I just got the new IG dex and their is a lot I don't enjoy such as most special characters gone (Marbo, Rahem, Chenkov, Kamir, and Bastonne), units gone(colossus, griffon, penal legion), most units that needed a boost go unchanged or worse (sentinels, rough riders, hydra, and ogryns), opponent chooses who commissar kills one-third of the time, ogryns and bullgyns are so expensive (price and point wise), and the mentally ill looking taurox. Its not all bad of course but the regiment barrier is gone, so is, the variety, and no more different play styles. Of course there will be variety in models and paint but they now count as the same as any other regiment, no more regimental doctrines. Do you agree?

Ogryns actually do better due to Divination and Priests being attachable to them.

No, I don't agree.

The change to summary execution, while I find it much less fluffy, was overall for the better. It now works with the regimental standard, it's now voluntary, and is no longer guaranteed to shoot one of the most important members of the squad (that only happens sometimes now).

Meanwhile, to say that most things got unduly worse is risible. Hydras and PBSs are the clear exceptions to this. Lots of things went unchanged because they should have stayed the same. Meanwhile, LOTS of stuff got better. Scout sentinels, armored sentinels, techpriests, regular priests, every russ, stormtroopers (depending on opinion), ratlings, primaris psykers, commissars, conscripts, SWSs, CCSs, PCSs, veterans, and deathstrikes all got better. The only "why didn't they make them better?" is rough riders, whose problems are with 6th ed rules much more than their codex rules (and they did get better relative to their last FAQ version).

We lost some stuff that was chaff (mogul and penal legionnaires won't be missed that much), but we also got new stuff.

The only loss of playstyle was that we can no longer do a mass outflanking list, and that's a sad loss, true. But not enough to spoil the entire codex over.

Plus, who knows what we'll get with dataslates.

I really like it.

I feel like most of the significant playstyles remain, and between Forge World and the AM codex, I think ALL of them remain with the possible exception of outflanking platoons.

In exchange for losing the outflanking blobs playstyle, we gained the ability to field one of the rare Stormtrooper Companies again (lost in the change from 4th to 5th codex) from a supplement, and gained a re-invigoration of the massive foot list with much better orders and therefore dramatically increased firepower. And psykers.

I dont think a huge amount changed from the brief read through I gave it.
Sure some things are gone, others are new and some got minor buffs/nerfs but it hasnt been any sort of major sea change and I think most builds will still be viable whether thats heavy mech, blobs, Valks, deepstrikes etc.

What I like are that the playstyles I have played in the past are still viable, if not more. The Russ price drops were good, and the HQ units (commissars, priests, psykers, orders) all helped foot playstyles.

What I don't like was that the units that needed help, largely didn't get it and didn't really open up any options that were unusable before.

There's good and there's bad, but I don't think the book really opened up too much.

I mourn the loss of the fluff for other regiments though.

*Edit* Also, stormtroopers got platoons...why not rough riders? Would be so awesome.

The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

 Blacksails wrote:

*Edit* Also, stormtroopers got platoons...why not rough riders? Would be so awesome.

Stormtroopers also got their 3rd new mini since the last RR mini was released back in 2d ed.

While I like the book in general, what I would have rather seen was an artillery model that could be built as a Griffon/Medusa/Colossus/Basilisk instead of/in addition to the Hydra/Wyvern model obviously keeping those units in the codex. And i really wanted a new Rough Rider kit even if the rules aren't great.

We can hope for a "Special Regiments" supplement I guess to include the Rough Rider company, Steel Legion, Tank Company, etc...

You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

0-1 Command Squadron, 1-6 Squadrons

Why they called Death Riders squads "squadrons" is beyond me.

 Happyjew wrote:
You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

0-1 Command Squadron, 1-6 Squadrons

Why they called Death Riders squads "squadrons" is beyond me.

Because that's what you call groups of cavalry?

From wikipedia:

A squadron was historically a cavalry sub unit. The term is still used to refer to modern cavalry units but can also be used as a designation for other arms and services. It should not be confused with squad.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

0-1 Command Squadron, 1-6 Squadrons

Why they called Death Riders squads "squadrons" is beyond me.

Because that's what you call groups of cavalry?

From wikipedia:

A squadron was historically a cavalry sub unit. The term is still used to refer to modern cavalry units but can also be used as a designation for other arms and services. It should not be confused with squad.

Well...uh...Derp.

 Ailaros wrote:
The change to summary execution, while I find it much less fluffy, was overall for the better. It now works with the regimental standard, it's now voluntary, and is no longer guaranteed to shoot one of the most important members of the squad (that only happens sometimes now).

