722
Post by: Kanluwen
Here we go, boys and girls!
Imperial Armour Volume One - Second Edition: Imperial Guard is a book dedicated to the fighting vehicles of the Imperial Guard; the steel-clad behemoths that rumble and clank their way across the battlefields of the far future, unleashing fire and shell at the enemies of Mankind. Inside this 294-page book, the full panoply of Imperial Guard armoured vehicles are displayed in exhaustive detail, including profiles and rules for over fifty tanks, support vehicles, artillery pieces and super-heavy vehicles, alongside extensive background material on these war machines, their munitions and manufacture.
In addition to the wealth of information, colour profiles and photographs, the book also includes a full army list that allows you to field the sledgehammer of Imperial military power: the Imperial Guard Armoured Battlegroup. Also included are rules for some of the most famous Tank Aces of the Imperium including General Grizmund of the 1st Narmenian Armoured Regiment
Forge World has more pictures of the page layouts.
What I find interesting is that the Imperial Navy stuff is not within.
Edit to include the Forge World Newsletter:
Hi there,
The very first of our large Imperial Armour books returns to our online store this week in a fully revised and updated edition. Imperial Armour Volume One – Second Edition: Imperial Guard is available to order now and as we’re on the very cusp of December, we’ve also got a reminder in today’s newsletter of our upcoming order deadlines for pre-Christmas delivery.
Imperial Armour Volume One - Second Edition: Imperial Guard
Here at Forge World we've always loved tanks, and from our very earliest beginnings it is the massed ranks of the Imperial Guard that have inspired many of our hobbyists to take to the field of battle. This week sees the return of the very first large Imperial Armour book to our range, rewritten and expanded to be fully compatible with the 6th Edition of Warhammer 40,000.
Imperial Armour Volume One - Second Edition: Imperial Guard is a book dedicated to the fighting vehicles of the Imperial Guard; the steel-clad behemoths that rumble and clank their way across the battlefields of the far future, unleashing fire and shell at the enemies of Mankind. Inside this 294-page book, the full panoply of Imperial Guard armoured vehicles are displayed in exhaustive detail, including profiles and rules for over fifty tanks, support vehicles, artillery pieces and super-heavy vehicles, alongside extensive background material on these war machines, their munitions and manufacture. You can find a full list of contents here.
In addition to this wealth of information, the book also includes a full army list that allows you to field the sledgehammer of Imperial military power: the Imperial Guard Armoured Battlegroup. On top of this are also rules for some of the most famous Tank Aces of the Imperium including General Grizmund of the 1st Narmenian Armoured Regiment, made famous in New York Times-bestselling author Dan Abnett’s Gaunt’s Ghosts novel Necropolis (also available in e-book format).
Imperial Armour Volume One – Second Edition: Imperial Guard is available to order now for immediate despatch, and we can still guarantee pre-Christmas delivery worldwide.
Forge World Christmas Ordering Deadlines
Remember that midnight (GMT) on Tuesday 4th December is the deadline for Standard delivery orders to mainland Europe, the United States and Canada, and for Express orders to Sweden, Norway and Finland.
The Forge World Customer Service team is standing by to assist with any and all enquiries you may have – from product availability and hobby advice to helping to explain the difference between a Titan and a Dreadnought to a confused relative. You can call us on:
0115 900 4995 within the UK
011 44 115 900 4995 from the US and Canada
00 44 115 900 4995 from much of Europe.
Our opening hours are 09:30 to 18:00 (GMT) Monday to Friday and 09:30 to 17:00 (GMT) on Saturday. It’s always best to place your order early to avoid disappointment, and with this in mind below are our last order deadlines for pre-Christmas delivery. As always, these dates are subject to change and stock availability so if in doubt, call us:
Standard Delivery
Midnight, Tuesday 4th December: Europe, the United States and Canada
Midnight, Monday 10th December: Static BFPOs
Midnight, Wednesday 12th December: United Kingdom
Express Delivery
Midnight, Tuesday 4th December: Sweden, Finland and Norway
Midnight, Monday 10th December: All other international destinations
Midnight, Friday 14th December: United Kingdom
New Forge World Catalogue Available Now
To request your free copy, just send your name and postal address in an e-mail entitled ‘catalogue request’ to forgeworld@gwplc.com and we will have one sent out, postage free, anywhere in the world.
Thanks,
Ead Brown
Customer Service Manager
Forge World
18698
Post by: kronk
Well, the Navy just got a big spread in Aeronautica, so I'm not too surprised there.
But why not include the titans if you're including the super heavies?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
If they really are going to keep the Navy in "Aeronautica" rather than having them in Imperial Armour 1.2, breaking the Guard & Navy bit that we had for Imperial Armour 1.1, they likely are keeping Titans in the books where they appear.
Plus: Titans aren't property of the Imperial Guard. They're property of the Adeptus Mechanicus.
12313
Post by: Ouze
This is essentially the same as the previous book, but updated for 6th, is that so?
Edit, NM; I see it includes stuff that could not possibly have been in the previous book such as the Crassus.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Ouze wrote:This is essentially the same as the previous book, but updated for 6th, is that so?
It's missing the Flyers, but has the Imperial Guard stuff which has been added in the interim. Things like the Crassus and its variants, Rapier Laser Destroyers, Sabre Gun Platforms, the various Krieg stuff, and the Elysian stuff.
18698
Post by: kronk
Oh, wow. I just noticed the Armored Battle Group Army list...
Nice! Can't wait to see that updated for 6th edition!
42470
Post by: SickSix
I don't even play IG but am interested in this simply because I love all things tank.
6979
Post by: Nicorex
Probably because Titans fall under a diffrent admin catagory Kronk. Arnt they under the direction of the AdMech? Weird that they would picture one on the cover though if they arnt going to include them. Mabye Titans will get their own book.
18698
Post by: kronk
I suppose if a book covering Legio is coming out, that makes more sense. But there's only a few titan classes, so I'm not sure it would warrant a book. Unless they went whole-hog ad-mech.
I just figured that this would be a good (re: convenient) place to lump the titans, right next to the super heavy tanks.
29189
Post by: Caitsidhe
I'll be getting one promptly but if anyone gets one sooner, please post (not the stats or anything) but if the Sabre Gun Defense Platform has changed radically. 
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
I've been waiting for a 6E IG update book to come out, though I was hoping they'd update the DKoK rules with it too. Alas, good stuff and I'll be picking it up.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Very, very nice. I wonder if their Leman Russ Vanquisher will still keep the coaxial gun and the different firing profiles for the cannon?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Tannhauser42 wrote:Very, very nice. I wonder if their Leman Russ Vanquisher will still keep the coaxial gun and the different firing profiles for the cannon?
I would think so, since there is 4 pages of "Munitions of the Imperium".
123
Post by: Alpharius
 kronk wrote:I suppose if a book covering Legio is coming out, that makes more sense. But there's only a few titan classes, so I'm not sure it would warrant a book. Unless they went whole-hog ad-mech.
Ooooh... that's a good rumor to start!
And I really hope that IS the case too!
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
Well, I might have to get this one, looks good for any kind of guard player.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And ordered. My X-Mas present. Yes, I have volume one, but this has every tank in it, and I need to know about all the tanks! 
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Added the Newsletter to the OP.
Also, I'm totally surprised to see HBMC buying this.
Completely, 100% surprised. 
37755
Post by: Harriticus
Imperial Armour books are getting confusing with the Volume One...SECOND EDITION and Apocalypse reloaded II stuff.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Ordered. Interesting, looking at the contents it seems the bombard and colossus have merged. It's now known as the colossus bombard...
19370
Post by: daedalus
Interesting. I will have to pick it up.
...also, did they remove the Imperial Armor books from g-w.com? I can't seem to find them there anymore.
9594
Post by: RiTides
 Harriticus wrote:Imperial Armour books are getting confusing with the Volume One...SECOND EDITION and Apocalypse reloaded II stuff.
Agreed! Wish they would name them clearer for us FW laymen...
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
 Alpharius wrote: kronk wrote:I suppose if a book covering Legio is coming out, that makes more sense. But there's only a few titan classes, so I'm not sure it would warrant a book. Unless they went whole-hog ad-mech.
Ooooh... that's a good rumor to start! And I really hope that IS the case too!
Given the AdMech presence in the first HH book, I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get an IA book devoted to all things Mars. Mmmm, volkite weapons in 40K.... And, maybe they should have just used a different name to restart their line, instead of Imperial Armour?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Tannhauser42 wrote: Alpharius wrote: kronk wrote:I suppose if a book covering Legio is coming out, that makes more sense. But there's only a few titan classes, so I'm not sure it would warrant a book. Unless they went whole-hog ad-mech.
Ooooh... that's a good rumor to start!
And I really hope that IS the case too!
Given the AdMech presence in the first HH book, I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get an IA book devoted to all things Mars.
Mmmm, volkite weapons in 40K....
The Minotaurs and Necron book(s) are supposedly going to have an AdMech presence within, so there is that...
And, maybe they should have just used a different name to restart their line, instead of Imperial Armour?
Why? They aren't "restarting" the line. They're revising the original book.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 zedmeister wrote:Ordered. Interesting, looking at the contents it seems the bombard and colossus have merged. It's now known as the colossus bombard...
Which is odd. The sketch in the Guard Codex has the Colossus as a Chimera chassis with the Bombard's main gun. The Bombard however is based on the Russ Chassis.
123
Post by: Alpharius
 Kanluwen wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote: Alpharius wrote: kronk wrote:I suppose if a book covering Legio is coming out, that makes more sense. But there's only a few titan classes, so I'm not sure it would warrant a book. Unless they went whole-hog ad-mech.
Ooooh... that's a good rumor to start!
And I really hope that IS the case too!
Given the AdMech presence in the first HH book, I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get an IA book devoted to all things Mars.
Mmmm, volkite weapons in 40K....
The Minotaurs and Necron book(s) are supposedly going to have an AdMech presence within, so there is that...
I'm hoping that when that book hits we'll also get a FW MKVIII armor set, as the Minotaurs have a lot of that particular suit...I think!
23558
Post by: zedmeister
 H.B.M.C. wrote: zedmeister wrote:Ordered. Interesting, looking at the contents it seems the bombard and colossus have merged. It's now known as the colossus bombard...
Which is odd. The sketch in the Guard Codex has the Colossus as a Chimera chassis with the Bombard's main gun. The Bombard however is based on the Russ Chassis.
Yep, shame if it's true. I'd hate to miss the bombard as it currently is with its larger than normal seven incher...
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Alpharius wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote: Alpharius wrote: kronk wrote:I suppose if a book covering Legio is coming out, that makes more sense. But there's only a few titan classes, so I'm not sure it would warrant a book. Unless they went whole-hog ad-mech.
Ooooh... that's a good rumor to start!
And I really hope that IS the case too!
Given the AdMech presence in the first HH book, I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get an IA book devoted to all things Mars.
Mmmm, volkite weapons in 40K....
The Minotaurs and Necron book(s) are supposedly going to have an AdMech presence within, so there is that...
I'm hoping that when that book hits we'll also get a FW MKVIII armor set, as the Minotaurs have a lot of that particular suit...I think!
I don't think any Chapters actually have a large amount of "Errant" armor sets to be honest.
I could be wrong or they could decide to do something with it, but I like "Errant" being rare simply because the Imperium wants it to be.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
 daedalus wrote:...also, did they remove the Imperial Armor books from g-w.com?
Yes, they were removed from the GW webstore mid-January: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/423912.page
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
 Vaktathi wrote:I've been waiting for a 6E IG update book to come out, though I was hoping they'd update the DKoK rules with it too. Alas, good stuff and I'll be picking it up.
