is a to hit roll of 6, so odds are that is what the order means.

The only precedents (that I can recall off-hand) being character shooting attacks(as above on a 6) and the sniper special rule (which states within ITS rules that rolls of 6 to hit grant Precision Shot).

However the order as it is presently written does not say that it grants the shooting unit sniper. The order states that the unit has the Precision Shot Special Rule, which means all hits are resolved as precision shots.

Heafstaag wrote:

 kir44n wrote:

 Las wrote:
Well what exactly does the precision shot entry in the BRB say?

If it doesn't get errata'd the low guardsman may have just become the greatest shot in the galaxy.

Not that I'd complain.

This is the EXACT entry for precision shots, page 63 of the BRB. Sniper rule directs to this entry to understand precision shots

PRECISION SHOTS
If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots.
Rounds from Precision Shots are allocated against
a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit,
as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal
rules for wound allocation. This means that Precision Shots
can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or
even characters! A character that has a Precision Shot Wound
allocated to it can still make a Look Out, Sir roll

The guard order does not grant the sniper rule. It grants Precision Shots. This is how Precision Shots are worded in the BRB.

The only precedent for getting precision shots is on a to hit roll of a 6. I believe there are a few units that may get them on 5s, or something, but the baseline is a to hit roll of 6, so odds are that is what the order means.

Low on a normal model, but think of a 40 man squad going at something...because i am...an enjoying it!

Plus i use snipers, do i get a double precision shot? (Or re-rolls?).

 snorri788 wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
The new vehicle. "Wyvern" looks very 'new'. it looks nothing historical and it is quite like mounting Thudd gun on Chimaera chassis and its functions suppressed Griffon. nice!

Spoiler:

Or did anyone try this thing in WW2? how good it is?

I like that. Looks quite nice.

If the Barrels were a little bit wider it would be a great Angry Marine delivery system

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 BunkerBob wrote:
I want that green, and I want that orange, right now. What colors are those!?!?

Hmmm, orange is probably Tau light Ochre and i will assume the dark green is Caliban Green and the lighter is probably Castellan Green

I could be wrong, but I think Castellan Green is much darker than lighter green on those models. If I were to have a guess, I'd say the lighter green is maybe Elysian Green.

stop trying to find loopholes in the wording of the text!

Give the order...
Shoot...
On 6's you get the precision shots...

Not every shot in the squad automatically has precision shots!

jae4x4 wrote:
stop trying to find loopholes in the wording of the text!

Give the order...
Shoot...
On 6's you get the precision shots...

Not every shot in the squad automatically has precision shots!

It's not a loophole in the wording of the rule, it's how the rule is worded. You can say it's not intended to be worded that way, but it's hardly a loophole. It's even reinforced by the wording of Illic Nightspear's Sharpshot rule that ALL shots fired by models in a unit ordered to "Take Aim!" are precision shots.

Precision shot does NOT = 6's to hit you choose the target.

Precision shot = you choose the target (which happens to occur on sniper weapons and characters when they roll a 6, or on Illic Nightspear's unit for all shots).

Maybe the GW developers should read their own rules some time.

Maybe the rules in the codex and on the cards themselves are different... but I'm guessing they are probably worded the same way. We'll find out in a week and a half I guess!

jae4x4 wrote:
stop trying to find loopholes in the wording of the text!

Give the order...
Shoot...
On 6's you get the precision shots...

Not every shot in the squad automatically has precision shots!

Dear lord, its not a loophole, its how the damn thing is written.

The sixes bit is part of the character rules, hence why it says "When a character rolls a 6 to hit, these are precision shots" End quote. It THEN goes on to explain that precision shots allow the shooter to allocate the shots. The order gives the unit precise shots, not Sniper, Not Character Shooting or anything else. Precise. Shots.

Was it meant to be sniper instead of precise shots? How should I know, I'm not a mind reader. I can only know what they wrote. And what they wrote is that when the order is passed, the unit receiving the order can pick out the best things they want to shoot out as long as they hit, no sixes required.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

jae4x4 wrote:
stop trying to find loopholes in the wording of the text!

Give the order...
Shoot...
On 6's you get the precision shots...

Not every shot in the squad automatically has precision shots!

It's not a loophole in the wording of the rule, it's how the rule is worded. You can say it's not intended to be worded that way, but it's hardly a loophole. It's even reinforced by the wording of Illic Nightspear's Sharpshot rule that ALL shots fired by models in a unit ordered to "Take Aim!" are precision shots.

Maybe the GW developers should read their own rules some time.

Maybe the rules in the codex and on the cards themselves are different... but I'm guessing they are probably worded the same way. We'll find out in a week and a half I guess!

Actually, there is a pretty important distinction. Models following the IG order have the Precision Shots special rule, while all of Illic's shots are Precision Shots. Models vs. Shots. If a Shot is a Precision Shot, then that is fairly obviously understood to be one that the firer can allocate. But what exactly does it mean for a Model to have the "Precision Shots" special rule given it's not a USR? Does it mean that all of their Shots are Precision Shots, or does it mean that they follow the rules section entitled "Precision Shots" under the character rules (which includes having to roll a 6 to hit)?

Yeah meaning that squad of generic Guardsmen gains that special rule, and the rules state that you must roll a 6 to allocate the wound to whatever model you want that,s within range of the weapon.

Yeah, that's the other fly in the ointment... Precision Shots is technically not a "special rule".

If they mean the models in the unit ordered to Take Aim! get the effects a character would get in the paragraph under the heading of Precision Shots... they worded it completely wrong, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Yeah meaning that squad of generic Guardsmen gains that special rule, and the rules state that you must roll a 6 to allocate the wound to whatever model you want that,s within range of the weapon.

Except precision shots is NOT a special rule. There is a paragraph titled precision shots, but that doesn't mean the paragraph is the special rule "precision shots". The rulebook has a whole section of special rules, precision shot is not in it. The only time precision shots are referenced is that they are shots which you get to pick the target, precision shots are (as far as I'm aware) never referenced as a shot that needs a 6 to be able to pick it's target.

My personal interpretation is that the "Precision Shots special rule" is intended to be the section entitled "Precision Shots" in the character section. But it's certainly debatable, given GW failed to specifically name anything related to Precision Shots as a special rule.

Well that simply means there's a codex specific rule....rule that got the exact same name as a rule in the BRB.

And really, it is a special rule; they simply didn't put a big sign over it to state this; it is a special 'ability' that characters have that you can now have your basic grunts have temporarily for the moment of a shooting attack.

either GW enjoy making things complicated (with or without knowing it) or we've got too much time on our hand and we're splitting hairs.

I thought we had seen a snippet from the ST Codex showing them as troops with Valk/Vend options for dedicated transports, but now I can't find the pic and I didn't see it in the first page.

Anyone hot link it again? I'm trying to get a feel for point cost/options for running ST in Valks.

And what the hell does "salvo" do again?

If they drop the Griffon i will be upset, spent a lot of time making one crewed with Steel Legion. I am still crossing my fingures for a plastic Salamander. If they keep/make both my faith in GW might be restored for at least a month.

Salvo is full range and full number of shots if you are stationary, Half range and half shots if you've moved. So the Hot-Shot Volley gun is 4 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" if you move.

Odds are the Griffon will be gone, and no Salamander, though one could argue that a Taurox counts as would work.....

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Well that simply means there's a codex specific rule....rule that got the exact same name as a rule in the BRB.

And really, it is a special rule; they simply didn't put a big sign over it to state this; it is a special 'ability' that characters have that you can now have your basic grunts have temporarily for the moment of a shooting attack.

either GW enjoy making things complicated (with or without knowing it) or we've got too much time on our hand and we're splitting hairs.

The thing is, not only is it not in the special rules section, the paragraph is not worded in such a way to make you think that:

Precision shot = 6 to hit allows you to pick target.

That's just not how it's worded. Actually read some of the special rules, they all start with or contain something like "a unit with this rule", "...models with the Rampage special rule...", "Relentless models can...", "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...", "If a model has the Rending...", "...Wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule...".

Not only is "Precision Shots" not in the special rules section, it's not written in such a way as to imply that 6's to hit is part of the precision shot rule.

Anyway, I'll drop it for now, we can pick up this discussion again when the codex comes out and we can see if it's equally poorly worded.

 kir44n wrote:
Salvo is full range and full number of shots if you are stationary, Half range and half shots if you've moved. So the Hot-Shot Volley gun is 4 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" if you move.

Thank you!

everyone in the squad allocates their shots

Good lord thats insanity

An order that nets a whole unit Precision Shot eh...that's going to get FAQ'd with a quickness.

And can't math solve this whole debacle concerning what Precision Shot actually does?

Example:
If X happens, Y is activated. If X doesn't happen, Y doesn't activate. The general Character precision shot rule, yes?