Before it would kill the guy with the highest leadership which, if a Commissar was in the squad, wasn't usually terribly important.

The IG book is great!

Tank companies are viable, both in casual and competitive play.

The blob is still awesome.

Artillery is still awesome, and you can still get the ditched units via FW.

Psykers with divination means you don't need allies.

Priests are cheap ways to get your blobs fearless.

Bullgryns definitely have potential, either from screening tanks, or scouting with an Inquisitor to put pressure on the opponent, or both. And with buffs provided from in-codex units, you don't need to rely on allies to get the most out of them.

Thing is all my lists are dead now.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
Thing is all my lists are dead now.

Then make a new one.
No list survives a codex remake unscathed.

True but I will miss them greatly.

 Happyjew wrote:
You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

If there were a US source for the FW books that might be a consideration but paying shipping from the UK with the postal rate and variable exchange rate has pretty well ruled that out for me. Not to mention the piecemeal arrangement of the rules within the FW books making it so you need half a dozen books to get all the rules you need for a single army. The price of the models I can mostly stomach but needing an $85 (current exchange rate plus shipping) book to field a single model that I want to use is beyond what I can accept.

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You cannot to to ground with a priest.
Priests are great until they fail that leadership check btw.....then its just a guard blob with fearless.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
True but I will miss them greatly.

what lists did you run that are completly impossiable with the new 'dex? you'll need to make changes sure but by and large you should be ok.


well unless you where running a list that was all about veterns in vendettas. can't say I've too much sympathy for vendetta spammers

There's definitely some good stuff in the new book, but also a lot of really unnecessary nerfs and removals that make it difficult to be as excited about the good stuff. Mechanized IG got *really* hammered, in an edition that already went out of its way to hammer them. I expect most of the lists people will generally be seeing will be significantly more infantry oriented.

Seeing my last no-FW-included-list go from a 2000pt list to a 2250pt list, and notably less effective overall, it can be hard to see the brighter side of things when having to build what amounts to a completely new playstyle.

 sfshilo wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You cannot to to ground with a priest.
Priests are great until they fail that leadership check btw.....then its just a guard blob with fearless.

Going to ground is not that huge a lose. The benefit of priests is the 2+ los and the 4++, it makes them so much harder to precision shot/strike to death. Also, you can put a primaris in the unit to get the priest's abilities on LD9.

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You mean the 4th edition book. And yes, all deep strike and infiltrate (along with small units of Last Chancers) rocked.

5th edition book was good in a different way.

I miss HQ sentinel squadrons. I really think 4 units of sents is the best way they work.

 Trickstick wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You cannot to to ground with a priest.
Priests are great until they fail that leadership check btw.....then its just a guard blob with fearless.

Going to ground is not that huge a lose. The benefit of priests is the 2+ los and the 4++, it makes them so much harder to precision shot/strike to death. Also, you can put a primaris in the unit to get the priest's abilities on LD9.

Because "just a guard blob with fearless" is somehow a BAD thing!?


Honestly, I put "unsure" in the poll, because I dislike it, as an OPPONENT. the new AM is superior to the old IG in almost every way, with the exception of nerf to the OP unit.

General Hobbs wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You mean the 4th edition book. And yes, all deep strike and infiltrate (along with small units of Last Chancers) rocked.

5th edition book was good in a different way.

I miss HQ sentinel squadrons. I really think 4 units of sents is the best way they work.

No, he's right. IG didn't have a 4th ed book; they had a 3.5 book.

This is the cover to 3.5



Here's a lexi link on it

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Imperial_Guard_(3rd_Edition,_2nd_Codex)

Note that it's successor is the 5th ed book.

I'm on the fence.

It's not terrible like the nid codex, that's obvious to all, it's got teeth.



My issue is that in the past I had always played guard without blobs and this codex is basically hitting you over the head with incentives for running them. I also hate allies and this army is a slut, it will be passed around a lot and that kinda kills it for me.

Vendetta got nerfed, how can one not like this?

 Ailaros wrote:
No, I don't agree.

The change to summary execution, while I find it much less fluffy, was overall for the better. It now works with the regimental standard, it's now voluntary, and is no longer guaranteed to shoot one of the most important members of the squad (that only happens sometimes now).

Meanwhile, to say that most things got unduly worse is risible. Hydras and PBSs are the clear exceptions to this. Lots of things went unchanged because they should have stayed the same. Meanwhile, LOTS of stuff got better. Scout sentinels, armored sentinels, techpriests, regular priests, every russ, stormtroopers (depending on opinion), ratlings, primaris psykers, commissars, conscripts, SWSs, CCSs, PCSs, veterans, and deathstrikes all got better. The only "why didn't they make them better?" is rough riders, whose problems are with 6th ed rules much more than their codex rules (and they did get better relative to their last FAQ version).