That, need them new rules for my Drill o' doom.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think any Chapters actually have a large amount of "Errant" armor sets to be honest.
I could be wrong or they could decide to do something with it, but I like "Errant" being rare simply because the Imperium wants it to be.
1) I'm pretty sure that we already know the Minotaurs have more than the usual amounts of MKVIII
2) That's nice for you, but there is ZERO reason for someone else wanting lots of MKVIII armor in their army not having that option. It is easily explained via close ties to AdMech, which I believe it the route they're going with the Minotaurs!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Alpharius wrote:2) That's nice for you, but there is ZERO reason for someone else wanting lots of MKVIII armor in their army not having that option. It is easily explained via close ties to AdMech, which I believe it the route they're going with the Minotaurs!
If Kan says we can't have it, then we can't have it.
123
Post by: Alpharius
That is...
...a really funny cartoon!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
...
Alph, can I change my avatar again?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I've always wanted you to have that Avatar. Ever since I first saw that pic after your "You can't have AdMech!" rant.
Here's a couple of alternates:
123
Post by: Alpharius
The next time someone does a Deatwatch Army... With Terminators and Dreadnoughts and... Wait a minute!
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Surprised to see that the Leman Russ Annihilator's still in there considerring its been removed from all the other updates. Hopefully they'll have changed its rules, along with the Conqueror. to make them viable again (as both were 4th ed tanks that due to rules changes made them pointless). =P
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
If we're honest those two tanks were pretty pointless before the rules change.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Well its a more reliable Vanquisher, no?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The Vanquisher used to be great. 2d6+8 Armour Pen, 96" range, Co-Axial weapon to make it super-consistent at short-range, and it could fire regular HE rounds when it wasn't killing tanks.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
I see, yeah well I figured a good part of FW stuff is for flavor.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And "flavour" is mutually exclusive to "being useful"?
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Well not always, obviously.A Hades Breaching Drill is very flavorful for a an Engineer company, but its also extremely strong, while a Leman Russ Annihilator is overshadowed by the Vanquisher, but its still a different choice.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Hmmm... I wonder if they will eventually update all the Imperial Armour books to be current with the new rules. May force me to start my collection...
And I'll call it, we'll see an Imperial Armour: Adeptus Titanicus book with rules for all titans and variants within a year.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
 Ozymandias wrote:
And I'll call it, we'll see an Imperial Armour: Adeptus Titanicus book with rules for all titans and variants within a year.
I'm thinking maybe more IA: Adeptus Mechanicus, giving us not only the titan legions, but the AdMech forces as well. This will allow them to produce AdMech stuff that can do double duty as Horus Heresy and 40K.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
The reason I think IA: Adeptus Titanicus is because it fits in with the IA: Aeronautica book they just did. Then they could eventually do a IA: Adeptus Mechanicus and include Skitaari, Knights, etc.
Never turn down an opportunity to make more money! 
36718
Post by: Lovepug13
For what it's worth at fw open day it was suggested revised dkok list would be in ia12
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Really?
Awwwwwwwww yes, 'nother book I need to get, hopefully it'll have the Hades/Artillery rules as well.
36718
Post by: Lovepug13
Yer...I heard it from the horses mouth so to speak......I hope to see it updated.....great army IMO
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ozymandias wrote:And I'll call it, we'll see an Imperial Armour: Adeptus Titanicus book with rules for all titans and variants within a year.
When the Warlord's done. Not before.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
They are doing a Warlord!? How big would that behemoth be in 28 mm scale!?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
They've said for a while now that they're doing a Warlord. I think that if they were going to do a Titanicus or Mechanicus book, then the Warlord would be the best centrepiece for that book.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
H.B.M.C. wrote:They've said for a while now that they're doing a Warlord. I think that if they were going to do a Titanicus or Mechanicus book, then the Warlord would be the best centrepiece for that book.
No, not a Warlord, an Imperator!
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
Every time a FW Titan is released, it's a huge deal. I can't imagine an entire book dedicated to more than one Titan.
I'm also afraid that if they do, it'll overshadow any Mechanicus units.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Absolutionis wrote:Every time a FW Titan is released, it's a huge deal. I can't imagine an entire book dedicated to more than one Titan.
And I can't imagine a whole book dedicated to just one Titan.
The Warlord would be the major focus, just as the Reaver was the major focus of Vraks 2, but it won't be the only thing in there. Besides, we're just making a logical inference here - we get an Imperial Tank book that rolls all the tank rules into one book, an aircraft book that did the same for aircraft, so a Titan book isn't such a stretch. But they'd probably need a new release go with it, and the Phantom's already out, so the long-gestating Warlord would be a good bet.
27727
Post by: Bonde
Hmm, I already have Imperial Armour volume 1 and 5-7, so this book doesn't exactly include a lot new tanks for me and it is pretty expensive.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Bonde wrote:Hmm, I already have Imperial Armour volume 1 and 5-7, so this book doesn't exactly include a lot new tanks for me and it is pretty expensive.
All their books are expensive.
They're also, excluding typos, worth it.
This book though is a good thing to have since it will be updated rules for the stuff in IA Volume 1 and includes the stuff from volumes 5 through 11 in one volume.
Just for fun though, I'm going to throw this out for HBMC.
Who likes Knights?
123
Post by: Alpharius
Better question is - who doesn't, and if so, what's wrong with them?
Just don't call them Titans too or, you know...
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
I don,t care for knights, give more super heavy artillery, please.
Quadrilinked Medusa Siege Gun with bastion breacher shells and whatnot.
Colossus bombard quad gun.
4 7'' Templates Ahoy!
7637
Post by: Sasori
I keep hoping for the Necron Imperial Armor book. Guess FW is busy with all the HH stuff at what now. Every newsletter, I keep hoping though...
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
^ I heard that the next IA 12 was going to be DKoK vs Necrons, some say its Dark Eldars vs the Minotaurs SM.
We won't be sure till we get the first blurry picture.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Bobthehero wrote:^ I heard that the next IA 12 was going to be DKoK vs Necrons, some say its Dark Eldars vs the Minotaurs SM.
We won't be sure till we get the first blurry picture.
It was technically all of those.
Basically, IA12 was going to be done like the Vraks arc.
IA12 was going to be the "first book" in a series, which detailed an entire sector falling into anarchy as the Necrons awoke with the Dark Eldar raiders taking advantage of the anarchy.
The first book was going to be the Minotaurs and Adeptus Mechanicus launching a strike on a Necron Tomb World, followed by the Necrons awaking across the entire sector. Second book was going to introduce the Dark Eldar as another factor as they took advantage of the Necron emergence to raid for slaves and fun. Last book was going to involve the Inquisition and a Crusade to put down the Necrons.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Kanluwen wrote: Bobthehero wrote:^ I heard that the next IA 12 was going to be DKoK vs Necrons, some say its Dark Eldars vs the Minotaurs SM.
We won't be sure till we get the first blurry picture.
It was technically all of those.
Basically, IA12 was going to be done like the Vraks arc.
IA12 was going to be the "first book" in a series, which detailed an entire sector falling into anarchy as the Necrons awoke with the Dark Eldar raiders taking advantage of the anarchy.
The first book was going to be the Minotaurs and Adeptus Mechanicus launching a strike on a Necron Tomb World, followed by the Necrons awaking across the entire sector. Second book was going to introduce the Dark Eldar as another factor as they took advantage of the Necron emergence to raid for slaves and fun. Last book was going to involve the Inquisition and a Crusade to put down the Necrons.
This, I did not know. That makes things very interesting. Is that still the plan, or did it just come down to the Minos vs Necrons? Or, does anyone even know at this point?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I think that the plan is still in motion, but can't say for sure. Last I heard it was.
Alternatively they might cut it down to just two books rather than three.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Kanluwen wrote:I think that the plan is still in motion, but can't say for sure. Last I heard it was.
Alternatively they might cut it down to just two books rather than three.
I hope this is still the plan, as it sounds like a lot of fun!
Also, it is probably the best chance we've got to get some FW MKVIII armor suits up for sale!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Alpharius wrote: Kanluwen wrote:I think that the plan is still in motion, but can't say for sure. Last I heard it was.
Alternatively they might cut it down to just two books rather than three.
I hope this is still the plan, as it sounds like a lot of fun!
Also, it is probably the best chance we've got to get some FW MKVIII armor suits up for sale!
I looked into this, and was surprised to see it in the Badab War book(page 107).
It doesn't sound like they field entire Companies in the stuff, but they do seem like they would have access to more of it than usual. Interestingly enough though, aside from the Dark Angels they seem to be the only Chapter which can field their entire First Company in Terminator gear.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Admit it - you looked into this to try and prove me wrong - ha!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Never said I did not!
123
Post by: Alpharius
Only, you ended up proving yourself wrong!
Most excellent...
Of course, none of this guarantees me any FW MKVIII kits, which is my GW Raicho, yes?
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Once again, who cares, the world need more DKoK goodies!!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
It happens. I just did not ever recall reading such a thing. I knew they had close ties to the High Lords of Terra, but the "Errant" armor thing seemed a bit odd.
Of course, none of this guarantees me any FW MKVIII kits, which is my GW Raicho, yes?
Indeeed.
123
Post by: Alpharius
More to the point - who cares?
Ah ha!
The world needs more Space Marine variants as clearly, that's what sells!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I've been lobbying them for a "13th Black Crusade" campaign book (or series even!), personally.
How fun would that be?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
A campaign book where there’s no decisive winner and where the status quo is maintained by campaign’s end?
Yeah. Sounds like heaps of fun.
In all seriousness though, that could be a lot of fun. FW Wulfen? FW Lost & The Damned? Sign me up!
66381
Post by: Chronepsis
The 17 metal LatD aren't enough?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Lost & The Damned. Not Legion of the Damned.
And my copy of IA Vol 1 2E (say that ten times fast!) has shipped!
123
Post by: Alpharius
Chronepsis wrote:The 17 metal LatD aren't enough?
H.B.M.C. wrote:Lost & The Damned. Not Legion of the Damned.
And my copy of IA Vol 1 2E (say that ten times fast!) has shipped!
And that's why sometimes Internet Snark/Quick Reply doesn't work out all that well - and believe me, I would know!
66381
Post by: Chronepsis
I fail....
123
Post by: Alpharius
Not really - and don't take it too hard!
I've stepped in it that way many times...
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
If someone wouldn't mind posting what kind of general changes to the armored battlegroup happened when the book is released that would be excellent.
I don't need blow by blows or anything like that, but simple things like, "the commissar tank now has a LD bubble of 12" instead of 6" " type stuff would be handy.
I've been reading over the old PDF for the Armored Battlegroup formation and would really like to take it for a spin in 6th ed a few times, and just wanted to know what kind of changes I'm in for.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
I just want to know if the Vanquisher is useful again (did it get the old two firing profiles + coaxial gun). I'll be getting the book late January, but I'd like to know ahead of time.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Once my copy arrives I’ll let you know. I got express shipping (against my better judgement) because the cut-off date for ROW was before FW sent out the mail saying IAVol12E was out.
So hopefully it’ll show up before Friday, and I’ll give the highlights.
Don’t get your hopes up about the Vanq though, except that the ammunition rules might save that tank.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Do tell if there's anything major for the Hades Drill as well, if you don't mind.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
I put IA 1 vol 2 on my Christmas list, but I won't hold my breath.
I do know I will have to get the book before adepticon (and maybe before TSHFT, if I do go), so I will get it at some point, but it looks like I am just going to have to build anticipation and wait.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Books turned up. It's sweet as! Let me know if you want me to post any general info.