The orders just change the parameters of Y activating. It's broken I think, but honestly I don't get how that's confusing.

You're trying to apply a consistent, logic based formula to the mess of 40k.

Its admirable, but ultimately futile.

I also don't think it'll get FAQ'd. I'd be surprised if it did, but seeing as how other head-scratching rules/issues haven't had a FAQ yet, I wouldn't hold my breath for this.

Get ready for the Precision Shot Mega Thread in YMDC.

 Frankenberry wrote:
An order that nets a whole unit Precision Shot eh...that's going to get FAQ'd with a quickness.

And can't math solve this whole debacle concerning what Precision Shot actually does?

Example:
If X happens, Y is activated. If X doesn't happen, Y doesn't activate. The general Character precision shot rule, yes?

The orders just change the parameters of Y activating. It's broken I think, but honestly I don't get how that's confusing.

Yeah, using that example, if X (character or sniper rolls a 6 to hit) happens, Y (precision shot) happens. The Take Aim rule is if X happens (unit has Take Aim order), Y happens (precision shots).

Maybe the codex will be worded differently, or maybe the IG codex does the stupid thing of introducing a special rule called "precision shot" even though we already have an effect in the BRB called "precision shot", lol.

Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

It'll be interesting to see if they do something like the Tyranid swam, which was a really good bargain.

We haven't gotten a FAQ in a year.

I think it's safe to say that at this point GW isn't that concerned.

That said, they could be compiling faqs to release them all at once in the "7E" book, whatever that is.

Hey, the subject line now states that the IG Warlord Traits are on the first page, but I don't see them. Am I missing it or is it not yet revealed?

Strange that the storm trooper codex is still not up on black library for pre-order.

Anyone else wondering if there could be another unknown tank that hasn't been seen? The WD said when it was talking about the tank commader that there was new never before tanks. It said something to that effect I can't find it now.....

General Hobbs wrote:


Odds are the Griffon will be gone, and no Salamander, though one could argue that a Taurox counts as would work.....

Man... If this is the truth the only good thing IMO to come from this new codex is a Commissar on the front cover of the over priced codex.

Wakshaani wrote:
Hey, the subject line now states that the IG Warlord Traits are on the first page, but I don't see them. Am I missing it or is it not yet revealed?

The subject line's a little misleading - it got me too. There's a mention of the fact that we're getting new Warlord Traits in one of the pictures, but we don't yet know what they are.

 Dakkamite wrote:

everyone in the squad allocates their shots

Good lord thats insanity

Is it? On a Marine squad, how many wounds is a regular blob of 20 Guardsmen really going to generate?

Obviously vague mathammer: 20 guys...10 hit, 3.33 wound, ~1 failed save. So 20 Guardsmen should kill 1 specific Marine...2 if they're within 12". That's not really that OP IMO.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:

everyone in the squad allocates their shots

Good lord thats insanity

Is it? On a Marine squad, how many wounds is a regular blob of 20 Guardsmen really going to generate at max range?

Obviously vague mathammer: 20 guys...10 hit, 3.33 wound, ~1 failed save. So 20 Guardsmen should kill 1 specific Marine...2 if they're within 12". That's not really that OP IMO.

When that marine is guaranteed to be the Special/Heavy weapon guy the calculus changes.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:

everyone in the squad allocates their shots

Good lord thats insanity

Is it? On a Marine squad, how many wounds is a regular blob of 20 Guardsmen really going to generate?

Obviously vague mathammer: 20 guys...10 hit, 3.33 wound, ~1 failed save. So 20 Guardsmen should kill 1 specific Marine...2 if they're within 12". That's not really that OP IMO.

Yes, the lasguns kill 1 specific marine. Throw in the 2 Plasma Guns or Lascannons, there's another 1 specific marine dead. So you've killed 2 specific marines... the one with the power weapon and the one with a plasma gun or heavy weapon, thus heavily reducing the effectiveness of the squad.

Even worse if it's a herald.

10 guys, 20 shots= 10 hit, 5 wound, 2 save for 3 wounds.

Dead Herald, goodbye Grimoire.

I mean, yah. It's not *super* broken, what with LOS and stuff. But there is a pretty strong utility there.

The only clarification it would need is a listing in the Codex for "Precision Shots" as a special rule.

Because like I showed above, right now it does one of two things.

1. Nothing, because there is technically no such thing as the Precision Shot "special rule".
or
2. Functions exactly how it Precision Shots (notice the plurality) listed in the Characters section, which requires 6s to hit.


The Orders Card for "Take Aim!" says "all models in the ordered unit have the Precision Shot special rule." They have a rule. Rules get followed in their entirety. Otherwise they're just suggestions or guidelines, lol. Anybody attempting to interpret that order card as automatically making all shots count as Precision Shots either doesn't understand how the conventions of the English language work in regards to section headers, or is trolling.

I mean, the rules for Ilic make it quite obvious. His rule is a modification to a rule he already has since he's a character. Since he gets Precision Shots by default, Sharpshot modifies that rule, and he gets them automatically for all hits unless making a Snap Shot. The ordered units getting the Precision Shot special rule didn't already have it. So they now do.

But again, since technically there's no such thing as the Precision Shots special rule, they don't get anything by the strictest interpretation of the rules. However, since we have to assume that the Card isn't written to trick players into doing something pointless (April Fools!), we'll have to either

A: use our brains
or
B: assume that GW already thought of this and included a "Precision Shot" special rule in Codex: Astra Militarum.

Has anyone else noticed that Sentinels are gone(except for the Apoc Formation)?

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the cards is not the full rule, and it is just shorthand? For example maybe in the full rule in the codex it says on a roll of 6 to hit. However on the card it just does the short hand so its easier to remember.

Until we see how it is written in the codex it is pointless to debate anything.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
See, there's another special rule you have to follow. And it's the one not in the BRB that applies to human beings called "Don't be a goober."

Eh, the RAW are wrong, but if they suggest anything it's that all shots are precision shots more than 6's are precision shots. But yeah, telling people they are goobers is totally a valid argument as to why they are wrong.

kir44n wrote:Dear lord, its not a loophole, its how the damn thing is written.

No. No it's not.

The sixes bit is part of the character rules, hence why it says "When a character rolls a 6 to hit, these are precision shots" End quote. It THEN goes on to explain that precision shots allow the shooter to allocate the shots. The order gives the unit precise shots, not Sniper, Not Character Shooting or anything else. Precise. Shots.

There's a very clear and distinct header for that section, which denotes that all of the language in that section applies to the term Precision Shots. You don't get to pick and choose parts of it based on context.

It says "all models have the Precision Shot special rule". Not that all of their shots are Precision Shots. Ilic's rule is not called Precision Shots. His is called "Sharpshot". A fairly silly term considering the noun would be Sharpshooter, not Sharpshot, but hey, it's GW. Sharpshot makes all of Ilic's shots (except snap shots) Precision Shots, meaning it bypasses the rules for obtaining Precision shots and goes straight to how they are allocated.

Nowhere on that order card does it say all models make Precision Shots. It just says they all get the Precision Shot special rule.

The only reason this is ambiguous is because the BRB has a section called "Special Rules" and it doesn't have a Precision Shot entry (so if you want to be a rules-lawyer, technically the order does nothing.) However, since there is a rule called Precision Shot, the Order card has to, by default, assume that every part of the header for Precision Shot applies, not just one part of it.

See, there's another special rule you have to follow. And it's the one not in the BRB that applies to human beings called "Don't be a goober."

 Leth wrote:
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the cards is not the full rule, and it is just shorthand? For example maybe in the full rule in the codex it says on a roll of 6 to hit. However on the card it just does the short hand so its easier to remember.

Until we see how it is written in the codex it is pointless to debate anything.

This is a rumors and speculation thread.

Honestly I don't think its as strong as some of the other orders. I would personally take rank fire over it depending on the size of the squad in question. Same with "Forward for the Emprah".

I think it's likely that it either be FAQ'd or clarified somehow to only make shots precision shots on 6's, which will greatly nullify its effectiveness.

The new "precision shot" special rule may just be in the new edition rulebook. They have done that kind of forward writing before and it made little sense at the time it was released. The necrons come to mind.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:]Eh, the RAW are wrong, but if they suggest anything it's that all shots are precision shots more than 6's are precision shots

No. Not at all, using any logical or rational interpretation of the rules.

You can either A: Rules lawyer. Letter of the rules says there is no Precision Shot special rule, so the order does nothing.

Or you can B: assume that the Precision Shot special rule is the Precision Shots rule under characters, which has the stipulation that when 6s are rolled, you get to pick your target when allocating wounds.

Or you can C: assume that there is a Precision Shot special rule in the upcoming codex that we don't know of yet.