We lost some stuff that was chaff (mogul and penal legionnaires won't be missed that much), but we also got new stuff.

The only loss of playstyle was that we can no longer do a mass outflanking list, and that's a sad loss, true. But not enough to spoil the entire codex over.

Plus, who knows what we'll get with dataslates.

I absolutely agree with Ailaros, with the exception of Penal Legionnaires. (I'll miss them! They were the cheapest ante unit to get a Russ squadron in my Space Marine lists.)

I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities.

I have the 2nd edition guard codex, the 5th edition, and now the 6th. I've just never gotten around to building up my guard army as I hate playing with unpainted models. I hope to get my army on the table before 30th edition. We'll see. For some reason I just like the idea of having a Hydra/Wyvern option for ordnance. One option for anti-air or anti-infantry without having 40000 possible combinations of tanks to pick from that you can't even buy from GW anyway.

I also like the way the HQ is laid out in the new book. It just seems a lot more streamlined. I have 2 solid lists of IG to work on now, one at 1000 pts and another just under 1500. With the old codex I must have had a dozen different lists I was competely unsure of. Now I feel as though my work is cut out for me and I can build this force with some confidence. Not sure if anyone else feels that way, but as a relative newcomer to guard I think this is great for recruiting new IG players.
.

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities. .

Simpler how?

It just seems a lot more streamlined.

In general I find the book less streamlined. You have to flick back and forth through the Codex more now than you did before.

I'm just excited to see multiple blobs run around being fearless for 25 points a piece. Tank Commanders are a bonus to me... rending Punisher, yes please. Everything else is just there.

But I am kinda bummed at the loss of the Medusa. I kinda really wanted those made into plastic kits. Oh well, I guess spamming melta is still good LoW defense.

Simpler in that there are fewer options for certain things, therefore less to consider and go back and forth on. having 2 tanks in place of 5 or 6 might suck for people who own the models already, but it makes my job easier knowing I'm going to have 3 hydras and 3 wyverns instead of coming up with permutations of half a dozen other possibilities. I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but that's how I feel about it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities. .

Simpler how?

It just seems a lot more streamlined.

In general I find the book less streamlined. You have to flick back and forth through the Codex more now than you did before.

Except for that handy reference section on the back. Orders, rules, and model and weapon statlines. The only thing to flip back and forth on is the occasional rule NOT in the back.

VanHallan wrote:
Simpler in that there are fewer options for certain things, therefore less to consider and go back and forth on. having 2 tanks in place of 5 or 6 might suck for people who own the models already, but it makes my job easier knowing I'm going to have 3 hydras and 3 wyverns instead of coming up with permutations of half a dozen other possibilities. I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but that's how I feel about it.

Yeah, that doesn't really sound all that simpler to me. Previously you had "Ordnance Battery" and there were 4 tanks in it... what's complicated about that? The Ordnance battery worked exactly the same as flame tank squadrons did and still do and exactly the same as Leman russ squadrons did and still do. If you can figure those things out, you could figure out the different Ordnance tanks pretty easily.

Dude, I'm just stating what i think. If you don't agree with my definition of simple, what difference does that make to you or I? You want to debate over my opinion for what purpose?

BTW the outflanking style is not completely dead. You can take a big blobb and stick Cypher in it to give it infiltrate (and therefore outflank).

I overall really like it. The only things I miss about the old codex are Al'Raihem, Marbo, and Yarrick's Reroll to wound on ogryn. Overall though I now feel that I can pick just about any unit and have a use for it. Even the PBS can hand out prescience whereas before they had a one trick pony that usually didn't work. The only thing that is just WTF why for me is the Hydra...why did it get worse?

Blobbs have some benefits but honestly 20 man conscript + priest units and HQ tanks are just as good or better and MSU still has some major advantages and vets with infiltrator doctrines and carapace got straight up cheaper.

The only playstyle that got nerfed down to impossible is the old aircav style. Though honestly that already didn't work as it was too easy to table. Now you take some platoons to hold for the first turn.

 Smokeydubbs wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities. .

Simpler how?

It just seems a lot more streamlined.

In general I find the book less streamlined. You have to flick back and forth through the Codex more now than you did before.

Except for that handy reference section on the back. Orders, rules, and model and weapon statlines. The only thing to flip back and forth on is the occasional rule NOT in the back.

If you're making an army and don't already know all the special rules for each and every troop, you have to flick back and forth more.