Some highlights:
Destroyer tank hunters get the twin linked rule
Conqueror doesn't seem improved
Armoured company completely different in structure - no need to take elites to build up troop squadrons, heavy support griffon only squadron can take up to 5 vehicles and colossus and bombard are now the same vehicle
Some vehicles can take aa mount heavy stunners and stormbolters
Grenade mesh upgrade grants a bonus save to grenade attacks
7375
Post by: BrookM
Chances are we'll see an updated IA2 - Adeptus Astartes first before Ad. Mech. or whatever.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Anything outstanding regarding the Hades Drill, Thudd gun, Heavy Mortar and both Heavy artillery carriage?
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Hades, generally the same. Additional rules for ram attacks with bonus invuln save during ramming (pretty nasty)
Heavy mortar is now the just the griffon. No additional shells
Thudd gun has the shell shock rule with penalties to pinning tests
No change to carriages from what I can see
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Basically everything's the same as it was in the 5th ed Krieg rules, but the drill got BETTER? Oooooh boy, feels like I'll be looked down upon for using it 
23558
Post by: zedmeister
More on the Armoured Company list - this is getting me quite excited! Its definitely a more flexible and richer list than the previous. Some more highlights:
- Atlas and Engineseer now are Elite Choices
- Team them up and the engineseer gets a re-roll to his repairs
- Leman Russ troop options are divided into 2 - Siege tank squadron includes Thunderer, Demolisher, Executioner and Punisher. All other variants form part of the battle tank squadron
- Destroyers are elites
- Armoured Fist Veterans Troop Choice is a 5 man veteran squad in a centaur
30489
Post by: Trickstick
Is the hydra the same as ever? I was hoping for interceptor, with a price hike to compensate.
Mine shipped today so I hope to be getting it in a few days. I had better start to fix up some of my older tanks, that have been sitting in mothballs for a while.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
No sky fire. But it does have an auto targeting rule: ignores cover save or bonuses for supersonic or jink rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Correction: the hydra auto cannon weapons do have skyfire rule!
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Without Interceptor it's the same as in C:IG.
Any changes to Sabre platforms?
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
Are the Chimera turrets still in? Just curious if the option for the Chimera Autocannon turret is still around for the same price it was before (i.e. ridiculously cheap).
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Yep, autocannon turrets in same price as before
1787
Post by: howie
Are Chimeras still transports for vets in the armoured list? Or is it just Centaurs?
Cheers,
Much appreciated.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Vet squad can be increased to 10 men and must take a chimera if they do so
Also, all sabre platforms have skyfire and interceptor rules
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Do you know if the Sabres have increased in cost?
1787
Post by: howie
Awesome,
Much appreciated.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Ok, now that I'm near my proper PC and not a tablet, I can give a better summary of the armoured company list:
HQ:
Company Command Tank (1 Leman Russ - no demolisher or punisher options)
Amoured Fist Command Squad
Salamander Reconnaissance Commander
Cpt Obadiah Schfeer
General Grizmund
Elites:
Commissar Tank
Destroyer Tank Hunter Squadron (1-3 tanks)
Atlas Recovery Tank
Armoured Fist Storm Trooper Squad
0-2 Tech Priest Engineseers (takes no slot up and can be given a trojan support vehicle as a transport)
Troops:
Battle Tank Squad - 1-3 Leman Russ Tanks (excludes Demolisher, Punisher and Executioner)
Siege Tank Squad - 1-3 Leman Russ Tanks(Thunderer, Demolisher, Punisher and Executioner)
Armoured Fist Squad
Armoured Fist Veterans (Chimera or Centaur options)
Fast Attack:
Scout Sentinel Squadron
Armoured Sentinel Squadron
0-1 Gunship support (1-3 of either/or Vendettas or Vultures)
Tauros Strike Squadron (1-3 of either variant)
Salamander Recon Squadron (1-3)
Hellhound Squadron (1-3 of any of the current 3 variants)
Heavy Support:
Hydra Battery (1-3)
Ordnance battery (1-3 basilisk or medusa)
Griffon Battery (1-5)
Colossus Bombard Battery (1-3 no Trojan upgrade option anymore)
Armoured Fist Heavy Weapons Squad (3 teams in a chimera)
Armoured Fist Cyclops Demo Squad (2 cyclops and 2 guardsman in a chimera)
Imperial Navy Air Support (1 of either a thunderbolt, lightning or avenger)
Some of the list upgrades and rules are tasty:
Co-axial weapon for vanquisher only available as an upgrade in the armoured company list
New Armoured Company Orders
New Upgrades (inc a mine plough for aggressive tank shocks and artificer hull which grants an extra hull point!)
Special Ammo:
The standard Leman Russ can upgrade to the infernus shell which amongst other things gives ignore cover rule
Augur shells upgrade for conqueror - gives get's hot and cratering special rules (cratering - a 4+ chance on each glance or pen of permanently reducing targets hit facing armour value)
Vanquishers get beast hunter shells - grants Instant Death special rule
Includes new Warlord Traits for armoured battle group
30489
Post by: Trickstick
Looks really fun, can't wait to read all those cool order/warlord rules. Kind of annoying that commissars are elite, I was going to use one as warlord. Any ideas on a list yet? I kind of want to see what others are thinking of. I reckon a core of russes with a few armoured fists and hydra/manticore/hellhound. Just a sketch in my head before I get the points though.
I am thinking of using LRBTs with just flamers, so that more tanks can be crammed in.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Is that Bombard still a ''Reload every other turn'' kind of unit?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Do they address how all-vehicle armies deal with objective missions?
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Bobthehero wrote:Is that Bombard still a ''Reload every other turn'' kind of unit?
Nope, it's now identical to the Codex Colossus AlmightyWalrus wrote:Do you know if the Sabres have increased in cost?
Not sure what the original sabre costs were. I don't have IA3 H.B.M.C. wrote:Do they address how all-vehicle armies deal with objective missions?
Nope, there is a paragraph or two at the start of the army list that advises the use of armoured fist squads. Summarised as "be viewed simply as a challenge to overcome". Though one of the warlord traits allows the warlord to become a scoring unit
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Oh dear sweet everything I hope Krieg gets the Bombard Colossus rather than the old bombard.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Bobthehero wrote:Oh dear sweet everything I hope Krieg gets the Bombard Colossus rather than the old bombard.
Can't see any reference. It just states that the bombard colossus is a heavy support choice for an IG army.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Well Krieg's getting new rules, maybe it'll be there.
Unless... does it says the same thing regarding the Thudd Gun, Heavy mortar/carriages and the Drill?
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Another thing I've noticed is the manticore can be upgrade with sky eagle rockets - Has Skyfire and heat seaker special rule that allows them to re-roll misses Automatically Appended Next Post: Bobthehero wrote:Well Krieg's getting new rules, maybe it'll be there. Unless... does it says the same thing regarding the Thudd Gun, Heavy mortar/carriages and the Drill?
The only reference to Krieg is with the Hades Drill (Which has an entry for use in a codex IG army and comes with a Veteran Assault Squad) or the artillery carriages. Digging even more, all references to krieg point back to IA5. Suspect that IA12 or a big FAQ will update them. This book really doesn't do anything for Kreig...
30489
Post by: Trickstick
Bobthehero wrote:Oh dear sweet everything I hope Krieg gets the Bombard Colossus rather than the old bombard.
DKOK never had self propelled artillery did it? I thought all of their guns were on artillery carriages with trojans towing them.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
They have the Bombard which is self propelled, but its utter trash (Str 8 AP 3 7'' blast ordonnance blast, slow rate of fire means it'll only fire every other shooting phase). For 145 pts
64174
Post by: Davespil
I have never wanted to buy an IA book, but I'm preordering this one today. If I'm gonna show up with a tank army I think that it would only be fair to have the official book with me!
10 pages on the Baneblade and six pages on each the Shadowsword and Stormblade. Interesting, specially cause I owe all three. And finally I have an updated and definative source for thier rules! I have been impressed with 6th ed rules and the last two codecies and I'm glad that FW is stepping up their game. Sure there's a lot of money grabbing and horribly worded rules, but at least they are making the game more interesting and balancing out a lot of the codecies.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Most of that is pictures. You get a page or fluff, some formation diagrams, a cutaway for the Shadowsword, and a page of rules (all with big pictures). At least, that's what it was in IA Vol 1. I can't imagine this one is much different (other than all the new stuff that's been added in place of the air-craft).
And good to see them not dealing with a problem caused of edition change. "It's just a challange!" with the AB list? How about "Tanks taken as Troops are Scoring" so the army can be used. "Take infantry" in an all-tank army is not a solution. Why even play the all-tank army if doing so means you auto-lose certain missions?
30489
Post by: Trickstick
It does give the list some balance. Scoring troop tanks would be far too good. At least now you have to protect the troops as you move forward, or bring them in valks or something.
In fact, you could just hades them onto objectives if you liked.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Why? Other than making no logical sense, why would it be 'far too good'? "We need to take these three key positions in the city centre. Colonel Abraham?"
"Sir?"
"We have assigned your Armoured Company to move into the city and secure these three areas."
"But sir... my tanks can't hold ground!"
"Deal with it Colonel, or it's the Commissar's Bolt Pistol for you!"
30489
Post by: Trickstick
Well it would be a pretty powerful ability, causing the point costs to need inflating to compensate. Other than that, think about the advantages that they have over most other scoring units:
1. It is impossible to make them break.
2. It is impossible to push them off an objective with a tank shock.
3. Some units are unable to hurt them. I think (maybe wrongly) that most scoring units at the moment can be killed by strength 3 weaponry, which means that most units in the game have at least a chance to clear objectives.
4. They just got rid of scoring transports, probably due to their power (pure speculation on my part).
Ok, maybe "far" too good was an exaggeration. Lacking scoring units does at least give your average TAC list a decent chance against unexpectedly high amounts of AV14.
41203
Post by: Insurgency Walker
zedmeister wrote:More on the Armoured Company list - this is getting me quite excited! Its definitely a more flexible and richer list than the previous. Some more highlights:
- Atlas and Engineseer now are Elite Choices
- Team them up and the engineseer gets a re-roll to his repairs
Are the Engineseers independent characters again?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
A couple questions while I wait for mine:
Armored Company ace crew skills: still there, changed, or gone?
Are AC armored fist veteran squads identical to codex squads, or are they one of FW's "it's not fluffy to have melta/plasma spam squads" units where you can only take 1-2 weapon upgrades?
Are the tank characters the same as they were in the update pdf, or do they have new rules?
How does special ammo work? Is it a standard part of the game, or is it like the old IA1 where it's an optional set of "more detail" rules that you and your opponent have to agree to use? And does the Vanquisher get any kind of blast shells like it used to before the 5th edition IG codex?
H.B.M.C. wrote:And good to see them not dealing with a problem caused of edition change. "It's just a challange!" with the AB list? How about "Tanks taken as Troops are Scoring" so the army can be used. "Take infantry" in an all-tank army is not a solution. Why even play the all-tank army if doing so means you auto-lose certain missions?
Balance, mostly. Otherwise it's too easy to just take a maximum-firepower list without making any sacrifices. That's been GW's approach for 5th and 6th: troops are important, so you have to choose between the big guns and scoring units. Making all troop tanks scoring would completely negate that, so instead you get a choice between an all-tank army that has trouble scoring objectives, or a more balanced list that bring scoring units but also more and better tanks than a codex army can.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Ace crew skills are gone.