However, there is no D, where suddenly "Precision Shot special rule" becomes "Pick and choose whatever is the most advantageous language in the BRB under Precision Shots for characters". Seriously, there isn't one reasonable argument for that interpretation that isn't willfully ignoring how both the Orders Card and the only currently known rule for "Precision Shot(s)" are written. We know the content of the rule from the rulebook, and we know the context of the rule from Illic Darkspear. And we know the content of the card. It doesn't say "all shots from the ordered models are Precision shots" so the rule doesn't function like Illic Darkspear's Sharpshot. There's no arguing that it does. His rules are very specific. "shots fired by models." The orders card for "Take Aim!" is also very specific. It says "all ordered models" get "special rule" See, Ilic doesn't have to "get special rule" because he has it automatically by being a character. Every character uses Precision Shots. Illic is different by virtue of getting to break that rule. So even if we assume Precision Shot is equivalent to Precision Shots (a fair, but not necessarily correct assumption), they are still getting the rule and not simply the effects of the rule. Because they, very clearly and explicity with not a single iota of ambiguity, get the rule, they have to follow all of the stipulations of the rule. If we determine that rule is "Precision Shots" from the character section, then they have to follow all of it.

Otherwise you might as well save the weight carrying it around, ditch the BRB at home, and start making up the rules as you go along because it's not going to make any difference.

Ah, FAQs, I do miss those.

Fishborne wrote:The new "precision shot" special rule may just be in the new edition rulebook. They have done that kind of forward writing before and it made little sense at the time it was released. The necrons come to mind.

Precision shots is what the BRB calls an 'advanced rule'. the terms 'advanced rule' and 'special rule' are used interchangeably by every single codex printed in 6th edition. Best evidence tells us that advanced rules are also special rules. While the rule might be reprinted in the codex for ease of reference, I would not be surprised if it is not as most special rules from the BRB are not reprinted.

BlaxicanX wrote:I think it's likely that it either be FAQ'd or clarified somehow to only make shots precision shots on 6's, which will greatly nullify its effectiveness.

I doubt it, its fairly clear. They have the precision shot rule, witch means the wounds from shots with a 6 to hit are precision shots that may be allocated to the model of the shooting player's choice. The order does not make all of the shots in the unit precision shots. It gives the unit the unit the ability to get precision shots but to do so you still need to roll 6's.
Nothing ever gets FAQ'd any more, even something that will be highly contentious and potentially game breaking.

Wait a minute... so which one's the new IG codex? The Astra Militarum or the Militarum Tempestus? Or are neither of them the new codex, but both rather an expansion to the old one?

In all seriousness, with the rate that GW is releasing new books and supplements, I'm starting to get lost. Especially with them changing the names of things so they can get a firmer grasp of their IP. Granted, I don't play 40k anymore, so I'm somewhat out of the loop, but up until now, I've been at least keeping up with new releases, thanks to an interest invested into my old armies, as well as hopes that one day 40k might take a turn where it'd be worth playing again.

Wait a second... Those pictures of the Cadian Armoured fist. It says Shock Troops in the description, but those dudes look like vanilla cadian infantry to me. Did I miss something here?
Also, getting a bit lost here... Kasrkin, Veterans, Shock Troopers, Stormtroopers, Scions... how many units with the same tactical niche will the IG get...?

 Kosake wrote:
Wait a second... Those pictures of the Cadian Armoured fist. It says Shock Troops in the description, but those dudes look like vanilla cadian infantry to me. Did I miss something here?
Also, getting a bit lost here... Kasrkin, Veterans, Shock Troopers, Stormtroopers, Scions... how many units with the same tactical niche will the IG get...?

When launched as the original metals in 2nd Ed, all Cadian basic (or vanilla) infantry were known as Shock Troops.

Kasrkin were veteran, Storm Trooper type Cadians who first featured in one of Dan Abnett's Eisenhorn novels before making it into the Eye of Terror Cadian army list.

Kasrkin are not Storm Troopers/ Scions/ Tempestus, just highly trained and better armed and armoured Shock Troops.

Storm Troopers, now known as Scions/ Tempestus were also introduced alongside Shock Troops in 2nd Ed.

In fact, all of the 2nd Ed metals had a fancy name: Iron Guard, Desert Raiders, Jungle Fighters, Ice Warriors for Valhallans?

 Fishborne wrote:
The new "precision shot" special rule may just be in the new edition rulebook. They have done that kind of forward writing before and it made little sense at the time it was released. The necrons come to mind.

That's a good point.

 Fafnir wrote:
Wait a minute... so which one's the new IG codex? The Astra Militarum or the Militarum Tempestus? Or are neither of them the new codex, but both rather an expansion to the old one?

Astra Militarum Codex = New IG Codex
Militarum Tempestus = mail order only English only "Stormtrooper Codex"

And Sentinels are only missing on North American website, still available in Europe.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Wait a minute... so which one's the new IG codex? The Astra Militarum or the Militarum Tempestus? Or are neither of them the new codex, but both rather an expansion to the old one?

Astra Militarum Codex = New IG Codex
Militarum Tempestus = mail order only English only "Stormtrooper Codex"

And Sentinels are only missing on North American website, still available in Europe.

You know, it was a lot better when everything came in just one book.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:]Eh, the RAW are wrong, but if they suggest anything it's that all shots are precision shots more than 6's are precision shots

No. Not at all, using any logical or rational interpretation of the rules.

You can either A: Rules lawyer. Letter of the rules says there is no Precision Shot special rule, so the order does nothing.

Or you can B: assume that the Precision Shot special rule is the Precision Shots rule under characters, which has the stipulation that when 6s are rolled, you get to pick your target when allocating wounds.

Or you can C: assume that there is a Precision Shot special rule in the upcoming codex that we don't know of yet.

Yes, yes there is a D, which using common English is the best interpretation. Read the paragraph under Precision Shot and note:

"If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots. Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit"

Character's don't have "precision shot", if they roll a 6, the hit is a "precision shot", and the wound from the "precision shot" is allocated as you desire.

B really doesn't make any sense because you can't assume just because the heading is "precision shots" that EVERYTHING under is counted as a precision shot when they specifically tell you what is a precision shot. Compare this the actual special rules section, where every rule I've read actually says "units with X special rule" or "models who have X" or similar to that. For example: "If a weapon has the Sniper special rule blah blah blah".... Slow and Purposeful: "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule blah blah blah".... "Relentless models can blah blah blah". If you use the argument that everything under the heading is counted as the "Precision Shot special rule", then the order does nothing because it clearly states "If any of your character's..." and a regular infantry unit are NOT characters so the rule would have no effect.

Instead, you assume the plain English understanding of what a precision shot is: all shots are precision shots.

OR

You assume there's an error because they referred to a special rule that doesn't exist and thus invent what you want it to be.

OR

We wait for the codex and see what that says and restart this discussion then

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only RAW. The precision show debate can go to you make da call for an endless circle jerk/circular debate...same thing

New topic: Primaris, priests, and engineseers now all appear to be force org free limit 3 each per detachment.

Priests will probably be the same as AS keeping blobs deadly even if power weapons go up to 15 points.

Primaris psykers: This is pure speculation but I'm going to guess they are lvl1 psykers with only book powers from telep, tele, bio, and pyro with a big reduction in price. Stats will probably be lower than a 55 point lvl1 inquisitor so the price willprobably be lower. I'm guessing ld9, 2 wounds, 1 power, and about 5 to 10 points under a tzeentch herald.

Enginseer: No clue, but I'm going to guess same rules with a lower price.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Assume the plain English understanding of what a precision shot is: all shots are precision shots.

OR

You assume there's an error because they referred to a special rule that doesn't exist and thus invent what you want it to be.

OR

We wait for the codex and see what that says and restart this discussion then

^This.

Now can we please get on with discussing ANYTHING ELSE about the news and rumors on this topic.

I am very certain all sides have flushed out all of their reasoning any anything else is just restating old arguments or neigh-saying old arguments.

Edit: Got ninja'd

So in the title it says warlord traits but I can't seem to find them anywhere or is that just there because the white dwarf scan confirms new warlord traits?

The FW Hydra is 'out of stock' and missing from their updated catalogue - http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/downloads/product/pdf/f/Forge%20World%20Catalogue%202014-web.pdf

I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

 Trickstick wrote:
I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

Losing combined squad would spell the death of infantry platoons. In such an event:

1) Severely nerfs orders, now you can at best turn garbage into less-than-mediocrity, whereas a 30 man blob FRFSRF'ing could decimate even heavy infantry squads with lasgun fire.

2) Massive morale problems. You lose 3 Guardsmen in an infantry squad and you're taking an LD7 check. Keeping your squads within range of a Commissar would be difficult given how small the aura is and the Commissar and his unit won't be hard to wipe with concentrated fire in one shooting phase.