If you already know all the rules pretty well, already have an army list and just need a reference during a game, then yeah, there's the reference sheets in the back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VanHallan wrote:
Dude, I'm just stating what i think. If you don't agree with my definition of simple, what difference does that make to you or I? You want to debate over my opinion for what purpose?

No need to get your knickers in a twist, just commenting on the fact I don't think most people would equate losing 3 ordnance tanks with "simpler" when the same complexity in the same form still exists elsewhere in the codex. The reason I asked the question in the first place is it seemed odd anyone who has read both new and old codices would call one simpler than the other... they're all seem much the same for a newbie to understand IMO.

If you don't like discussion about things perhaps an internet forum is the wrong place for you.

Look to the here and now, and not the past...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Smokeydubbs wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities. .

Simpler how?

It just seems a lot more streamlined.

In general I find the book less streamlined. You have to flick back and forth through the Codex more now than you did before.

Except for that handy reference section on the back. Orders, rules, and model and weapon statlines. The only thing to flip back and forth on is the occasional rule NOT in the back.

If you're making an army and don't already know all the special rules for each and every troop, you have to flick back and forth more.

If you already know all the rules pretty well, already have an army list and just need a reference during a game, then yeah, there's the reference sheets in the back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VanHallan wrote:
Dude, I'm just stating what i think. If you don't agree with my definition of simple, what difference does that make to you or I? You want to debate over my opinion for what purpose?

No need to get your knickers in a twist, just commenting on the fact I don't think most people would equate losing 3 ordnance tanks with "simpler" when the same complexity in the same form still exists elsewhere in the codex. The reason I asked the question in the first place is it seemed odd anyone who has read both new and old codices would call one simpler than the other... they're all seem much the same for a newbie to understand IMO.

If you don't like discussion about things perhaps an internet forum is the wrong place for you.

I'll discuss things with you all day long, if you want to discuss something. You asked how I think its simpler, I told you how. 2 options is less than 4 last time i checked. To me that is simpler. If you don't think so, cool. I gathered that from the fact that you asked the question in the first place. But I gave you an answer, and you post 'well its not simpler.' I'm not going to discuss definitions of words with you, it is dumb.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
Thing is all my lists are dead now.

Well I used to always start with Marbo and a squad of vets led by Harker with demolitions and 3 melta guns. It worked great in pretty much every game I played. Had an assassination unit and a line breaker that played hell with enemy armor. Now? Marbo and Harker are on leave getting their nails done at a spa (both of my models are the Lt Kara Black variants from Studio McVey for those confused).

So I've been trying to adapt. I've repicked up Creed (minus Kell) and have been playing around with my combined arms force from before learning about the awesomeness of Harker and Marbo. Just try it out at small points levels as you make changes and work your way up. Start at 1000 and go from there. It's proven good for me thus far.

 BoomWolf wrote:


Because "just a guard blob with fearless" is somehow a BAD thing!?


Honestly, I put "unsure" in the poll, because I dislike it, as an OPPONENT. the new AM is superior to the old IG in almost every way, with the exception of nerf to the OP unit.

Clearly you haven't looked at trying to build a mechanized IG army with the new book...

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler.

There's more special rules, more orders, etc to keep track of (not a bad thing but definitely not more simple), plus *tons* of potential psychic stuff to think about now, and lots of FOC shennanigans. Hell, even the HQ options are weirder, for instance, in the old book you could buy a CCS as a whole carapace for 20pts, now you have to buy it for the 4 vets in the squad at 2ppm, the company commander has to buy it separately at 5pts, and the advisors can't get it at all. Now the Chimera's got these weird lasgun arrays in exchange for reduced fire points that are weird to work with, there's now another Platoon option in Elites, etc. There's a lot in this book that got a whole lot less simple.

For some reason I just like the idea of having a Hydra/Wyvern option for ordnance. One option for anti-air or anti-infantry without having 40000 possible combinations of tanks to pick from that you can't even buy from GW anyway.

And the Hydra got an unwarranted meganerf, while the Wyvern is likely to be a headache for everyone to deal with, for the IG player because it'll be super awkward to resolve, for the opponents because it's ridiculously powerful at muppet-mowing for 65pts.

The other tanks you could buy from GW, just not off the shelf in a closet-sized retail store.