The armoured fist veteran squad is identical to the codex entry
Haven't really gone through the characters yet, but they appear similar from what I remember. A few tweaks to bring them in line with the new special rules (ie Grizmunds Leman Russ comes with artificer hull for a bonus hull point)
The ammo are pure upgrades for the armoured company list only and are only available to "character" tanks and not line tanks (basically, the HQ and commissar tanks only). No other special vanquisher ammo
Oh and engineseers are characters that come with a Trojan transporter. Can take up to 5 servitors (pretty much the codex entry)
63000
Post by: Peregrine
A couple more:
Do the "new orders" you mentioned apply to vehicles (making up for the lack of ace crew skills), or are they just the standard infantry-only stuff a Salamander can normally give?
Does it look like the superheavy tanks have changed at all, or are they just a cut and paste from the IA:Apocalypse books? Most importantly, the preview page of the Valdor looks the same but doesn't give any stats. Is it still a STR 10 Ap 1 single shot weapon, or has it gained a blast template/multiple shots/etc?
Does the veteran assault squad mentioned for the Hades drill get the same 3x special weapon upgrades, BS 4, etc as the codex one? Or is this a special unit of its own?
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Valdor is similar, it gets ordnance d3 and the concussive special rule
A few of the super heavies have been changed slightly, some of their weapons have been tweaked to make use of usr's.
The orders are vehicle only (armoured fist hq can issue codex orders. The vehicle orders are concentrated fire (re-roll bonuses), erratic manoeuvres (harder to hit) and full speed ahead.
Just spotted that the heavy support heavy weapon teams can take flakk missiles.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
I guess you might not have seen the edit: does the veteran assault squad mentioned for the Hades drill get the same 3x special weapon upgrades, BS 4, etc as the codex one? Or is this a special unit of its own? My drill-based army really wants to know if it's still going to be playable.
And thanks for looking this stuff up!
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Other than making no logical sense, why would it be 'far too good'?
You have that backwards. Tanks holding ground makes only a limited amount of sense from a realism standpoint. Sure, a tank could hold a road crossing or a town square. But a tower block? An entrance to a bunker? An ancient macguffin? Etc. Few battles in history have been won by armored vehicles acting alone without infantry support
Feel free to scoff at this, but verisimilitude is not just a winning word in Scrabble. It's also a necessity for 40k. Sure, this is a game of laser swords and cyberwitches. But it's also a game of humans and of those humans engaging in warfare with all the trappings of real history. If you throw every real world precedent away as being unimportant in a science fantasy wargame, you might as well be playing chess.
EDIT: Also, this being 6E, one could easily fit in an allied mechanized infantry platoon or a Space Marine strike element to go with the armored company's steel hammer. A sniper scout squad, a tactical squad in a drop pod and, say, a librarian would give you a very nice synergistic force to help shore up the AC's weaknesses.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I get that Aggy, but this is a list designed to let you field a 'tank army' that basically ignores one of the chief aspects of the game. It'd be no different to an Eldar army that allowed nothing but FA choices but then went "Whoops! Forgot about them Troops! Ah well, we'll call it a 'handicap' and leave it at that!" Part of the problem with the Armoured Battlegroup list is that it shortened the list of what your opponent could do to you. Suddenly he was facing a wall of AV14, so anything S8 and below was cut out of the equation. Add into that the Veteran Skill that allowed you to fire twice once per game, and you could have any army that would level 16-20 pie-plates on you on Turn 1. It was an amazing Alpha Strike army, so the 'no scoring' was a balance. That and they couldn't fight in HTH, and HTH was the end of them. Taking Armoured Fist Squads actually made the army more dangerous, as the squishy humans could be used as a buffer, and they were heavy weapons in places that tanks couldn't get to. That's not the case in 6th Ed. Hull Points make everything weaker. The AF Squads can't make blob squads with hidden power weapons. Krak Missiles can now contribute to the game removing a Hull Point on every 6, and the tanks can't all fire twice with the Vet Skills. And the answer to their non-scoring is just "take something other than tanks". Why am I playing a tank army if I have to take not-tanks in order to win with it?  Peregrine wrote:Balance, mostly. Otherwise it's too easy to just take a maximum-firepower list without making any sacrifices. That's been GW's approach for 5th and 6th: troops are important, so you have to choose between the big guns and scoring units. Making all troop tanks scoring would completely negate that, so instead you get a choice between an all-tank army that has trouble scoring objectives, or a more balanced list that bring scoring units but also more and better tanks than a codex army can.
Which begs the question of why play a tank army at all if you can't actually play a tank army and expect to win objective games?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
H.B.M.C. wrote: Peregrine wrote:Balance, mostly. Otherwise it's too easy to just take a maximum-firepower list without making any sacrifices. That's been GW's approach for 5th and 6th: troops are important, so you have to choose between the big guns and scoring units. Making all troop tanks scoring would completely negate that, so instead you get a choice between an all-tank army that has trouble scoring objectives, or a more balanced list that bring scoring units but also more and better tanks than a codex army can.
Which begs the question of why play a tank army at all if you can't actually play a tank army and expect to win objective games?
Because even if you play less than a pure tank army and include scoring units in Chimeras you're still playing with more tanks than a standard codex army can bring, and your tanks get various special abilities that the codex ones can only dream of.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Peregrine wrote:Because even if you play less than a pure tank army and include scoring units in Chimeras you're still playing with more tanks than a standard codex army can bring, and your tanks get various special abilities that the codex ones can only dream of.
Not that much more, and certainly not that much more than the Codex as it exists these days. Back in the day a Guard army could bring 3 Russes. At 2000 points you could bring 10 Russes in an Armoured Battlegroup. It was a major difference. Now the standard Guard list can field 9 Russes as HS slots. On a side note, did they amend the Macharius/Malcador rules so that they were, y'know, worth taking? I love my Macharius Company - they're lovely models, especially the Vulcan Mega-Bolter one - but damn if they aren't a colossal waste of points. Malcador's doubly so.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
H.B.M.C. wrote: Peregrine wrote:Because even if you play less than a pure tank army and include scoring units in Chimeras you're still playing with more tanks than a standard codex army can bring, and your tanks get various special abilities that the codex ones can only dream of.
Not that much more, and certainly not that much more than the Codex as it exists these days. Back in the day a Guard army could bring 3 Russes. At 2000 points you could bring 10 Russes in an Armoured Battlegroup. It was a major difference. Now the standard Guard list can field 9 Russes as HS slots.
But only as squadrons, which is a big drawback. Add in competition with other heavy support options and the theoretical 9- LR list is pretty much never seen in a real game. But with an armored company list you can take several independent Leman Russes, give them orders from a company command tank, and still have heavy support slots free for aircraft/artillery tanks/Hydras/etc. Even if the number of Leman Russ models on the table isn't much different it's still a list that plays very differently from a codex: IG army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote:On a side note, did they amend the Macharius/Malcador rules so that they were, y'know, worth taking? I love my Macharius Company - they're lovely models, especially the Vulcan Mega-Bolter one - but damn if they aren't a colossal waste of points. Malcador's doubly so.
Did you see the changes in the new edition of IA:Apocalypse? The Macharius Vulcan got the "fire twice" rule and is now a very good unit, while the Malcadors all got substantial price decreases to a much more reasonable level.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
No they didn't. All Malcador variants are still over costed. They'd need another 15-40% off to be worth taking.
7375
Post by: BrookM
I guess all Leman Russ entries in this book also no longer have the lumbering behemoth rule, aye?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Agamemnon2 wrote:No they didn't. All Malcador variants are still over costed. They'd need another 15-40% off to be worth taking.
Exactly. Just having 2 Structure Points doesn't somehow make it a terror of the battlefield (that and most Super-Heavies are absolute glass hammers that people fear more out of reputation than any rational in-game reasons). The Malcador is a junk unit that is too slow and too fragile and far too expensive to be worth anything. Any time when taking equal points in Russes is a better option means that the tank is bad (and this applies to the Macharius trio as well).
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
To be fair, there is no points cost that would make the Malcador worth taking with its statline. It's a malformed abortion of a unit unfit for any purpose. The Minotaur and Valdor are marginally better, but still utter garbage.
30489
Post by: Trickstick
Started an ABG thread in tactics, as it isn't really a rumour any more:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/493081.page
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
kronk wrote:I suppose if a book covering Legio is coming out, that makes more sense. But there's only a few titan classes, so I'm not sure it would warrant a book. Unless they went whole-hog ad-mech..
Oh god please let that be true ..................just not at the Horus Heresy Price :(
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
And good to see them not dealing with a problem caused of edition change. "It's just a challange!" with the AB list? How about "Tanks taken as Troops are Scoring" so the army can be used. "Take infantry" in an all-tank army is not a solution. Why even play the all-tank army if doing so means you auto-lose certain missions?
In 2 out of 6 of the book missions, your heavies score or your fast attack scores. This is in addition to any Troops (mounted infantry units you bring). It's not the end of the world.
60
Post by: yakface
 BrookM wrote:I guess all Leman Russ entries in this book also no longer have the lumbering behemoth rule, aye?
They still do, it just explains that the Lumbering Behemoth rule means they follow the rules for for Heavy Vehicles in the main rulebook.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
 CaptKaruthors wrote:And good to see them not dealing with a problem caused of edition change. "It's just a challange!" with the AB list? How about "Tanks taken as Troops are Scoring" so the army can be used. "Take infantry" in an all-tank army is not a solution. Why even play the all-tank army if doing so means you auto-lose certain missions?
In 2 out of 6 of the book missions, your heavies score or your fast attack scores. This is in addition to any Troops (mounted infantry units you bring). It's not the end of the world.
That's not exactly an effective workaround to the whole scoring problem.
And while I can't wait to play this army, I'm very glad the tanks aren't scoring. Simply put, if they were scoring NOBODY would agree to play against it, no matter how balanced it was. The only reason people at my club are even considering playing against it is because the lack of scoring troops balances out the insane firepower the list brings.
Although to be completely honest, until I get a few more tanks, the list will mostly be run as allies for my regular guard so that I can run more than 3 tanks without squadroning them.
60
Post by: yakface
People have repeatedly been asking about the Hades, and having gotten the book now, I can say (happily IMHO) that the Hades has received a much needed nerf.
First of all, it now comes bundled with the Vet squad at a total price of 100 points. The vet squad is not just a cut-paste from the codex. This is a very limited vet squad, that can only take x2 special weapons, and doesn't have access to all the different disciplines (they just have the option to take carapace armor and/or melta bombs...no demo charge, etc).
But the big change now is that if the Hades deep strikes under a vehicle or building and doesn't destroy that vehicle/building, then the Hades automatically suffers a deep strike mishap, with a -2 penalty on the roll (meaning a very good chance of being destroyed). And if the Hades is destroyed by the Drill then their following squad is lost as well.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Well that isn't good D:
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Yeah. My solution is to just refuse to use those awful rules until FW restores it back to the way it should be. If it needs a nerf, fine, raise the point cost, but don't rip the heart out of the drill-based army I've spent a ton of time and effort on. It's poor game design, and a textbook case of giving in to the whiners who cried over and over again about how overpowered the unit was without ever bothering to understand how it worked.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah. My solution is to just refuse to use those awful rules until FW restores it back to the way it should be. If it needs a nerf, fine, raise the point cost, but don't rip the heart out of the drill-based army I've spent a ton of time and effort on. It's poor game design, and a textbook case of giving in to the whiners who cried over and over again about how overpowered the unit was without ever bothering to understand how it worked.
How deliciously ironic!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 azreal13 wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Yeah. My solution is to just refuse to use those awful rules until FW restores it back to the way it should be. If it needs a nerf, fine, raise the point cost, but don't rip the heart out of the drill-based army I've spent a ton of time and effort on. It's poor game design, and a textbook case of giving in to the whiners who cried over and over again about how overpowered the unit was without ever bothering to understand how it worked.