3) Vets will become the auto-take option as a result unless they get nerfed into oblivion

I don't think we will lose any of the FW units in the current Codex. With the rumor of new variants of tanks, I'm thinking they are going to open up all the IG FW units into the new codex. Salamanders and destroyers on the way! That would be the easy way out to add "new" units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:
I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

The leaked rules for the scions suggest that at least a platoon as a single FOC will be remaining.

beast_gts wrote:
The FW Hydra is 'out of stock' and missing from their updated catalogue - http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/downloads/product/pdf/f/Forge%20World%20Catalogue%202014-web.pdf

That may or may not be significant. It could be out of stock because they are discontinuing it or it could be out of stock because it's going back to the design studio to have the master moulds repaired/remade.

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

On Precision shots- Regardless of the specific rule, it seems like people are assuming that the entire text of the rule is on the order card, and that the actual codex itself will not have a longer explanation, possibly clearing up the confusion.
[edit] Should have finished reading the thread. Leth brought up the same point.

 Trickstick wrote:
I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

Not trying to sound like it's the end of the world, but losing the infantry platoon and the combined squad rule would probably be the last straw to make me drop the game for good, at least for my Ig army.

It would take some seriously cool stuff to convince me to stay if they did that.

But I doubt that would happen. FW still uses the infantry platoon for their stuff even in recent stuff.

2 special weapons max for vets though, that's very likely.

Insurgency Walker wrote:The leaked rules for the scions suggest that at least a platoon as a single FOC will be remaining.

MrMoustaffa wrote:Not trying to sound like it's the end of the world, but losing the infantry platoon and the combined squad rule would probably be the last straw to make me drop the game for good, at least for my Ig army.

I never meant to suggest that we would lose the platoon. The organisation of platoons has been an iconic part of the IG for a while. The scion rules from WD also, have a similar structure. I was simply talking about the combined squad rule. I do not think it is likely to go, but it is at least possible. Crazier things have happened in other codex releases. The most likely "nerf" that I can think of is losing the option to combine squads, replacing it with the ability to purchase 10-50 man units of Guard. Simplifies the rule but hurts tactical flexibility, which is a trait that the Guard are not renowned for.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

Not trying to sound like it's the end of the world, but losing the infantry platoon and the combined squad rule would probably be the last straw to make me drop the game for good, at least for my Ig army.

It would take some seriously cool stuff to convince me to stay if they did that.

But I doubt that would happen. FW still uses the infantry platoon for their stuff even in recent stuff.

2 special weapons max for vets though, that's very likely.

Thats how i look at it, FW seems to be the laboratory of testing new rules for regular armies. So stuff like tank orders, and 2 weapon vets seems entirely likely. Now we just need to dig around and see if DKoK or Elysians can take blob squads

Platoons, as currently construed, have been around for ages. Combined squads is a new rule, though. It wasn't in the 4th ed codex, even! Also, FW lists (the Death Korps, at least) present platoons almost exactly as in the IG codex but they do not have combined squads either. It should not be a shock if blobs disappear.

Blobs might be a bit beastly with allies. If they stay not much can take on a blob in cc if it has priests for shred, hate, and reroll armor saves + an inquisitor for rad, psych, and hammerhand.

LD 8 sergeants are pretty solid if you avoid putting them on point.

Blobs could also turn into a msu dakka fest if they change hws and sws into 50 point 10 wound squads with a ld8 sergeant.

 tomjoad wrote:
Platoons, as currently construed, have been around for ages. Combined squads is a new rule, though. It wasn't in the 4th ed codex, even! Also, FW lists (the Death Korps, at least) present platoons almost exactly as in the IG codex but they do not have combined squads either. It should not be a shock if blobs disappear.

Yes, but the DKoK list has other.. things that make up for loseing blobs. Like being DKoK.

 tomjoad wrote:
Platoons, as currently construed, have been around for ages. Combined squads is a new rule, though. It wasn't in the 4th ed codex, even! Also, FW lists (the Death Korps, at least) present platoons almost exactly as in the IG codex but they do not have combined squads either. It should not be a shock if blobs disappear.

True, however iirc the combat squad rule for SM was born during the same codex cycle, and that rule made it into the 6th Ed SM codex.

i don't see them dropping the rule as it makes Guard what they are. as Stalin put it.

Quantity has a Quality all of it's own.

If blobs go, I'll just keep using the 5th Ed codex. It would make orders far less efficient, make KP games essentially auto-lose, make force concentration even harder and also take away a huge degree of tactical flexibility.

2-weapon Vet squads would also mean I have a lot of remodelling to do.

I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

 tomjoad wrote:
Platoons, as currently construed, have been around for ages. Combined squads is a new rule, though. It wasn't in the 4th ed codex, even! Also, FW lists (the Death Korps, at least) present platoons almost exactly as in the IG codex but they do not have combined squads either. It should not be a shock if blobs disappear.

The most recent Elysian rules are exactly in line with the 5th codex. Combined squads and 3 special weapons per vet squad. I wouldn't use what FW do as an indicator of what's to come at all.

 pretre wrote:
I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

Well, in a way, it is CONFIRMED to be the end of Imperial Guard ... and the start of Astra Militarum

Have to say that pic of the Dakkajets about to strafe over the Hydras is awesome in the OP.

Wyvern looks pretty decent albeit still another Chimera-chasis variant.

 pretre wrote:
I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

Here's the basic pattern for 40K codex releases:

1) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

2) Codex ages. Progressively fewer options seem viable as metagames change. Army lists start to look more similar.

3) Codex reaches old age. Army lists have become largely cookie-cutter and reliant upon a handful of crutch units.

4) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

The relevant point here is that there's a certain stage just before #4 at which the player base tends to panic after hearing that their crutches will be "nerfed" or taken away. See Shrouding for Grey Knights, Webway Portal tactics for DE, etc.

Happens again and again and again and again and again...

 gorgon wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

Here's the basic pattern for 40K codex releases:

1) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

2) Codex ages. Progressively fewer options seem viable as metagames change. Army lists start to look more similar.

3) Codex reaches old age. Army lists have become largely cookie-cutter and reliant upon a handful of crutch units.

4) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

The relevant point here is that there's a certain stage just before #4 at which the player base tends to panic after hearing that their crutches will be "nerfed" or taken away. See Shrouding for Grey Knights, Webway Portal tactics for DE, etc.

Happens again and again and again and again and again...

I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, it's not a case of losing out on a 'crutch' for my army.

I play blob guard because I love the style, look and feel of the army, not for any competitive reason, and basically, the removal of combined squads would remove the very thing I play the army for. My entire playstyle, fluff and army would be invalidated, and require me to significantly alter elements of each, something that I should not have to do. New codexes should never remove units or options, in my opinion; there is no reason for blobs to be taken away, other than to force people to change and (in GW's plans) buy new models to facilitate a new playstyle.

So in short, I have no intention to alter my playstyle and army with the new codex, and as such, if it becomes impossible to play that way with the new one, I shall continue to use the old one.

Infantry squads could go up to 80 points a piece base and I'd still play them as combined squads. Competitiveness means nothing to me, but if the option is there, I will pay for it If it's not there, I shall continue to use the 5th Ed codex.

 Paradigm wrote:
New codexes should never remove units or options, in my opinion
...
So in short, I have no intention to alter my playstyle and army with the new codex, and as such, if it becomes impossible to play that way with the new one, I shall continue to use the old one.

The last 20 years speak differently. Every codex and edition change invalidates units and options from the previous one.

I have re-wargeared more units than I care to count and have plenty of units that sit on the shelf because they are either useless or not part of the codex anymore.

That's always been part of the game.

My Ravenguard assault scout army was nullified by the 6th edition rules. They are on the shelf now. I moved on.

If you are using the 5th edition codex, can I use the 4th edition codex and the old Witchunters book????

An all infiltrate drop troop Guard army with an inquisitor who has the liber heresius was lots of fun. I miss that army as well.

Yea if you are playing with the current IG dex after the new one comes out then can I use the 3.5 Chaos dex against you? because I like that one better

pretre wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
New codexes should never remove units or options, in my opinion
...
So in short, I have no intention to alter my playstyle and army with the new codex, and as such, if it becomes impossible to play that way with the new one, I shall continue to use the old one.

The last 20 years speak differently. Every codex and edition change invalidates units and options from the previous one.

I have re-wargeared more units than I care to count and have plenty of units that sit on the shelf because they are either useless or not part of the codex anymore.

That's always been part of the game.

I understand it's a part of the game, I'm simply saying it shouldn't have to be, especially now when more and more options are being added to the game. As I say, even if blob squads became the poorest unit in the game, I would still base my army around them, so long as I could.

General Hobbs wrote:

My Ravenguard assault scout army was nullified by the 6th edition rules. They are on the shelf now. I moved on.

If you are using the 5th edition codex, can I use the 4th edition codex and the old Witchunters book????

An all infiltrate drop troop Guard army with an inquisitor who has the liber heresius was lots of fun. I miss that army as well.