Conflicted. Hydra got an unwarranted nerf, Wyvern feels like a headache, Chimera special rules are.... intriguing, and mechanized is odd. On the one hand, much of it got cheaper. On the other, the Executioner is personally ruined for me, artillery is almost entirely removed to FW (meaning I have to find the most recent rules again), the demolisher still sucks, and they still didn't really make sponsoons on a Leman Russ Battle tank worth it. Oh and the Taurox is redundant. Several units that needed buffing still didn't get it. Perhaps most negatively, a lot of special characters got removed (I miss mass flank and send in the next wave) and fluff for other regiments was torn out (which is stupid in a codex to represent the most diverse fighting force out there).

Besides that, tons of buffs everywhere.

 Vaktathi wrote:
the Wyvern is likely to be a headache for everyone to deal with, for the IG player because it'll be super awkward to resolve, for the opponents because it's ridiculously powerful at muppet-mowing for 65pts.

Agreed, wyverns scare me, especially in 3's. They're very good putting a respectable amount of wounds on enemy units for their points, cover be damned.

The only ordnance tanks you could buy from GW were the Manticore/DS and the Basilisk before this book....

Is here really no more marbo? That saddens me.

 Blacksails wrote:
What I like are that the playstyles I have played in the past are still viable, if not more. The Russ price drops were good, and the HQ units (commissars, priests, psykers, orders) all helped foot playstyles.

What I don't like was that the units that needed help, largely didn't get it and didn't really open up any options that were unusable before.

There's good and there's bad, but I don't think the book really opened up too much.

I mourn the loss of the fluff for other regiments though.

*Edit* Also, stormtroopers got platoons...why not rough riders? Would be so awesome.

When they make a plastic roughrider/roughrider command kit, then roughriders will get platoons.

 ansacs wrote:
BTW the outflanking style is not completely dead. You can take a big blobb and stick Cypher in it to give it infiltrate (and therefore outflank).

Yeah, but it's nowhere NEAR where it was before. Before you could have al'rahem outflank 142 dudes (plus independent chartacters), and outflank another 50, or a squad of three vehicles with creed, and a squad of vets with harker, and some penal legionnaires (for whatever reason), and a fistful of scout sentinels, and (if you go far back enough) some fliers if you didn't like sentinels. Heck, you could even throw ratlings in there.

In 5th ed, you could play an all-reserves army where everything outflanked. Now, the only way you can do even ONE unit outflanking (unless they're those sentinels or ratlings) is by being lucky with your warlord trait, or else doing some allying.

The only loss that isnt fluffy is Al'rahem. Ogryns can have commissars,priests and Primaris Psykers and can move around in dedicated transports. Yarrick is fantastic. Orders are great. and the wyvern... omg .... this is a monster.

and power of the machine... what is not to like!??!?

Ogryn did, unfortunately, bulk up to "very bulky" now. They're not going anywhere in squads bigger than 3 unless you're not taking characters with them.

I can see guardsmen getting into fun marine bike lists as allies. Sentinels are now cheap as chips and can carry weapons bike marines get green with envy over.

Your wyvern is godlike

Not to mention your tanks and infantry are all solid.

Ig are now the most promising "allies" army as they have tools to benefit every army. If the New guard codex was a sammich, it would be a pb&j cause there's always room for it

 lilgammer123 wrote:
I just got the new IG dex and their is a lot I don't enjoy such as most special characters gone (Marbo, Rahem, Chenkov, Kamir, and Bastonne), units gone(colossus, griffon, penal legion)

Most of those special characters, and penal legion, were never included in army lists; trimming unused units prevents a bloated codex multiple editions in the future. The loss of colossus/griffin is sad, though.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
most units that needed a boost go unchanged or worse (sentinels, rough riders, hydra, and ogryns), opponent chooses who commissar kills one-third of the time

Rough riders have the option to take two meltas again (and krak grenades default), which makes them a nice anti-tank unit. The new rules of deciding summary execution is better 2/3 of the time, imo.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
ogryns and bullgyns are so expensive (price and point wise), and the mentally ill looking taurox?

The price of a model, and how pleasing it looks does not affect IG variety and play styles.

Ultimately, no, I don't agree. I very much like the new codex.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
I just got the new IG dex and their is a lot I don't enjoy such as most special characters gone (Marbo, Rahem, Chenkov, Kamir, and Bastonne), units gone(colossus, griffon, penal legion), most units that needed a boost go unchanged or worse (sentinels, rough riders, hydra, and ogryns), opponent chooses who commissar kills one-third of the time, ogryns and bullgyns are so expensive (price and point wise), and the mentally ill looking taurox. Its not all bad of course but the regiment barrier is gone, so is, the variety, and no more different play styles. Of course there will be variety in models and paint but they now count as the same as any other regiment, no more regimental doctrines. Do you agree?

Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Rahem is awesome. I didn't understand why they did that. I suppose it was just too confusing for some people. However you might end up with his abilities anyways if you roll the right Warlord Trait, more or less.