How deliciously ironic!
What, that I reject something FW printed because it sucks? It's only "ironic" if you ignore the part where I admit that it's my own house rule and don't dispute that the rules as published by GW state otherwise.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
No, it's ironic because you're whining about people you perceive to be whining.
To the point you've metaphorically picked up your ball and gone home.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
azreal13 wrote:No, it's ironic because you're whining about people you perceive to be whining.
Sorry, but pointing out the truth is not whining. Hades drills got a level of outrage that was FAR out of proportion to how good they really were (especially compared to much more overpowered codex units) because people saw the best case scenario for what it could do and whined and cried about it, while completely ignoring all of the drawbacks and ways in which it can fail horribly. It would be like if GW removed tactical squads because idiots kept making endless whine threads about how overpowered it is when they roll all 6s for shooting and never fail armor saves. Sorry to point it out, but part of being a professional game designer is knowing the difference between legitimate criticism and uninformed whining, and having the spine to tell the whiners to shut up and deal with it.
To the point you've metaphorically picked up your ball and gone home.
Yeah, how horrible of me to refuse to play with a new rule that literally makes my army cease to exist. My entire army is based on having veteran squads and Hades drills with my only troops, take that away and make them a non-scoring unit and I no longer have a legal army. Take away the upgrade options and I no longer have legal units modeled. This would be like if GW published a new C: SM that deleted tactical squads entirely and made scouts the only troops choice, and I would have a lot of sympathy for any marine players who told GW where to shove their new rules and continued playing with their existing codex.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Look, I don't know the rules for the drill, and don't have any prejudice against it, but perhaps a vague sense it was considered a pretty solid unit. I can surmise however that
A) You were convinced enough as to their quality to make a dedicated list, to the point which this change has screwed it
B)Many people's version of the 'truth' differed from your own 'truth'
C) Lists get nerfed regularly when codexes are updated, and while I understand the frustration, a more balanced list is seldom as badly affected
D) You're biased towards the unit
Do you propose that CSM players stick with the 3.5 dex because it was better?
Or do you believe they should change their lists and tactics to reflect the changes and get maximum effect from their new book?
It's you're right to house rule of course, but I stand by my original comment.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Look say what you want about perigrine, but think. If you had spent that much cash on FW drills only to be drastically changed, you would be pissed too.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Oh, undoubtedly! On that point he has my sympathy.
They haven't been retconned into oblivion though, they still exist, they will just need a different approach.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
No different to any other army based around any other type of unit that's found its rules changed, be it a little or a lot.
Now obviously FW don't update their rules as often as GW does (and I really just typed that...), but one should not be surprised when things change.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
No one forces you to invest the money in the first place, either.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
 yakface wrote:
People have repeatedly been asking about the Hades, and having gotten the book now, I can say (happily IMHO) that the Hades has received a much needed nerf.
First of all, it now comes bundled with the Vet squad at a total price of 100 points. The vet squad is not just a cut-paste from the codex. This is a very limited vet squad, that can only take x2 special weapons, and doesn't have access to all the different disciplines (they just have the option to take carapace armor and/or melta bombs...no demo charge, etc).
But the big change now is that if the Hades deep strikes under a vehicle or building and doesn't destroy that vehicle/building, then the Hades automatically suffers a deep strike mishap, with a -2 penalty on the roll (meaning a very good chance of being destroyed). And if the Hades is destroyed by the Drill then their following squad is lost as well.
Excellent, this is good news. Now I can take a few without feeling dirty for using an undercosted unit with way too much abuse potential.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
 MrMoustaffa wrote:Look say what you want about perigrine, but think. If you had spent that much cash on FW drills only to be drastically changed, you would be pissed too.
I spent a few grand on an ork and a dark eldar army, both built about the principals of assaulting from vehicles. Both armies have been hosed solidly by GW in 6th ed.
I am sympathetic, but it's limited.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
I am kinda fethed till Christmas, as my only troops choice right now are 2 squads of 6 Engineers, extremely squishy, so I use the Drill to keep the men alive till the Grenadiers take out a few
enemies then the Engineers come and blow the survivors.
Oh well, STR 10 AP 1 Melta large blast, still a pretty darn good chance to destroy something.
19970
Post by: Jadenim
@MeanGreenStompa
OT I know, but I thought open topped vehicles still counted as assault vehicles?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
MrMoustaffa wrote:Look say what you want about perigrine, but think. If you had spent that much cash on FW drills only to be drastically changed, you would be pissed too.
I have:
1. A full Deathguard army.
2. A full World Eater army.
3. A full Lost & The Damned army.
4. A full Inquisitorial army (not GKs or Sisters).
People always tell me to 'counts as', so frankly some rules changing on a unit is nothing in comparison to having whole armies invalidated or, in two cases there, simply removed from the game.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
H.B.M.C. wrote:People always tell me to 'counts as', so frankly some rules changing on a unit is nothing in comparison to having whole armies invalidated or, in two cases there, simply removed from the game.
I don't see why there's some kind of either-or thing here. Changing drills to remove the ability to use them as troops and invalidate an entire army in the process is bad game design, just like invalidating those other armies is bad game design. The fact that one is bad doesn't in any way mean that the other isn't.
60
Post by: yakface
Bobthehero wrote:I am kinda fethed till Christmas, as my only troops choice right now are 2 squads of 6 Engineers, extremely squishy, so I use the Drill to keep the men alive till the Grenadiers take out a few
enemies then the Engineers come and blow the survivors.
Oh well, STR 10 AP 1 Melta large blast, still a pretty darn good chance to destroy something.
Oh, sorry. Its also now S8 instead of S10, but still AP1 and Melta, but now its only a 3" small blast too.
It gained a 4+ invulnerable save against damage inflicted while its making a ram attack, though.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Wow, all that and a price increase? Ouch. Glad I only bought one for my Krieg army.
On the subject of Krieg, are they planning to update the Vraks army lists? I certainly hope they don't expect me to piece together the rules for a Krieg Army from several different IA books.
As far as I'm concerned, the IA1 2nd ed book lists a Hades Drill for 'Imperial' armies, not a Krieg army. I'll continue to play using the Vraks Krieg list and rules until they either FAQ it or update those specific lists.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
yakface wrote:Oh, sorry. Its also now S8 instead of S10, but still AP1 and Melta, but now its only a 3" small blast too.
It gained a 4+ invulnerable save against damage inflicted while its making a ram attack, though.
So is there anything about the drill that hasn't been crippled? Even the "most hated unit ever" dread pods weren't nerfed this badly...
60
Post by: yakface
 Cruentus wrote:Wow, all that and a price increase? Ouch. Glad I only bought one for my Krieg army.
On the subject of Krieg, are they planning to update the Vraks army lists? I certainly hope they don't expect me to piece together the rules for a Krieg Army from several different IA books.
As far as I'm concerned, the IA1 2nd ed book lists a Hades Drill for 'Imperial' armies, not a Krieg army. I'll continue to play using the Vraks Krieg list and rules until they either FAQ it or update those specific lists.
The last cost for the drill was 50 points on its own. A base vet squad cost 70 points.
Now its 100 points for the Drill and 10 guys base.
Sure you can't pimp out the vet squad the way you could before, but the overall cost has gone down for the Drill.
And yes, the rules are for both Krieg and standard codex IG forces (they have a description for both army lists).
----
I don't understand how you cay you're somehow 'not going to use these rules'...who are you going to find to play with who's going to be totally okay with you using now outdated rules for a unit that was totally and completely undercosted for what it does? Who would sign up to play against that?
The Hades now has appropriate rules and points values for what it is, as opposed to something that was ridiculously amazing. I mean, if a Drill attack was that utterly devastating, every single IG regiment in the galaxy would be running those things as the ultimate terror weapon.
It was a clearly broken unit, and anyone who based any army around it knew that. So you had to know that at some point they would go out of their way to fix the problem. That's always, always the risk you take when you make an army that is super heavily lopsided on one particular aspect or unit.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
yakface wrote:The Hades now has appropriate rules and points values for what it is, as opposed to something that was ridiculously amazing. I mean, if a Drill attack was that utterly devastating, every single IG regiment in the galaxy would be running those things as the ultimate terror weapon.
I think the new rules sound like ("sound like", mind you, I won't order my copy of the book until after xmas) they're trying to normalize the relationship between the Hades and the squad it carries. Before, it used to be the drill was the overwhelmingly important part of that pairing, and the extra guys (Krieg Engineers or Veterans, were just a minor extra for the immensely powerful and cheap drill, whereas now, the drill is mostly a tool to get the engineers into position (which I think it should be).
I would not mind seeing them do more underground vehicles, like the Termite, Mole and Hellbore. The latter especially would be a lark, being the equivalent of a whole bastion suddenly popping up.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
You mentionned veterans on more than one occasion, but what about engineers?
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
 Jadenim wrote:@MeanGreenStompa
OT I know, but I thought open topped vehicles still counted as assault vehicles?
Yes, but overwatch has a profoundly unpleasant effect on lightly armoured units and vehicles dying to glancing hullpoint murder far more easily now. You have about half the chance you did before to get your raider/battlewagon/trukk/venom over the table now and you're looking at losing a significant number of your unit before you even connect in combat. So my battlewagon rush and wycheraider armies got punted.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Bobthehero wrote:You mentionned veterans on more than one occasion, but what about engineers?
I think those are for the Death Korps profile found in the vehicle entry.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I'm hoping my copy will show up sometime this week. Today, even. That'd be nice.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Cruentus wrote:Wow, all that and a price increase? Ouch. Glad I only bought one for my Krieg army.
On the subject of Krieg, are they planning to update the Vraks army lists? I certainly hope they don't expect me to piece together the rules for a Krieg Army from several different IA books.
As far as I'm concerned, the IA1 2nd ed book lists a Hades Drill for 'Imperial' armies, not a Krieg army. I'll continue to play using the Vraks Krieg list and rules until they either FAQ it or update those specific lists.
Ohhhh...
So, since they never actually scrapped the 'blood axe' list from Ere We Go, published in the 80s, and just released an 'ork' codex, I can still use a warboss with BS 5 as I have a blood axe army?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
yakface wrote:I don't understand how you cay you're somehow 'not going to use these rules'...who are you going to find to play with who's going to be totally okay with you using now outdated rules for a unit that was totally and completely undercosted for what it does? Who would sign up to play against that?
It's not very complicated. You say " FW invalidated my army, so you either let me use the old rules and have a functioning army, or we don't play". If people aren't ok with me using the army I spent a ton of time and effort building, that's fine, I'll just find someone else to play. Or just find another game to play until they fix the problem.
The Hades now has appropriate rules and points values for what it is, as opposed to something that was ridiculously amazing. I mean, if a Drill attack was that utterly devastating, every single IG regiment in the galaxy would be running those things as the ultimate terror weapon.
The problem isn't the rules and point values, it's that you can no longer use them with scoring veteran squads, which means all of the troops in my army are suddenly no longer legal. And to add insult to injury the new version of the unit can't take the same upgrade options, so I can't even keep the same models and just accept that they aren't scoring. If they'd simply doubled the point cost of the drill I would have had no problem with it.
It was a clearly broken unit, and anyone who based any army around it knew that.
It was only broken if you ignore the drawbacks and only look at the times when it does something awesome. Sadly people who do that seem to whine loud enough to get it changed.