Sure, I would be more than happy to let you use the 4th ed books if I were playing against you, if that was the army you wanted to play and you couldn't do it with the current book. Heck, I'd even let you tweak points and whatever within reason to make it more effective. Luckily, I am fortunate enough to play with a couple of groups who share my mindset, and will allow me to keep using the old book.

Also, your comment about the 6th Ed rules nullifying your Scout army, I'm assuming due to the supposedly impossible position of the Assault rules. In that case it's a different argument to mine. You abandoned an army because it was not as competitive (a perfectly fair reason) whereas I was more talking about the style and feel of my army, regardless of competitiveness ,which would be lost if blobs were removed. I play entirely non-competitively so the usefulness of blob squads doesn't matter to me, so long as the option exists. As I say above, I would play them if they were the worst unit in the game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sonofruss wrote:
Yea if you are playing with the current IG dex after the new one comes out then can I use the 3.5 Chaos dex against you? because I like that one better

Yes, I would allow it.

 gorgon wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

Here's the basic pattern for 40K codex releases:

1) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

2) Codex ages. Progressively fewer options seem viable as metagames change. Army lists start to look more similar.

3) Codex reaches old age. Army lists have become largely cookie-cutter and reliant upon a handful of crutch units.

4) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

The relevant point here is that there's a certain stage just before #4 at which the player base tends to panic after hearing that their crutches will be "nerfed" or taken away. See Shrouding for Grey Knights, Webway Portal tactics for DE, etc.

Happens again and again and again and again and again...

I think there's a lot of truth to this. If you're upset because something you think you rely on competitively is going, there'll be other things you can use competitively in the new book, and this refreshes things a bit. If you're upset because, say, you've got a fluffy army you've put a lot of work into that you worry won't be valid anymore, in friendly games folks'll probably let you bend the rules a bit anyway, I know I would. If there's room in the hobby for homebrew (hint: there totally is) there's room for letting people use their 5th ed IG foot list that doesn't work in the 6th ed codex.

According to whispers I've been reading on other 40k sites, apparently this weekend we're going to get another 'big reveal' for Astra Miliarium/Imperian Guard in the form of a new never-before-seen tank.

Apparently it's going to be a Heresy era tank in line with the previously mentioned rumor; the larger than a Land Raider but smaller than a Baneblade/Shadowsword kit.

Who knows what it'll be, or if it's even true, but as for me, here's what I'm hoping for:

THE FOLLOWING IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART. Call it wishlisting if you must.

Turret with at least three to four weapon options. Twinlinked Punisher Cannon, Twinlinked Battlecannon, Twinlinked Vanquisher Cannon, or Twinlinked Demolisher Cannon for options. AV: 14/14/11, 4 hull points, with standard I.G. vehicle upgrades available. Sponson options: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Flamer, Multimelta or Plasma Cannon. Default hull mounted weapon of some sort (Heavy Bolter, with Heavy Flamer/Lascannon and maybe Multimelta as other hull options)
Also, added option for tank Commander upgrades as has been mentioned in the WD info we've seen earlier. The 'standard' variant would come equipped with the Twinlinked Battlecannon, hull heavy bolter, and no sponsons on it (a-la the Leman Russ). I'd say it's base cost would be at *least* 200 points. It would also be a heavy vehicle like the Leman Russ also.

Side note: The vehicle may have a pair of turrets with independently firing 'main guns'. By that I mean it has the Split Fire special rule by default. If that is the case I'd say it'll cost at least as much as a Land Raider (or close to it, 225 to 250 points minimum).

So what say you, fellow Dakkaites. If such a tank does get added to the I.G./Ast-Mil stable. would you consider getting one? (In general I mean, not withstanding my guesses at it's stats or abilities above.)

I'd have to say I'd be sorely tempted to pick one up and run it, as I love tanks and having such a vehicle would be a nice centerpiece for my Vostroyans. My Heavy Supports would be two Griffon Mortars (assuming they're not removed from the codex like I doubt they would be) A trio of Leman Russ tanks running as a squadron, one of these new 'Big Tanks' (TM) and a fourth Leman Russ HQ choice for additional fire-support. The rest of the army would consist of a flyer or two (points allowing) along with a good amount of Infantry, and perhaps a couple of sentinels for additional firepower (again, points allowing.)

That's all I've got to add at the moment, thanks for looking/reading and I'll catch you guys soon.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

By other sites, you mean BOLS? Because Larry Vela has a really crappy tack record.

 pretre wrote:
By other sites, you mean BOLS? Because Larry Vela has a really crappy tack record.

BOLS was one, I've seen it on a couple of others I lurk on also, but they may be just parroting what Larry said, who knows. And his track record may be crap at the moment but hey, the question still stands. *IF* said vehicle shows up, will people buy it and play it? I think I would, personally, but I'm a sucker for armor + big guns.

C'est-la-vie. We'll see this weekend I suppose.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Basically that's only 1 paper thin source to go on though. You seem to be extrapolating a lot from it. Currently we count 3(?) plastic kits from the release - scions, wyvern/hydra and ogryns, which seems about par for the course. In any case we'll know for sure when the codex is released, but I doubt there will be any other new units. I'd love to be surprised, but don't get your hopes up.

If I wanted a heresy era tank, I'd buy. a Malcador. I'd like something more "current" with the 40K aesthetic and universe that doesn't look like the Taurox. There's always scratchbuilding....

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Basically that's only 1 paper thin source to go on though. You seem to be extrapolating a lot from it. Currently we count 3(?) plastic kits from the release - scions, wyvern/hydra and ogryns, which seems about par for the course. In any case we'll know for sure when the codex is released, but I doubt there will be any other new units. I'd love to be surprised, but don't get your hopes up.

I wouldn't call it getting my hopes up, but just wondering if anyone (in general) would be interested in a vehicle like this and if (emphasis on the word if) we are surprised and do get it, would people pick one up and use it?

In any event, in the presence the current info on the presence of HQ tank options in the new codex, I for one am going to be picking up at least one more Leman Russ tank and probably getting a single forgeworld turret for it as well to help differentiate it from the rest of my Russes. I'll likely be picking up a Vanquisher turret, as having what I hope will be a BS:4 tank will be a fun way to field a solid, reliable anti-tank vanquisher round for the army on a fairly resilient platform. We'll see of course.

For now, I'm off to get ready for work here. You guys take it easy for now.

-Red__Thirst-

Honestly, something like this might not be happening. Who knows? But it does pass the smell test for me. A semi-super-heavy, like the Imperial Knight, would be very much in line with not only the Imperial Guard's main aesthetic, but it would also fit with the direction that GW have been going the past year. I'd be a little surprised to see it just because we haven't had reliable word that it exists yet, but if you told me a month ago that storm troopers would get their own book, I'd have said that this big tank was more likely than that crazy idea.

I would go for a 'Big Tank' to complement my army, not to mention have the chance to have a moderately big center peice without having to forgoe eating for a few days..

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
I would go for a 'Big Tank' to complement my army, not to mention have the chance to have a moderately big center peice without having to forgoe eating for a few days..

Anything bigger than a land raider and on par with a knight will cost the same as that baneblade you always wanted. So please, forgo eating.

General Hobbs wrote:


If I wanted a heresy era tank, I'd buy. a Malcador. I'd like something more "current" with the 40K aesthetic and universe that doesn't look like the Taurox. There's always scratchbuilding....

I don't quite understand what you mean, the Malcador has a very similar aesthetic to the "current" IG tanks.

 pretre wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
New codexes should never remove units or options, in my opinion
...
So in short, I have no intention to alter my playstyle and army with the new codex, and as such, if it becomes impossible to play that way with the new one, I shall continue to use the old one.

The last 20 years speak differently. Every codex and edition change invalidates units and options from the previous one.

I have re-wargeared more units than I care to count and have plenty of units that sit on the shelf because they are either useless or not part of the codex anymore.

That's always been part of the game.

Truth.

Unfortunately, literally, welcome to 40K.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


If I wanted a heresy era tank, I'd buy. a Malcador. I'd like something more "current" with the 40K aesthetic and universe that doesn't look like the Taurox. There's always scratchbuilding....

I don't quite understand what you mean, the Malcador has a very similar aesthetic to the "current" IG tanks.

That's exactly what he just said. "something more 'current' with the 40k aesthetic and universe". In other words, something that's is an old, pre-heresy era tank, but which fits in with the current Chimera and Russ based tanks visually.

shade1313 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


If I wanted a heresy era tank, I'd buy. a Malcador. I'd like something more "current" with the 40K aesthetic and universe that doesn't look like the Taurox. There's always scratchbuilding....

I don't quite understand what you mean, the Malcador has a very similar aesthetic to the "current" IG tanks.

That's exactly what he just said. "something more 'current' with the 40k aesthetic and universe". In other words, something that's is an old, pre-heresy era tank, but which fits in with the current Chimera and Russ based tanks visually.