Chenkov was stupid expensive and the whole idea of endless scoring units was... I dunno. Who even used the guy in actual tournies? No one.

Kamir is a loss. I dont understand that one, but Bastonne is another "not loss" you mention.

Now that the Death Strike does what it does..are you really going to take a colossus? Just saying. And Griffons were good for twinlinking the rest of the battery but on their own were no great loss.

I think half the examples you gave are irrelevant and the other half inconsequential. I also dont agree that Ogryns et al got worse. You have to look at these units in the perspective of their actual deployment with Psykers and other characters. It's not as if the designers are stupid enough to think you wont notice that Divination is going to get used, they orders will be coupled with it and that certain units are going to be dirty good with those adjustments!

And now that Leman russ's are reasonably priced you will see more styles. You will actually see armored corps. You will actually see an effort at a melee attributed force. You're going to see blobs. You're going to see airforces and you will see (effectively) special weapons MSU. It's all going to happen.

I like it but I miss Marbo. The Vendetta increase scares me as a Necron player --- How much will my Night Scythes go up? 40pts each?

VanHallan wrote:
I'll discuss things with you all day long, if you want to discuss something. You asked how I think its simpler, I told you how. 2 options is less than 4 last time i checked. To me that is simpler. If you don't think so, cool. I gathered that from the fact that you asked the question in the first place. But I gave you an answer, and you post 'well its not simpler.' I'm not going to discuss definitions of words with you, it is dumb.

Honestly I'm still not sure what you're getting your knickers in a twist about...

You: I think this codex is just MUCH simpler.
Me: Why?
You: Because they removed things like Ordnance tanks.
Me: I disagree with your opinion that removing Ordnance tanks makes the codex MUCH simpler.
You: Gets huffy that I disagreed with you.

Umm, ok.

If you think removing 3 tanks and replacing them with 1 tank and removing a bunch of special characters makes the codex MUCH simpler, ok, you're entitled to your opinion... and I'm entitled to feel your opinion is wrong

Whilst I miss the special characters and penal legionaries in particular, as well as lament the nerf to hydras, overall I really do like the new codex. Reallt can't wait for the FW unit updates to come out inline with the AM stuff now. I'm also glad rough riders are still in the codex full stop- hopefully this means they will have their own plastic kit (along with mandatory mini-dex) in the near future, what with not having any models available to buy at all anymore. I don't care if they are considered bad, they seem to have gotten a little better (for smaller units at least) in the new codex, so I'm going to try and make my Savlar chem-riders anyway. Would have been cool for them to allow Commissars to take a rough rider mount though.

helotaxi wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

If there were a US source for the FW books that might be a consideration but paying shipping from the UK with the postal rate and variable exchange rate has pretty well ruled that out for me. Not to mention the piecemeal arrangement of the rules within the FW books making it so you need half a dozen books to get all the rules you need for a single army. The price of the models I can mostly stomach but needing an $85 (current exchange rate plus shipping) book to field a single model that I want to use is beyond what I can accept.

The DKoK siege regiment list is currently available as a free download from FW's downloads page: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/fwDownloads

I guess my main issue is space magic and religious zealotry are all well and good for the 41st millennium but it seems sad to me that those are the only options for much synergy. I can make veteran forward sentries, who have performed reconnaissance on countless worlds but for some reason can't help call down artillery. Somehow a sentence blurted out by a commanding officer makes a 50 man unit have the efficacy of veterans or are all of a sudden able to target whoever they want in a unit and entirely circumvent how normal wounding works. Just seems like a bridge too far. The allies factor is just depressing, sluts, the lot of'm.

 Jancoran wrote:


Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Auto-include? He was amusing but hardly an auto-include. He certainly didn't make routine appearances in most tournament lists.

Now that the Death Strike does what it does..are you really going to take a colossus? Just saying.

Yes, because the Collossus can fire more than once and, more importantly, can fire on the first turn.

And Griffons were good for twinlinking the rest of the battery but on their own were no great loss.

They were great anti-infantry units, particularly for smaller games where heavier artillery wasn't cost effective. They are a pretty big loss. The Griffon has also had about the most ridiculous treatment by GW of any IG unit, being a codex unit in 2E/3E blackbook list/3E and 5E books but not in the 3.5E and 6E IG books.

You have to look at these units in the perspective of their actual deployment with Psykers and other characters. It's not as if the designers are stupid enough to think you wont notice that Divination is going to get used, they orders will be coupled with it and that certain units are going to be dirty good with those adjustments!

who knows what the designers think, they're certainly not consistent in such observations, if they exist.