Agamemnon2 wrote:I think the new rules sound like ("sound like", mind you, I won't order my copy of the book until after xmas) they're trying to normalize the relationship between the Hades and the squad it carries. Before, it used to be the drill was the overwhelmingly important part of that pairing, and the extra guys (Krieg Engineers or Veterans, were just a minor extra for the immensely powerful and cheap drill, whereas now, the drill is mostly a tool to get the engineers into position (which I think it should be).
Have you ever played with/against them, or are you just guessing based on the rules? Because you've got that backwards.
Under the old rules the veteran squad was the most important part, and the drill's attack was a nice (if really inconsistent) bonus for using such a risky method of deploying your troops. At least half the time the drill would scatter away uselessly and leave the veteran squad to do all of the killing, and you could do stuff like drill up under/near an objective, clear it with overwhelming plasma/melta/demo charge firepower from the veteran squad, and then claim it with your scoring unit. And that's how it usually worked in my experience, the pie plate was nice when it worked, but most of the damage was done by the plasma vets suddenly appearing in rapid fire range. And, more importantly, it was something different (and a lot more fun) than the same old Chimera/Vendetta spam that was the only other way of using veterans.
The current rules completely reverse that. The squad is garbage since it has crippled options, a much higher mishap chance, and is no longer scoring, so now the cheap pie plate is the main appeal of the unit and the infantry squad is just a nice bonus that occasionally might do something. Now instead of putting your troops behind the drills and making an aggressive all-or-nothing attack you put the troops in Chimeras, drop some pie plates, and don't really care what happens to the infantry. And that's just boring.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
It's just a general reality
If your army/list gets cheaper or gets more powerful rules the general response is 'Yay, that's cool'
If they get more expensive, or your rules get worse the general response is 'Oh no, my life is ruined, I hate them, they're a bad company'
It's just human nature
It's the same with wishlisting; nobody wishes their army to get worse, the lists just pile up with 'make my stuff better', 'give my army one of the cool units somebody else army has'
63000
Post by: Peregrine
That's not true at all. I would have been ok with them increasing the point cost a bit, since I could still play the same army even if it would be slightly less effective at winning. What I'm not ok with is the fact that my army is no longer legal.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And? So? But? Therefore?
Why are you acting as if this is something outlandish? I’ve had more than four of my armies invalidated by Codex changes (one was removed from the game entirely!). So your drills go in different slots now. You’ll survive.
19970
Post by: Jadenim
@MeanGreenStompa
Ah, fair point, I misunderstood your first post.
On topic I sympathise with Peregrine; I personally wouldn't have a problem house ruling that you could use standard vet squads, but I can see that it's an awkward situation. I just wish GW and associates wouldn't swing rules quite so wildly.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Peregrine wrote:Have you ever played with/against them, or are you just guessing based on the rules? Because you've got that backwards.
Of course I've played with them, do you really think I'd be commenting if I hadn't? What kind of cretin do you take me for? Every time I've seen the Hades used, the initial blast did all the work, then the Engineer squad popped up either in a location already cleared of enemies and spent the next few turns slowly repositioning, or being eradicated by enemy fire.
827
Post by: Cruentus
 MeanGreenStompa wrote: Cruentus wrote:Wow, all that and a price increase? Ouch. Glad I only bought one for my Krieg army.
On the subject of Krieg, are they planning to update the Vraks army lists? I certainly hope they don't expect me to piece together the rules for a Krieg Army from several different IA books.
As far as I'm concerned, the IA1 2nd ed book lists a Hades Drill for 'Imperial' armies, not a Krieg army. I'll continue to play using the Vraks Krieg list and rules until they either FAQ it or update those specific lists.
Ohhhh...
So, since they never actually scrapped the 'blood axe' list from Ere We Go, published in the 80s, and just released an 'ork' codex, I can still use a warboss with BS 5 as I have a blood axe army?
Sure you can, as soon as you can find those rules on GW or FWs site as the most current rules. The Krieg list on the FW site is still the most current update of the Vraks list, and has not been updated to include the info in IA1 v2. Its as valid as any other 5th ed codex while awaiting the 6th ed update.
And if you wouldn't want to play against a Krieg list with one drill, I don't know what to say.
And of course you must have missed where I said I'm still waiting for that update or faq to bring the Vraks list up to current. I'm not buying IA1 v2 for one unit.
Edit: oh, and I'd love to play a game against a well modeled Blood Axe army, complete with BS5 warboss. Sure would beat facing the same old warboss, or Ghaz, in every battle. Much as I'd think people would enjoy playing against a Krieg army, rather than the same tired old chimera/vendetta/valkyrie (speaking of undercosted units) army.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
H.B.M.C. wrote:Why are you acting as if this is something outlandish? I’ve had more than four of my armies invalidated by Codex changes (one was removed from the game entirely!). So your drills go in different slots now. You’ll survive.
Once again, how exactly does invalidating one army justify invalidating another? You might have a point if I claimed that what they did to your armies was a good idea, but I didn't.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Of course I've played with them, do you really think I'd be commenting if I hadn't? What kind of cretin do you take me for? Every time I've seen the Hades used, the initial blast did all the work, then the Engineer squad popped up either in a location already cleared of enemies and spent the next few turns slowly repositioning, or being eradicated by enemy fire.
Sorry to get it wrong in this case, but in my experience a lot of people who complained about Hades drills had never actually played against them and just saw STR 10 AP 1 and immediately assumed it must be overpowered.
Also, it sounds like you played the DKoK version, while my army was codex IG. I admit that the DKoK engineers are pretty bad and you take that unit just for the cheap pie plate, but that's more of a flaw with the DKoK list having weak infantry that isn't good for much besides dying. If you instead used a codex list with real veteran squads the drill's firepower was a nice bonus while the veteran squad did huge amounts of damage. That means the solution was to make DKoK engineers a viable unit on their own, not to bring the codex version down to the DKoK version's level. Now both units are worthless for anything but the cheap pie plate. Automatically Appended Next Post: Cruentus wrote:Edit: oh, and I'd love to play a game against a well modeled Blood Axe army, complete with BS5 warboss. Sure would beat facing the same old warboss, or Ghaz, in every battle. Much as I'd think people would enjoy playing against a Krieg army, rather than the same tired old chimera/vendetta/valkyrie (speaking of undercosted units) army.
TBH I think this is the biggest problem. I won more games using (proxied) Chimera/Vendetta spam, but the drill list was just more fun. Now that's no longer an option, and even if I buy Chimeras or Vendettas to play a standard mech vet list it's just more of the same old spam.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Peregrine wrote:Sorry to get it wrong in this case, but in my experience a lot of people who complained about Hades drills had never actually played against them and just saw STR 10 AP 1 and immediately assumed it must be overpowered.
That tends to happen with anything FW releases.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
The Drill's a 50% for me, the last game it removed 2 hull points of a landraider, the Engineers finished it off with demo charges and melta bombs.
40919
Post by: spiralingcadaver
I'm sorry, Peregrine, but there isn't a lot of sympathy I can offer. GW regularly messes around with lists, and sometimes it screws up your army. I learned from this-- don't spam: it isn't worth it, unless you're in a hypercompetitive environment.
For the record list of armies (that I can remember) that have been discontinued (with proxies next to them in parentheses, asterisks for ones that are kind of functional still)
armies:
squats (guard and/or marines, probably, rumored Demiurg)*
lost and the damned (CSM and IG, or various FW lists)*
gaunt's ghosts (and other IG regimental rules, such as the catachan and cadian army lists-- veteran rules)*
IG armored companies (FW replaced this with kried armored company)*
kroot mercs (rumored release, otherwise SOL or orks/nids, maybe?)
arbites (IG carapace armor)*
witch hunters/daemon hunters (lots of missing options, most replaceable w/ them plus IG or WH & DH)*
salamanders army (mostly w/ the Salamanders character, though not a great representation)*
chaos legions (all can technically work with the new chaos codex, but are missing special rules, except Iron Warriors, which requires an IG ally to use a basilisk)*
eldar craftworlds (all can be used in the new codex easily enough*
except for the Ulthwe Strike force, which can't use a webway portal unless you count it as a bastardized and weird DE army... which sucks, 'cause that was the one I played)
tyranid mycetic assault list (tyranids)*
flesh tearers (incorporated into Blood angels)*
white scars (marine bike captain comes close)*
Red Corsairs (CSM or FW huron)*
imperial fists (again, w/ that termie captain or a master of the forge)*
13th company (space wolf upgrades)*
feral orks (this one is really thoroughly odd... while orks w/ bikes are the most obvious, running them as catachan IG is probably closer to their old rules/stats, except for no T4)*
speed freeks (regular orks, which even mostly works if you didn't have a bajillion bike and nob squads)*
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
H.B.M.C. wrote:And? So? But? Therefore?
Why are you acting as if this is something outlandish? I’ve had more than four of my armies invalidated by Codex changes (one was removed from the game entirely!). So your drills go in different slots now. You’ll survive.
That's it folks, the world is officially ending on the 21t! HBMC, is telling someone to just get over it! 
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Hrm, the hades got overnerfed methinks, the fact that the follow-up squad is lost makes it way too risky to be a functional part of an army as an attack vector. I'm fine with the nerf to the blast, whatever, but given that any attack on a vehicle has a greater than 50% chance (in some cases in excess of a 70% chance if you're talking AV14) to mishap and muck up not only the drill but the following unit is excessive.
Had they just left it at the nerf to the blast I think everyone would have been happy, but with the current changes it makes the drill way too risky as an attack vector and too expensive simply as a deep strike enabler if you're not going to try and hit an enemy unit with it. This is especially painful for DKoK Engineer units that are hideously overpriced and have nowhere near the threat value vets bring.
And lets be honest, there is such a thing as over-correction, and this would not be the first time GW/FW has done so.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Oh well. FW will just release a fourth iteration of the unit when they get to IAV6E2, I bet. :-/ They're the George Lucas of statblocks, compelled to tinker with them constantly.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Speaking of changes, did they do anything to the Tauros and Venator?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Undoubtedly. GW (and by extension FW) are nothing if not experts at over-balancing things.
60
Post by: yakface
BrookM wrote:Speaking of changes, did they do anything to the Tauros and Venator?
The only difference I can tell about the Tauros squadron from IAA 2nd edition is that they removed the option to take a Homing Beacon and added Hull Points to the entry (2).
----
And back to the Hades, my whole point was that from the very beginning this thing was supposed to be battlefield support equipment that has an interesting application when applied to combat. Unfortunately, the rules were written way OTT for this role and then combined with an insane points cost (and yes, I've played games against them and see them do nothing sometimes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were amazing for the points).
So has the new rules made basing an army around the Hades not really viable? I would say that's definitely true, but it never should have been. I'm sorry that some people went out and bought a bunch of these models because of how amazingly nasty they were and based their entire army around it, but this is the exact same issue everyone who makes their army incredibly lopsided towards a unit that is clearly out of balance at the time in a constantly evolving game. While in most situations it takes a whole codex cycle or new rules edition to mix things up this way, in the case of Forgeworld they actually can and do adjust their rules with each new appropriate release, so ti really shouldn't be a surprise.
The Hades is still a perfectly useable unit for the points cost in a role closer to what it should be based on the fluff, but yes, it is no longer something you create your entire army strategy against, as it never should have been.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
But surely you either change its cost to reflect its abilities, or change its abilities to reflect its cost. They appear to have upped its cost because of how dangerous it is... and then made it less dangerous as well.
60
Post by: yakface
H.B.M.C. wrote:But surely you either change its cost to reflect its abilities, or change its abilities to reflect its cost. They appear to have upped its cost because of how dangerous it is... and then made it less dangerous as well.
No, they reduced its abilities and reduced its cost appropriately.
Its just now they just built the base cost of the Vet squad that comes with it into the price of the unit.