But I'm confused because the Malcador, to me, looks like it's from the same family as a Leman Russ... what would something more "current" and "40k" look like if not a Malcador?

I think the weapon options you posted would be a bit weedy for a tank of that size. Maybe standard you can go with the 2 shot battle cannon the knight titan has. Upgrade to the melta blast, large blast executioner cannon or vulcan mega bolter or Str10 vanquisher cannon with coaxial autocannon. 1 set of sponsons, bolter, flamer, melta or plasma but all twin linked.

14/13/11 4hp. Can drop the sponsons to increase the side armor to 14, can buy "it will not die!" USR, leadership bubble, big vox (re-roll failed orders on units/vehicles within 12") Price is a little more than a wraithknight/supped up riptide. The thing can still die in one shot. 125pts for a deepstriking tempestus command squad with 4 BS4 meltaguns most likely ordering itself to "Bring it Down!" will kill it. Or any number of things on turn 1 killing it.

Not saying they shouldn't have a new tank, I want one, just one that would be worth the giant cost. I would so love to see what the rumored tech priests can do with tanks. Last we heard they were like a necron court with lots of options. I play Leman Russ spam so I am curious if I might actually ever get a tech priest with the new book.

I want Techpriests just because they look cool.

Not sure if this has been reported yet, but the wyvren cannon is heavy 2, twin-linked. Each tank has 2 of these guns, according to the WD. Costs a bit less than 2 rhinos

Anyone heard anything on special characters for imperial guard... am I keeping Creed and the gang? Are there going to be special characters for more then just the cadians?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

I've heard about the Taurox being part of the new battleforce set, and i think it sounds plausible.

 Maxurugi wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

I've heard about the Taurox being part of the new battleforce set, and i think it sounds plausible.

So that's their plan to sell the Taurox... include it in a big box so you can either buy the kits separately and not get a Taurox or pay the same price and get a free Taurox in the big box, lol.

Heresy! GW doesn't give stuff for free, don't you know they are the Porche of miniatures??????
Their new cunning plan is that to be able to buy a battleforce you need to subscribe to WH Visions for two years or buy 3 Taurox and present the ticket at the counter.

On topic: I don't think IG will get a new tank kit not even in an Armored Company IG. Where would it go without some serious shuffling of the FOC? HS is already bursting and apparently the Wyvern goes there too (unless LR become troops and that's kind of too hardcore even for GW, armored fist squads in Troops with LR in Elite and HS is kind of ok, LR in all slots )

M.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
According to whispers I've been reading on other 40k sites, apparently this weekend we're going to get another 'big reveal' for Astra Miliarium/Imperian Guard in the form of a new never-before-seen tank.

Apparently it's going to be a Heresy era tank in line with the previously mentioned rumor; the larger than a Land Raider but smaller than a Baneblade/Shadowsword kit.

April Fool's was two days ago...

Hardy har har.

Seriously, if I wanted this to be an April Fools thing I would have posted it *on* April Fools.

Guess we'll see what we'll see by week's end.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

On Precision shots- Regardless of the specific rule, it seems like people are assuming that the entire text of the rule is on the order card, and that the actual codex itself will not have a longer explanation, possibly clearing up the confusion.
[edit] Should have finished reading the thread. Leth brought up the same point.

Try $275

Now this is a battle taxi!

Still a pre-production model, but not much longer.

Just doesn't look 40kish enough. Would not fit in with leman russes etc. So some conversion work would be needed.

Convert all you want, there are no laws against it.

Yeah, doesn't really look like an Imperial vehicle to me.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, doesn't really look like an Imperial vehicle to me.

And the new abomination does?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, doesn't really look like an Imperial vehicle to me.

And the new abomination does?

I think the vehicle is awesome, if you where using other proxies. I love alternative models but they need to fit the theme of the other models in a force (unless you are using multiple regiments). If I ever did the troopers from that company that vehicle will certainly follow. But it doesnt suit my current army (I do love the Taurox though). Its just pot luck with alternatives sometimes.

Definitely a cool vehicle though.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, doesn't really look like an Imperial vehicle to me.

And the new abomination does?

Yeah, it does. It's full of gothic and Warhammy detail. The headlights are similar to the ones on the baneblade, the side armor plates on the tracks are very similar to the ones on the Leman Russ and Chimera, it's got skulls, winged skulls, big-ass smokestacks and giant bulkhead doors on it. The Taurox is as 40k as flying cyborg skull babies and Commissars.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, doesn't really look like an Imperial vehicle to me.

And the new abomination does?

Yeah, it does. It's full of gothic and Warhammy detail. The headlights are similar to the ones on the baneblade, the side armor plates on the tracks are very similar to the ones on the Leman Russ and Chimera, it's got skulls, winged skulls, big-ass smokestacks and giant bulkhead doors on it. The Taurox is as 40k as flying cyborg skull babies and Commissars.

Sorry, I'm just going to have to disagree. Besides some iconography the Taurox shares nothing with other IG vehicles, besides being completely impractical. Its a completely different aesthetic/design philosophy and not in a good way. That thing is definitely a step in the wrong direction.

 Andrew1975 wrote:


Now this is a battle taxi!

Still a pre-production model, but not much longer.

With a little work, that thing would make a great "limo" for a genestealer cult leader or an imperial noble.

I love it, but its probably a bit to big to be accepted as a Taurox conversion. Which sucks, because it looks so much better and has things like actual windows, a way to exit the vehicle without being shot by your own cannons, and even *gasp* wheels.

I feel bad for the Taurox. A regular one with a twin linked autocannon turret might actually be useful, but the amount of work required to convert one and make it look good just wouldn't be worth it. I would rather just convert an M113 or a BMP since the Taurox would take just as much work (instead of 40k-Ing a model, its just making a 40k model look decent, but the point stands) I honestly think a Taurox wouldn't look too bad if it just had big beefy tires like the Dreamforge APC has.

That APC looks mighty cool, but I'd say it's too big for a Taurox stand-in. Some of you are misjudging the size of the Taurox - It's got the footprint of a Rhino, only a bit shorter than a Chimera. And that thing looks LR-sized, or even bigger.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
With a little work, that thing would make a great "limo" for a genestealer cult leader...

Don't tempt me Frodo!

Aside from the fact that it is a bit lower (ok maybe more than a bit), the fact that it is bigger would automatically prevent the cries of "modelling for advantage" though, no?

I speak as someone who is building his whole IG out of Dreamforge stormtroopers, so it would definitely fit the style of my army, but I already have 8 chimera stand-ins. Is the Taurox going to be *that* worth it, in your opinions?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, doesn't really look like an Imperial vehicle to me.

And the new abomination does?

The Taurox is just ugly. It probably fits the Imperium more, but you can't get past the ugliness to know.

Luckily, the rules for the Taurox look terrible, so I'll just stick to Chimeras.

Sorry if anyone else already asked but if the chimera is still around why was the Taurox even created? It does not seem needed. Is it normal for GW to create redundant models. That might be a dumb question

Zengu wrote:
Sorry if anyone else already asked but if the chimera is still around why was the Taurox even created?

Because "they'll buy what we make".

Zengu wrote:
Sorry if anyone else already asked but if the chimera is still around why was the Taurox even created? It does not seem needed. Is it normal for GW to create redundant models. That might be a dumb question

Because the Scions need a signiature Transport. Like the sisters have an imolator, guard have chimera, space marines have rhino, Scions now have Taurox.

Thats how I see it.

 Andrew1975 wrote:


Now this is a battle taxi!

Still a pre-production model, but not much longer.

That looks more like the batmobile than an APC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

On Precision shots- Regardless of the specific rule, it seems like people are assuming that the entire text of the rule is on the order card, and that the actual codex itself will not have a longer explanation, possibly clearing up the confusion.
[edit] Should have finished reading the thread. Leth brought up the same point.

That is a really optimistic estimate. Odds are we will get 25 infantry in some combination and a light vehicle.

I dont have to buy a Taurox. I already have a couple of battlewagons and they look like they are the same model with minor changes. lol

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

That'd be awesome, considering the current one is, what? 20 infantry, one command, three heavy weapons, and a single Sentinel for $120?

My guess is this:

Lord Commisar
A command squad
2X infantry squads
3X Ogryns
A Hellhound

For $120

The Taurox being in there in place of the Hellhound is about 30% likely, but they love to put one Fast Attack option in every Battleforce, so.

Wakshaani wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

That'd be awesome, considering the current one is, what? 20 infantry, one command, three heavy weapons, and a single Sentinel for $120?

My guess is this:

Lord Commisar
A command squad
2X infantry squads
3X Ogryns
A Hellhound

For $120

The Taurox being in there in place of the Hellhound is about 30% likely, but they love to put one Fast Attack option in every Battleforce, so.