And now that Leman russ's are reasonably priced you will see more styles. You will actually see armored corps.

*some* Russ tanks are more reasonably priced, but many of the units you'd naturally take with them either got more expensive, less effective, or both (e.g. Chimeras, Hydras, Valkyries, Vendettas, etc)

You will actually see an effort at a melee attributed force. You're going to see blobs. You're going to see airforces and you will see (effectively) special weapons MSU. It's all going to happen.

You saw blobs before, you saw airforces before. There's not anything new about that. You probably won't see melee forces beyond a couple random "Because I can" armies as ultimately CC IG still isn't (and really shouldn't be) viable. Special Weapons MSU lost as much as anything it gained through orders and divination through the increase in costs and decrease in effectiveness of transport options.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Auto-include? He was amusing but hardly an auto-include. He certainly didn't make routine appearances in most tournament lists.

Also I don't really see the logic of auto-include = should be removed from codex. If that were the case then Wave Serpents need to be removed from the next Eldar codex and Vendettas should have been removed from this guard codex.

The three redeeming things that stop this dex from being a complete and utter clusterfeth are:

Russes (both the points reduction and the ability to take them as HQ choices)
Divination
New orders

Other than that, the codex is a clusterfeth. Nobody asked for Wyverns, they removed a ton of cool artillery options, nixed a bunch of amazing special characters, nerfed the Chimera (of all things that they could have nerfed...the Chimera? Really?), nerfed the Hydra, and basically ballsed up all of the variety the dex ever had.


In 5th edition, you had a TON of variety: foot guard, Mech guard, etc.. I played a foot-mech hybrid null deployment IG army that is literally impossible to play now because of 6th edition rules. Null deployment was awesome and, unlike gunlinehammer, actually took a fair bit of finesse to run well. When you ran it well, it was brutal. A bunch of Psyker buffed Russes running ape gak behind a blob sounds boring by comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mythra wrote:
I like it but I miss Marbo. The Vendetta increase scares me as a Necron player --- How much will my Night Scythes go up? 40pts each?

Hopefully more. That unit is undercosted by about half. The flying bakery has always been fething stupid TBH.

Generally speaking the book look spretty good. The loss of units was a bit head scratching, but a this point not unprecedented. My guess is that the old metal models didn't get any money in the budget so they got axed. The Ordnance Battery was largely axed because FW makes and sells the models and their rules in the Imperial Armour books and GW seems to be backing off of borrowing from them again.

Hmmm.... Is this the Tyranid codex all over again? I am sure I have read some of these replies when the Nid codex came out 4 months ago.

Deja vu?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Ordnance Battery was largely axed because FW makes and sells the models and their rules in the Imperial Armour books and GW seems to be backing off of borrowing from them again.

I think the reason is either, a) they were over their 104 page limit and needed to cut something b) they wanted to sell as many of the Wyverns as possible.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Ordnance Battery was largely axed because FW makes and sells the models and their rules in the Imperial Armour books and GW seems to be backing off of borrowing from them again.

I think the reason is either, a) they were over their 104 page limit and needed to cut something b) they wanted to sell as many of the Wyverns as possible.

Wyvern is part of a dual-kit with the Hydra, all the had to do b is buff the Hydra a bit more.

And considering how thick the Marine book is I don't think there is a page limit.

The AM codex lacks AA units and I don't have the cash or the credit card to order primaris psykers and priests from GW online store.

I was also runing 3 vendettas and 3 chimer vet squads , so my list more or less doesn't work right now. I would have to buy a lot of models ,specialy lemman russes and I am not sure if the turrets for the ones that are good are in the LR box , because I only have 2 , but they were old.

If someone has the cash to buy all the new stuff , then he is probably happy . I on the other hand don't know what to do with my veterans and 3ed and probably second vendetta. The SW ally I used to run don't fit in to my list either , neither does my medusa which suddenly , became illegal .

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Ordnance Battery was largely axed because FW makes and sells the models and their rules in the Imperial Armour books and GW seems to be backing off of borrowing from them again.

I think the reason is either, a) they were over their 104 page limit and needed to cut something b) they wanted to sell as many of the Wyverns as possible.

Wyvern is part of a dual-kit with the Hydra, all the had to do b is buff the Hydra a bit more.

And considering how thick the Marine book is I don't think there is a page limit.

I don't think anyone at GW is able to figure out how to actually make rules that sell models, they frequently release models with mediocre to terrible rules. The Hydra was already bad and for some reason it was further nerfed.