Before, you were paying 120 points minimum for a bare Vet squad and the drill (50 alone for the drill). Now you're paying 100 total for the bare vet squad and the drill, meaning the drill was reduced to 30 points, which accurately reflects its abilities, for sure.
Or maybe the Vet squad was dropped 10 to make up for being non-scoring and the drill was dropped 10 points. Either way, the points haven't been raised, they've been lowered. Its just he usefulness of the unit overall that has been diminished which is making people unhappy because they liked it being super-powerful, which was never appropriate anyway for an automated breeching drill.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Ah the memories of the breaching drill. Our first encounter was Adepticon 2010, where it bursts from the ground and took out Reece's Vendetta, Live Free or Die Hard style!
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
My own drill nommed a Hellbrute and 2 Chaos bikers and did 1 hull point worth of damage on a Land Raider, the real damage was done with the 2 6 men squads of Engineers that followed up (5 Chosens and a Lord, 4 cultists, a defiler, said landraider and some Zerkers that were inside).
18698
Post by: kronk
Hi there,
December is streaming away from us and it’s now only fifteen days until Christmas. At this time of year we like to bring you a sneak peek at one of next year’s releases, and part one of our Christmas Jigsaw is revealed today. We are very close to our next festive ordering deadline, but don’t worry if you still have an order to place because the Customer Service team are on hand to assist you – read on for more!
Forge World Christmas Ordering Deadlines
Midnight (GMT) today is the deadline for Standard delivery orders to static BFPO addresses, and for Express delivery orders to all international destinations. There’s still plenty of time to get an order in to us for pre-Christmas delivery, we’ve got no shipping delays, and orders containing £250 or more of products receive completely free Express shipping anywhere in the world!
It’s always best to place your order as early as you can to avoid disappointment, and with this in mind below are our last order deadlines for pre-Christmas delivery. As always, these dates are subject to change and stock availability so if in doubt, call us:
Standard Delivery
Midnight, Monday 10th December: Static BFPOs
Midnight, Wednesday 12th December: United Kingdom
Express Delivery
Midnight, Monday 10th December: All other international destinations
Midnight, Friday 14th December: United Kingdom
If you’re outside the UK and you’d like to place an order after today, don’t worry - the Forge World Customer Service team is standing by to assist with any and all enquiries you may have, from product availability and shipping times, to hobby advice, to helping to explain the difference between a Titan and a Dreadnought to a confused relative.
Our opening hours are 0930 to 1800 (GMT) Monday to Friday and 0930 to 1700 (GMT) on Saturday, and you can call us on:
0115 900 4995 within the UK
011 44 115 900 4995 from the US and Canada
00 44 115 900 4995 from much of Europe.
Forge World Christmas Jigsaw Part 1
As is traditional at this time of year we like to tease you with a sneak preview of one of our 2013 releases. Rather than simply showing you a cool model straight away though, we prefer to leave you guessing for a while at what it might be. Part 1 is revealed below, but what is it?
Part 2 will be revealed later this week...
New Forge World Catalog Available Now
To request your free copy, just send your name and postal address in an e-mail entitled ‘catalogue request’ to forgeworld@gwplc.com and we will have one sent out, postage free, anywhere in the world.
Thanks,
Ead Brown
Customer Service Manager
Forge World
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Obviously a Terminator, but which pattern? Is it a new pattern or a character? New poses? Legion Terminator? Lots of possibilities imo.
18698
Post by: kronk
Generic terminator or named guy, I wonder?
Wasn't the 2010 advent calendar the Event-Only Boarding Marine model and last year's the skin-wolf event only model?
26800
Post by: Commander Cain
I think they mentioned a Saturnine pattern termie a while back. No idea what that entails though!
62565
Post by: Haighus
It matches with a tartaros pattern leg if you compare the two. (got the same little flap thing just above the foot)
17796
Post by: Slinky
Looks like the Tartaros pattern legs to me, with added bling 
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
yakface wrote: Its just he usefulness of the unit overall that has been diminished which is making people unhappy because they liked it being super-powerful, which was never appropriate anyway for an automated breeching drill.
I don't have the book yet (it's been shipped but not yet arrived) so I don't know how it's changed for taking it in a normal list or a DKoK unit outside of Armored Battlegroups, but again the big thing is the mishap issue for the follow up units. This makes it's usefulness as an attack vector almost nil because if it fails to kill its target (which it usually will) you lose two units, and it's cost as a Deep Strike enabler for guardsmen is a bit much. Nerfing the blast is all well and fine, I'm not going to be heartbroken over that, but the one change about the mishap and follow up unit makes it difficult to use functionally at all.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Vaktathi raises a valid point in regard to deep striking, short of allies, the drill is the only way for the Death Korps to have any infiltrate/outflank/deep striking units.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Terminator Tech Marine?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Ozymandias wrote:Ah the memories of the breaching drill. Our first encounter was Adepticon 2010, where it bursts from the ground and took out Reece's Vendetta, Live Free or Die Hard style!
That... makes no sense!!!!
411
Post by: whitedragon
Ozymandias wrote:Ah the memories of the breaching drill. Our first encounter was Adepticon 2010, where it bursts from the ground and took out Reece's Vendetta, Live Free or Die Hard style!
Actually, it was my Vendetta . That was the team that was only out for Commander's Heads, and they were freaking out when your Refractor Field bounced a manticore rocket twice!
60
Post by: yakface
Vaktathi wrote:yakface wrote: Its just he usefulness of the unit overall that has been diminished which is making people unhappy because they liked it being super-powerful, which was never appropriate anyway for an automated breeching drill.
I don't have the book yet (it's been shipped but not yet arrived) so I don't know how it's changed for taking it in a normal list or a DKoK unit outside of Armored Battlegroups, but again the big thing is the mishap issue for the follow up units. This makes it's usefulness as an attack vector almost nil because if it fails to kill its target (which it usually will) you lose two units, and it's cost as a Deep Strike enabler for guardsmen is a bit much. Nerfing the blast is all well and fine, I'm not going to be heartbroken over that, but the one change about the mishap and follow up unit makes it difficult to use functionally at all.
Then just don't Deep Strike it under a vehicle or building and problem solved.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
That's right! My apologies, I remembered that Reecius and I played IG but you and I also played against an IG team. Yeah, they finally got my poor Commander, but Platuan4th's Primaris Psyker was still alive and kicking on the table next to us.
Good times!
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
yakface wrote: Vaktathi wrote:yakface wrote: Its just he usefulness of the unit overall that has been diminished which is making people unhappy because they liked it being super-powerful, which was never appropriate anyway for an automated breeching drill.
I don't have the book yet (it's been shipped but not yet arrived) so I don't know how it's changed for taking it in a normal list or a DKoK unit outside of Armored Battlegroups, but again the big thing is the mishap issue for the follow up units. This makes it's usefulness as an attack vector almost nil because if it fails to kill its target (which it usually will) you lose two units, and it's cost as a Deep Strike enabler for guardsmen is a bit much. Nerfing the blast is all well and fine, I'm not going to be heartbroken over that, but the one change about the mishap and follow up unit makes it difficult to use functionally at all.
Then just don't Deep Strike it under a vehicle or building and problem solved.
Right, but at that point it's special ability is rather pointless and then the drill just becomes a rather expensive Deep Strike option for vets and Engineers.
I'm not arguing the old one could have used some toning down, but that part moves it too far in the other direction, especially for the original unit it was intended for, DKoK Engineers.
On a personal level, I'd much rather have just seen it removed as an option for Veterans instead, as when coupled with the Engineers (and taken as a total package) it was hard to argue they were particularly bad, Vets with 3x BS4 special weapons made the total package silly.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Vaktathi wrote:Right, but at that point it's special ability is rather pointless and then the drill just becomes a rather expensive Deep Strike option for vets and Engineers.
I'm not arguing the old one could have used some toning down, but that part moves it too far in the other direction, especially for the original unit it was intended for, DKoK Engineers.
I have to agree. Why make the basic funtionality of the unit so risky for the unit in question? It'd be like giving a Basilisk a chance to explode every time it fired its main gun.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Plasma basilisk?
You just gave me the silliest of ideas...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And you just gave me a great idea...
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
H.B.M.C. wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Right, but at that point it's special ability is rather pointless and then the drill just becomes a rather expensive Deep Strike option for vets and Engineers.
I'm not arguing the old one could have used some toning down, but that part moves it too far in the other direction, especially for the original unit it was intended for, DKoK Engineers.
I have to agree. Why make the basic funtionality of the unit so risky for the unit in question? It'd be like giving a Basilisk a chance to explode every time it fired its main gun.
If it's currently 30 points, as someone has said for the drill itself, doesn't that make it just a drop pod with different functionality?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
 ZebioLizard2 wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Right, but at that point it's special ability is rather pointless and then the drill just becomes a rather expensive Deep Strike option for vets and Engineers.
I'm not arguing the old one could have used some toning down, but that part moves it too far in the other direction, especially for the original unit it was intended for, DKoK Engineers.
I have to agree. Why make the basic funtionality of the unit so risky for the unit in question? It'd be like giving a Basilisk a chance to explode every time it fired its main gun.
If it's currently 30 points, as someone has said for the drill itself, doesn't that make it just a drop pod with different functionality?
It's transporting significantly less capable troops without any of the safety and in fact a greater than even odds of mishap if doing what it was originally intended to do.
EDIT: Just got my book as I walked in the door. Man, they really weren't kind here...you certainly won't be seeing Centaurs or Tauros' on tables any time soon.
Looked at the new Drill rules, a rather incredible overhaul and lots of open questions (particularly in regards to how they apply to the DKoK Engineers...are they elites now too?), it doesn't even have a blast at all anymore functionally, just uses the blast to determine if it hits anything and other than that just does D3 hits to non-vehicle units. It's gone from "very good" to pointless, especially as the infantry unit attached is no longer Scoring.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Vaktathi wrote:you certainly won't be seeing Centaurs or Tauros' on tables any time soon.
Really? How could you possibly make the Centaur any weaker than it already was? And why would anyone want to change the Tauros, a unit that was already too weak to see much use?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
The Centaur and Tauros are both only 2HP and the Centaur now takes a Fast Attack slot instead of being a transport option for non DKoK armies.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Vaktathi wrote:The Centaur and Tauros are both only 2HP and the Centaur now takes a Fast Attack slot instead of being a transport option for non DKoK armies.
Well, 2 HP isn't a change since that's what they got as soon as 6th was released in the pdf update, but taking up a fast attack slot makes no sense. Why would anyone ever take a Centaur then?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Peregrine wrote: Vaktathi wrote:The Centaur and Tauros are both only 2HP and the Centaur now takes a Fast Attack slot instead of being a transport option for non DKoK armies.
Well, 2 HP isn't a change since that's what they got as soon as 6th was released in the pdf update, but taking up a fast attack slot makes no sense. Why would anyone ever take a Centaur then?
You wouldn't.
Also just realized the Hades no longer has a gun at all either and can only hurt things by ramming them...with it's 6" move.
That thing swung pretty much completely polar opposite the other side of useful, the more I read the unit entry, the more I think "man, I guess they were just tired of selling these things..."
60
Post by: yakface
Vaktathi wrote:
Also just realized the Hades no longer has a gun at all either and can only hurt things by ramming them...with it's 6" move.
That thing swung pretty much completely polar opposite the other side of useful, the more I read the unit entry, the more I think "man, I guess they were just tired of selling these things..."
The ranged profile is still in the book, they just put them all into a single summary in the back of the book.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Vaktathi wrote:That thing swung pretty much completely polar opposite the other side of useful, the more I read the unit entry, the more I think "man, I guess they were just tired of selling these things..."