To be fair marines have a pretty big battleforce. Of course they are marines.

Part of me wants a IG force now...

Buttons wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

That is a really optimistic estimate. Odds are we will get 25 infantry in some combination and a light vehicle.

We already had that- the Battleforce for $120 with 20 troops, a command squad, heavy weapon squad, and sentinel. And the strike forces are designed sort of like the old megaforces, so I guessed based on the old battleforce, and added some logical additions- more infantry, a chimaera for the command squad, and a russ since IG is the tank army.
As for guessing at the price, besides the built in discount of the battleforce contents, Bumping the price to ~$200 and adding the Russ, Chimaera and troop squad works out to roughly a free chimaera, so similar proportion of discount to the other megaforces.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Buttons wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

That is a really optimistic estimate. Odds are we will get 25 infantry in some combination and a light vehicle.

We already had that- the Battleforce for $120 with 20 troops, a command squad, heavy weapon squad, and sentinel. And the strike forces are designed sort of like the old megaforces, so I guessed based on the old battleforce, and added some logical additions- more infantry, a chimaera for the command squad, and a russ since IG is the tank army.
As for guessing at the price, besides the built in discount of the battleforce contents, Bumping the price to ~$200 and adding the Russ, Chimaera and troop squad works out to roughly a free chimaera, so similar proportion of discount to the other megaforces.

Our current battleforce consists of 29 models, 25 infantry, a heavy weapon squad and a light vehicle, that is pretty much in line with what everyone except marines gets, Tau get 12 infantry, 3 stealth suits, 3 battlesuits, and a light transport, Eldar get 15 infantry, a vyper jetbike and a wave serpent. There is no way IG is going to get 35 infantry, a heavy weapon squad (they switched to individual heavy weapon teams they have them up for preorder already), a light vehicle, a transport, and a heavy vehicle. That's probably more generous than what marines get which is an IC, 35 infantry, a dreadnought and two different transports.

However if you are right and we will get some huge battleforce akin to the space marine strike force, it will probably be more like
2x Infantry squads
1x Command squad
1x Scion squad
1x Ogryn squad (if they are sold in groups of 3)
1x Sentinel
1x Taurox
1x Artillery or chimera

Buttons wrote:
Our current battleforce consists of 29 models, 25 infantry, a heavy weapon squad and a light vehicle, that is pretty much in line with what everyone except marines gets, Tau get 12 infantry, 3 stealth suits, 3 battlesuits, and a light transport, Eldar get 15 infantry, a vyper jetbike and a wave serpent. There is no way IG is going to get 35 infantry, a heavy weapon squad (they switched to individual heavy weapon teams they have them up for preorder already), a light vehicle, a transport, and a heavy vehicle. That's probably more generous than what marines get which is an IC, 35 infantry, a dreadnought and two different transports.

It seems GW may be pushing toward larger battleforces. The Tyranid one was $170US and contains 95 models.

I'd be happy with something like the Tyranid one. A couple of tanks and a bunch of infantry would make something similar to the Tyranid one (which is mostly termagants, hormagaunts and gargoyles).

If it's a big box of "ONE OF EVERYTHING!!" then I definitely won't be buying it. I have no need or desire for Sentinels or Scions or Tauroxen.

Just give me a crap load of infantry, a command squad, some heavy weapons and a tank or two.

Yes, because that joke hasn't been made before and is totally original

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yes, because that joke hasn't been made before and is totally original

I have no idea what you're talking about, please elaborate?

Whoops, forgot to update the thread before replying >.>

 Andrew1975 wrote:


Now this is a battle taxi!

Still a pre-production model, but not much longer.

I eagerly await spending money on one of these. I'll use it for inquisition. Or it will be a borrowed PDF transport, for a HQ squad.

Amazing how much better that model looks. GW has really gotten terrible at what they do.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

Do we still think that there are two kits to reveal, a flyer and a new tank?

OK, call me crazy, but just about everyone agrees that even if they'd still dislike the Taurox in general, it would look much better with big chunky wheels, right? I look at that Dreamforge APC, and I think; "Hmm, nice chunky wheels, you know if you were to rework the centre of the hubcap so it looks less 'techy', they look like being just about the right size to replace the Taurox track units, and if you reworked the back end of the Taurox with a canvas/flackboard awning, it'd make a snazzy 'Cargo-6' troop truck. You know what else, if you lowered the APC chassis down to the point that the front wheel arch was enclosing two smaller wheels, then put another couple of pairs in the back, maybe rework the nose with a gothic grill and a suitably bizarro hood ornament, it'd make a pretty sweet armoured limo. I wonder how much one of each would cost...."

And thoughts like that are why I can't have nice things.

Will the Tempestus be able to be taken as a completely seperate detachment? Would I be able to have Templars primary, Carcharadons secondary and the Tempestus aswell?

Was wondering if they would look cool as steel legion scions since im basing m templars with armageddon stuff and since most of the army is solely close combat, would the scions make a handy little shooty squad to open things up? Dont wanna rush into spending £15 per box if they arent really useful.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
According to whispers I've been reading on other 40k sites, apparently this weekend we're going to get another 'big reveal' for Astra Miliarium/Imperian Guard in the form of a new never-before-seen tank.

I guess, it is called Wyvern

 Yodhrin wrote:
OK, call me crazy, but just about everyone agrees that even if they'd still dislike the Taurox in general, it would look much better with big chunky wheels, right? I look at that Dreamforge APC, and I think; "Hmm, nice chunky wheels, you know if you were to rework the centre of the hubcap so it looks less 'techy', they look like being just about the right size to replace the Taurox track units, and if you reworked the back end of the Taurox with a canvas/flackboard awning, it'd make a snazzy 'Cargo-6' troop truck. You know what else, if you lowered the APC chassis down to the point that the front wheel arch was enclosing two smaller wheels, then put another couple of pairs in the back, maybe rework the nose with a gothic grill and a suitably bizarro hood ornament, it'd make a pretty sweet armoured limo. I wonder how much one of each would cost...."

And thoughts like that are why I can't have nice things.

I agree, entirely. I don't see WHY this so-called 'all-terrain APC' has any extra benefit moving over terrain than all the other fully tracked vehicles in 40k because, in essence, the silly layout of the tracks (and the absolutely needless gap in the middle) would be more of a hindrance than a benefit. My version of the rules would be:

"Poor design. This vehicle re-rolls all successful Dangerous Terrain tests."

GW don't seem to understand the concept of propulsion. They think that having two sets of tracks LOOKS COOL therefore it CAN DRIVE OVER ANYTHING.

I do agree however, if it had chunky wheels - more on par with a monster truck - then it could potentially be saved as a thing. I think somebody mentioned earlier that even if it was a half-track, it would look better, and it would perhaps suit the rules more appropriately.

As it's neither, I just simply refuse to believe this is a thing. Yet another stupid GW invention to toss into the ugly/impossible stack. Chimeras all the way (they're more multi-terrain, they're amphibious)!

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Will the Tempestus be able to be taken as a completely seperate detachment? Would I be able to have Templars primary, Carcharadons secondary and the Tempestus aswell?

Was wondering if they would look cool as steel legion scions since im basing m templars with armageddon stuff and since most of the army is solely close combat, would the scions make a handy little shooty squad to open things up? Dont wanna rush into spending £15 per box if they arent really useful.

They're gonna be good suicide dropsquads. 5 men with 2 meltaguns, deepstrike and move through cover only cost in the region of 90pts.

 Cerebrium wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Will the Tempestus be able to be taken as a completely seperate detachment? Would I be able to have Templars primary, Carcharadons secondary and the Tempestus aswell?

Was wondering if they would look cool as steel legion scions since im basing m templars with armageddon stuff and since most of the army is solely close combat, would the scions make a handy little shooty squad to open things up? Dont wanna rush into spending £15 per box if they arent really useful.

They're gonna be good suicide dropsquads. 5 men with 2 meltaguns, deepstrike and move through cover only cost in the region of 90pts.

Ohhh sweet, thanks, so should be useful for popping the tanks fairly quickly, sold haha.

 LordotKasrkin wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

GW don't seem to understand the concept of propulsion. They think that having two sets of tracks LOOKS COOL therefore it CAN DRIVE OVER ANYTHING.

Well as this vehicle is a light truck it weigh less, that means it does not get bogged down as easy by its own weight as a tank would. I do not defend the looks of the vehicle but it could explain the all terrain rule.

 Leprousy wrote:

 Zakiriel wrote:
Part of me wants a IG force now...

I have one I would be happy to sell now! This release has put the last nail in the coffin for me GW

No nail in the coffin here! I can't wait to see how I can use my DKOK army using the new dex!

 Leprousy wrote:

 Zakiriel wrote:
Part of me wants a IG force now...