"Someone ate the master and the mould's about to break! Quick! Give 'em crap rules so people'll stop buying the damned things!"
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
yakface wrote: Vaktathi wrote:
Also just realized the Hades no longer has a gun at all either and can only hurt things by ramming them...with it's 6" move.
That thing swung pretty much completely polar opposite the other side of useful, the more I read the unit entry, the more I think "man, I guess they were just tired of selling these things..."
The ranged profile is still in the book, they just put them all into a single summary in the back of the book.
Ah you're right, good catch, they made no indication in the unit entry itself that it had any sort of ranged profile anymore under the melta-cutter rules.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Someone ate the master and the mould's about to break! Quick! Give 'em crap rules so people'll stop buying the damned things!"
Pretty much my thoughts, it's hard to see them as worth taking now, both for the lack of scoring ability for the follow up unit and the *huge* chance of mishap.
Basically they went from a 50pt transport option that:
Automatically arrived turn 2
Came in with S10 AP1 5" blast
Moved all enemy units at least 1" away and destroyed small terrain pieces
Could be bought for DKoK Engineers as Troops or Veterans as Troops
Allowed follow up units to move, shoot, assault on turn they arrived.
It lost all of that (some not unjustifiably) and is now largely an expensive option that allows for a watered down Veteran squad to lose scoring and gain Deep Strike while resulting in no savings for an Engineer unit. They wayyyy overcompensated methinks.
EDIT: looks like they also got rid of the co-axial heavy stubber for Vanquishers, can only take it in the Armored Battlegroup list and only the Storm Bolter gets the Coaxial rule whereas the Stubber is just another gun.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Huzzah! My copy has arrived. I collect it tomorrow (for some strange reason I had it delivered to my parent's place...).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Vaktathi wrote:EDIT: looks like they also got rid of the co-axial heavy stubber for Vanquishers, can only take it in the Armored Battlegroup list and only the Storm Bolter gets the Coaxial rule whereas the Stubber is just another gun.
On the troops tanks at least. Command and Commissar tanks still get the coax heavy stubber, and the upgrade costs less.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
yakface wrote:The ranged profile is still in the book, they just put them all into a single summary in the back of the book.
Nice to hear that competence in actually laying out rules legibly and unequivocally is still a completely unknown skill at Forge World. It's not like their books are expensive, printed on high-quality paper or come in giant unwieldly hardback "premium" format, or anything...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The spirit of Warwick "Copypasta Disastah" Kinraid lives on at Forge World!
7375
Post by: BrookM
H.B.M.C. wrote:The spirit of Warwick "Copypasta Disastah" Kinraid lives on at Forge World!
He works at Warlord now and I can assure you, he hasn't lost his writing touch.
23257
Post by: Praxiss
If this new book contains updated rules for what looks like all the Mean rus chassis as well as thigns like the Basilisk, will these new rules over-ride those found in the IG codex?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
No. They don't override the Codex.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
They would if they actually changed anything (newer rules replace older), but the codex units included are just there for the sake of completeness, the rules are still the same as in the codex. For example, the Basilisk is just a copy/paste of the exact same rules that are in the codex (including GW's published codex errata).
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Peregrine wrote:They would if they actually changed anything (newer rules replace older)...
No they wouldn't, because:
A). Most people wouldn't own them.
B). Most people wouldn't even know about them.
C). GW's not about to go "Ok, the Basilisk entry in the Codex is invalid, so go and buy the IA book for the right one".
D). No IA book has ever overridden a GW book. Ever.
23257
Post by: Praxiss
Ok, my IG playing friend can stop crying then.
60
Post by: yakface
Well, there are some entries that have additional weapon options for some vehicles. Options that have traditionally always been available in FW books.
For example, the Chimera has all the special FW turret options, as do the Sentinels (have the FW weapon options).
The Manticore is also still allowed to take its old Manticore Missiles too, which is a 7" blast despite the vehicle being marked for use in regular games of 40K. To my knowledge that makes it the only thing approved for regular games that uses the 7" blast. I think FW needs to be emailed about that one personally.
But yeah, the move towards putting all the weapon profiles into just a single summary at the back of the book makes it quite annoying to actually look something up, and since the goal of doing that I'm guessing was to cut down on potential typos and discrepancies, its kind of annoying since in a lot of cases it actually make things more confusing and/or critical information was omitted. For example, the Dominus Triple Bombard has two profiles listed with a note saying that you can use the 'mobile' or 'static' profile in certain situations...except that the note about which profile is 'mobile' and which one is 'static' was lost in the move of this profile to the summary format.
In addition, many weapon names in the actual unit entry are different than they are in the Summary. For example, in the unit entry for the Dominus, its weapon is simply called 'triple-barrelled bombard', so when you go to the summary page you start looking in the 'T' section for 'triple', but you can't find the weapon there, instead you have to figure out that it is a 'dominus triple-barrelled bombard' in the summary page!  And this is not the only example of that issue (its quite rampant).
Also, the Trojan seems to have lost its rule for moving immobile artillery and vehicles, despite the fact that it is still an upgrade for some immobile artillery units presumably for this purpose.
Funnily enough, the Field Artillery Battery has the option to either take 'Trojan towing vehicles' or 'Centaur artillery tractors', despite the fact that these units are actually named 'Trojan Support vehicle' and 'Centaur carrier'.
And of course, the Heavy Artillery Platforms all have a rule called 'immobile vehicle' that tells you how the crew reacts to certain game situations...except that none of these platforms actually say that they come with any crew, and if they did the rules no longer support vehicle/infantry combo artillery units (all artillery gun models now have a Toughness).
So yes, plenty of errors still abound. I think anytime you have a book that is a giant summary of units crammed in, whose rules have just been copy-pasted from previous editions and then been updated, you're always going to have tons of these types of issues because they tend to be fairly hard to spot for someone who is knee-deep in doing all the writing for the book.
22639
Post by: Baragash
yakface wrote:And of course, the Heavy Artillery Platforms all have a rule called 'immobile vehicle' that tells you how the crew reacts to certain game situations...except that none of these platforms actually say that they come with any crew, and if they did the rules no longer support vehicle/infantry combo artillery units (all artillery gun models now have a Toughness).
That's weird as there is an update PDF on the FW website that deals with that:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf
60
Post by: yakface
That is the Heavy Artillery Carriage Battery.
I'm talking about the Artillery Platforms (Earthsaker, Hyrda, Manticore)...those are all just immobile vehicles, as opposed to the Heavy Artillery Carriages (which have wheels).
Its pretty confusing actually: If you're taking an Earthshaker platform its a vehicle with an armor value, but if its on a carriage then suddenly its an artillery piece with a Toughness.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
And the Carriage is more than twice as expensive, for some reason.
And I need 9 of them, woe is me.
60
Post by: yakface
Bobthehero wrote:And the Carriage is more than twice as expensive, for some reason.
And I need 9 of them, woe is me.
Given that artillery is much, much, much harder to kill than a vehicle, I'd say it is definitely appropriate.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Money wise is what I meant, especially since you must buy crewmen.
An Earthshaker Carriage is only 75 pts
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
The idea of a Salamander horde is kinda of appealing on a silly level. Running a couple of mechanized platoons and CCS's with some hydras and a ton of Salamanders to net 20 tanks and 60 infantry in 1750pts sounds hilarious.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
yakface wrote:But yeah, the move towards putting all the weapon profiles into just a single summary at the back of the book makes it quite annoying to actually look something up, and since the goal of doing that I'm guessing was to cut down on potential typos and discrepancies, its kind of annoying since in a lot of cases it actually make things more confusing and/or critical information was omitted.
On the other hand, once you've played IG for a while you probably have all of the weapon profiles memorized, and just need the point costs and not an endless repetition of the lascannon profile on every unit that has one. It's just like how every single codex just lists a unit's special rules in the army list section and you have to go back to the unit's page to figure out what they do. I'm not saying it's clearly the best option, but I can see why they'd want to save space and just move it all to a single reference sheet.
And of course, the Heavy Artillery Platforms all have a rule called 'immobile vehicle' that tells you how the crew reacts to certain game situations...except that none of these platforms actually say that they come with any crew, and if they did the rules no longer support vehicle/infantry combo artillery units (all artillery gun models now have a Toughness).
That's just for the sake of simplicity, because the "immobile" rule is also used on units that do have crew. There's just an implied "the crew, if any" in there. The artillery platforms are just immobile Basilisks/Hydras/etc.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Stop it Yak. You're making me regret my purchase and I haven't even seen the book yet!
22639
Post by: Baragash
H.B.M.C. wrote:Stop it Yak. You're making me regret my purchase and I haven't even seen the book yet!
Come on HBMC, we both know you're cynical enough that you were expecting this in a FW publication
I love the expansion of the range/army lists that FW brings to the party but the chaos of their version control is starting to reach the point where I don't want anything to do with them.
67367
Post by: MajorStoffer
The book really is a convenience tool; aside from the Armoured Company, which looks amusing, it's all old reprints, and as has been said, there's a fair number of errors.
I particularly like how they list "Lumbering Behemoth" as a rule for Russes, with an asterisk stating that "They follow the rules for Heavy vehicles," well why not just bloody put that in the unit profile?
Minor gripes like that, otherwise lots of content, plenty of fluff on the vehicles, a decent AdMech background and a fun army list which is quite different than the old, but looks enjoyable, and a little less cheesy.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
'Cause that might've required effort. That's why.
Anyway, yes, I expected errors, and even copypasta nonsense... but this is sounding worse. Is anything new?
22639
Post by: Baragash
Doesn't look like anything "new" but it does appear to consolidate in vehicles that didn't exist when the original was published.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 MajorStoffer wrote:I particularly like how they list "Lumbering Behemoth" as a rule for Russes, with an asterisk stating that "They follow the rules for Heavy vehicles," well why not just bloody put that in the unit profile?
Probably to stop people from asking what happened to Lumbering Behemoth when they compare the profile to the one in the codex.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
That's plausible.
60
Post by: yakface
Peregrine wrote:
Probably to stop people from asking what happened to Lumbering Behemoth when they compare the profile to the one in the codex.
That was my take as well.
The last thing you want is the IA entry for a vehicle to have different special rules from the same entry in the codex, so since the codex Russes have 'Lumbering Behemoth' that basically makes them Heavy Vehicles (via the FAQ), that's what the IA entry does as well.
52163
Post by: Shandara
A plausible excuse for not having to put in effort yes.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I don't know what I always except FW to improve their editing process and try a lot harder to eliminate typos and mistakes with each new release, but I still do!
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
If anything writing that Lumbering Behemoth means they're Heavy vehicles takes MORE effort than just copypasting the old rule.
64174
Post by: Davespil
You guys may not be thrilled with this book because I'm sure you have a lot of IA books. But I have none. I do have a lot of IG vehicles and 3 superheavies and I think I'm gonna love all of it in one book with the updated rules. I think this is FW way of re-baselineing their stuff. And with Necrons rumored to be coming next I might end up buying another AI book. I just think its a good idea to have all of the IG in one book instead of trying to buy and carry around 3 or 4 of them. So kudos to FW.
As far as proof-reading... Baby steps...
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Oh, it's definitely nice to have everything in one book, the problem is the execution of combining all of it was rather awkward
67367
Post by: MajorStoffer
All I have for the other books are PDFs, so I'm not complaining about having the product, and I use armoured company regularly, so having everything all together is handy and somewhat efficient.
It's just their QA is somewhat lacking, and I was hoping for a little more "newness."
It didn't have to be much, but something like a few more ammo types, or something which makes the Conquerer worth taking would be grand.
|
|