I have one I would be happy to sell now! This release has put the last nail in the coffin for me GW

You haven't played with the stupid codex yet, hold your goddamn horses and quit with the Chicken Little routine. Just because you don't like the new models (or just the Taurox I guess) that doesn't mean you have to get rid of your other ones. Most of my army was sculpted in 1995 and is going to be as usable now as ever.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


Now this is a battle taxi!

Still a pre-production model, but not much longer.

I eagerly await spending money on one of these. I'll use it for inquisition. Or it will be a borrowed PDF transport, for a HQ squad.

This one appears to use advanced electric transmission system where motors are mounted directly to the wheel. it looks much like the early concepts of british FRES

Alittle early but the new codex is already presaling on Ebay.

We're getting "the end is nigh" already and we haven't seen the codex yet? Please calm down and wait to see what actually happens. Un-informed knee jerk reactions are seldom the right answer.

Zengu wrote:
Alittle early but the new codex is already presaling on Ebay.

Yep, saw that last night. Says ships Apr 12th.

 MWHistorian wrote:
We're getting "the end is night" already and we haven't seen the codex yet? Please calm down and wait to see what actually happens. Un-informed knee jerk reactions are seldom the right answer.

"the end is night?"

Going to go pick mine up today. Will field questions later.

Auto spell check - came such a pain!

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Going to go pick mine up today. Will field questions later.

Very cool. You talking about the Astra Militarum one?

Steady lads steady...wait for it wait for it...we shall wait until we see the whites of its eyes... Then pick your targets ...ready, aim, fi........

I do not understand the doom saying, sure the Taurox sucks but no one is forcing you to buy a crappy transport. The Wyvern is cool (though I'll be using Hydras if they can choose to not skyfire) We get better orders and possibly a command tank. The pros far outweigh the cons. Sides if Peregrine can be a little excited for the release you know it's gotta be pretty good. ;p

 Peregrine wrote:
TANK COMMANDER AS HQ + WARLORD TRAITS + TANK ORDERS.

GW, I might have just forgiven you for the Taurox. Don't screw this up.

I have high hopes my hydras will be useful again! Also looking at the taurox with the open back gave me an idea....


Bad paint job.


I don't think I ever would get one to make this but it would be very easy. Some wire and paper dipped in watered PVA would be the majority of it.

 portugus wrote:
I do not understand the doom saying, sure the Taurox sucks but no one is forcing you to buy a crappy transport.

I like the rules for the Taurox honestly, it is sort of like a pocket battleship (or Leman Russ in this case). Give it the missile launcher (IIRC it gives 2 shots) and twin-linked autocannons and it will be painful to light and medium vehicles because of BS 4, the autocannons being twin-linked, and two krak missiles per turn. Plus it is a fast vehicle. I would probably just load it with 10 scions or a scion command squad and keep it back until about turn 3 taking shots at lighter vehicles. Turn 3 or 4 I would rush them forward taking advantage of the fact that they are fast vehicles.

Remember it has 2 fire ports on either side as well so the Scions can shoot out too. Hmmm a prime with the volley guns with a command squad with 4 more volley guns lol can be nasty.

 MWHistorian wrote:
We're getting "the end is nigh" already and we haven't seen the codex yet? Please calm down and wait to see what actually happens. Un-informed knee jerk reactions are seldom the right answer.

Yeas, its forum full of psykers. They already see evilness of evil evility which will come with the codex. Mothers will wail in despair, men will choose shorter, easier way from this life and civilization will crumble. Becuase GW did it wrong. Again. Emperor save us. They have seen it!

(seriously, its already absurd, we have seen one WD about Scions and few pages from new codex, but already are people saying "its last nail"...yeah, right...good for you)

- New Orders
- Tank Commander HQs
- Army Doctrines
- New Warlord Traits

I can't wait, I am going to burn my coffin!

jae4x4 wrote:
- New Orders
- Tank Commander HQs
- Army Doctrines
- New Warlord Traits

I can't wait, I am going to burn my coffin!

No you fool! Sell it so you can buy more plastic crack! You can bury yourself in a hole with that instead of a wooden box!

Wait, Army Doctrines? Where is that coming from??

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Going to go pick mine up today. Will field questions later.

Very cool. You talking about the Astra Militarum one?

No, the Tempestus.

Hopefully we get a few other rules than what was just in the WD.

I spotted this :


via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
The new commissar looks like he is holding a Plasma pistol and a Sword in a very dynamic pose very much in the pose you had up the other day.

In White Dwarf Issue #11
Militarum Auxilla Bullgryns
Militarum Auxilla Ogryns
Militarum Auxilla Nork Deddog
Officio Prefectus Commissar



It seems that here comes the awaited fifth kit : a clam-pack commissar (on fireblade or farseer fashion) ? And even a sixth, with Nork.
Don't we have any information on upcoming warlord traits yet ?

I believe Nork was supposed to be extra bits in the Ogryn kit, wasn't he?

 Compel wrote:
I believe Nork was supposed to be extra bits in the Ogryn kit, wasn't he?

Some folks don't let the truth slow them down.

 Compel wrote:
I believe Nork was supposed to be extra bits in the Ogryn kit, wasn't he?

It's possible, à la carnifex for OOE.
I have mistaken : the rumor speaks about updated units present in WD, not about kits : obviously ogryns ans bullgryns are in the same box, so may be Nork.

I hope that we get some more information on the Commissars as well. I'm genuinely curious on how they're going to work, and if they'll be purchased in a different manner than they are in the 5th edition I.G. codex.

I have a single Commissar painted up for purpose, may get more, but my thing is I painted up a Vostroyan Officer to be my Commissar so he would fit the theme of the army (Never fear, he has a bolt pistol ).

Guess we'll find out once the weekend gets here.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

I would have preferred another Primaris Psyker model. The latest WD says an IG (AM) army can have up to 3 of them now. Who is going to run more than one when we don't have the models for them? At least we have another commissar model (to go with the 10 we already have).

**Forgot we actually have a few OOP PP models.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
I spotted this :



Officio Prefectus Commissar

What kind of stupid name is that? Weren't commissars just part of the ministorum and not their own stupid mini office?

 Happygrunt wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
I spotted this :



Officio Prefectus Commissar

What kind of stupid name is that? Weren't commissars just part of the ministorum and not their own stupid mini office?

Just like the Imperial Guard used to be the Imperial Guard and not the Astra Militarum.

Hey you're changing hats, so why not go for the complete makeover?

Well, Commissars were part of the Commissariat of the Departmento Munitorum before. So they did have a stupid mini office of sorts.

In some cases, such as this, I don't think it's deliberate renaming so much as the current crop of writers actually not knowing or giving enough of a feth to find out what things are already called.

I think they have an insane latin scholar locked in the basement of GW headquarters and they just incoporate portions of his crazed screaming in the naming process.

 plastictrees wrote:
I think they have an insane latin scholar locked in the basement of GW headquarters and they just incoporate portions of his crazed screaming in the naming process.

Or they just plug an English trem into Google and go from there.

 Breotan wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
I think they have an insane latin scholar locked in the basement of GW headquarters and they just incoporate portions of his crazed screaming in the naming process.

Or they just plug an English trem into Google and go from there.

I'd put my money on that one more....

If you're going to bother with a complete makeover, you should be aiming to achieve something superior to what you already have. The old name of Commissariat might have been a misuse of the term(it was the organisation composed of Military Commissars, ie quartermasters and administrators, in 40K terms the Departmento Munitorum, as opposed to Political Commissars, which is what the 40K version is supposed to be), but it's still better than "Officio Prefectus", not least because "prefectus" is possibly the worst example of pseudolatin GW have yet devised(it's "praefectus", you dimwits, but I suppose using the one extra letter to make it vaguely correct would mean you're not special snowflakes anymore).

but Praefectus might get people thinking about praetorians and causing confusion, while Prefectus is prefects with a latin twist! (that one asked)

 Yodhrin wrote:
If you're going to bother with a complete makeover, you should be aiming to achieve something superior to what you already have. The old name of Commissariat might have been a misuse of the term(it was the organisation composed of Military Commissars, ie quartermasters and administrators, in 40K terms the Departmento Munitorum, as opposed to Political Commissars, which is what the 40K version is supposed to be), but it's still better than "Officio Prefectus", not least because "prefectus" is possibly the worst example of pseudolatin GW have yet devised(it's "praefectus", you dimwits, but I suppose using the one extra letter to make it vaguely correct would mean you're not special snowflakes anymore).

Maybe it is 'praefectus' (though probably not) rather than 'prefectus' and the person who typed up the rumour got it wrong.

And how can you correct someone on pseudolatin (your term for it) anyway?

 Breotan wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
I think they have an insane latin scholar locked in the basement of GW headquarters and they just incoporate portions of his crazed screaming in the naming process.

Or they just plug an English trem into Google and go from there.

Google translate just made latin available recently, so that sounds plausible. LOL