As for the page limit, the SM book is larger and more expensive and expansive, but I think every other 6th edition book has been 104 pages and every standard priced supplemental codex has been 72 pages (Imperial Knights was cheaper and only 64 pages). I'm not going to go as far as saying it's a hard limit, but it's definitely some sort of limit they've set themselves for standard priced codices.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Auto-include? He was amusing but hardly an auto-include. He certainly didn't make routine appearances in most tournament lists.

Also I don't really see the logic of auto-include = should be removed from codex. If that were the case then Wave Serpents need to be removed from the next Eldar codex and Vendettas should have been removed from this guard codex.

one doesnt require the other to br true. Marbo wa in tourney lists. elites were underused bby ig and Marbo was an incredibly easy decision. make him more spendy, no one takes him. less or more expensie, everyone takes him. there was no winning, from a design perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Auto-include? He was amusing but hardly an auto-include. He certainly didn't make routine appearances in most tournament lists.

Now that the Death Strike does what it does..are you really going to take a colossus? Just saying.

Yes, because the Collossus can fire more than once and, more importantly, can fire on the first turn.

And Griffons were good for twinlinking the rest of the battery but on their own were no great loss.

They were great anti-infantry units, particularly for smaller games where heavier artillery wasn't cost effective. They are a pretty big loss. The Griffon has also had about the most ridiculous treatment by GW of any IG unit, being a codex unit in 2E/3E blackbook list/3E and 5E books but not in the 3.5E and 6E IG books.

You have to look at these units in the perspective of their actual deployment with Psykers and other characters. It's not as if the designers are stupid enough to think you wont notice that Divination is going to get used, they orders will be coupled with it and that certain units are going to be dirty good with those adjustments!

who knows what the designers think, they're certainly not consistent in such observations, if they exist.

And now that Leman russ's are reasonably priced you will see more styles. You will actually see armored corps.

*some* Russ tanks are more reasonably priced, but many of the units you'd naturally take with them either got more expensive, less effective, or both (e.g. Chimeras, Hydras, Valkyries, Vendettas, etc)

You will actually see an effort at a melee attributed force. You're going to see blobs. You're going to see airforces and you will see (effectively) special weapons MSU. It's all going to happen.

You saw blobs before, you saw airforces before. There's not anything new about that. You probably won't see melee forces beyond a couple random "Because I can" armies as ultimately CC IG still isn't (and really shouldn't be) viable. Special Weapons MSU lost as much as anything it gained through orders and divination through the increase in costs and decrease in effectiveness of transport options.

i see you typing but i dont see you reasoning. Marbo not auto include? lol. as auto include as any death strike will be. Leman russ's are less. you cant argue that. chimeras needed to change. FIVE firing from the back hatch made sense to you?. and your comment on GW's designers tells me all I need to know about your bias.

look. you're acting dismayed because the cheese got moved. it gets moved in every new codex. Its common to every war games new version.

Davor wrote:
Hmmm.... Is this the Tyranid codex all over again? I am sure I have read some of these replies when the Nid codex came out 4 months ago.

Deja vu?

LOL! Hardly.

 Jancoran wrote:

 lilgammer123 wrote:
I just got the new IG dex and their is a lot I don't enjoy such as most special characters gone (Marbo, Rahem, Chenkov, Kamir, and Bastonne), units gone(colossus, griffon, penal legion), most units that needed a boost go unchanged or worse (sentinels, rough riders, hydra, and ogryns), opponent chooses who commissar kills one-third of the time, ogryns and bullgyns are so expensive (price and point wise), and the mentally ill looking taurox. Its not all bad of course but the regiment barrier is gone, so is, the variety, and no more different play styles. Of course there will be variety in models and paint but they now count as the same as any other regiment, no more regimental doctrines. Do you agree?

Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Rahem is awesome. I didn't understand why they did that. I suppose it was just too confusing for some people. However you might end up with his abilities anyways if you roll the right Warlord Trait, more or less.

Chenkov was stupid expensive and the whole idea of endless scoring units was... I dunno. Who even used the guy in actual tournies? No one.

Kamir is a loss. I dont understand that one, but Bastonne is another "not loss" you mention.

Now that the Death Strike does what it does..are you really going to take a colossus? Just saying. And Griffons were good for twinlinking the rest of the battery but on their own were no great loss.

I think half the examples you gave are irrelevant and the other half inconsequential. I also dont agree that Ogryns et al got worse. You have to look at these units in the perspective of their actual deployment with Psykers and other characters. It's not as if the designers are stupid enough to think you wont notice that Divination is going to get used, they orders will be coupled with it and that certain units are going to be dirty good with those adjustments!

And now that Leman russ's are reasonably priced you will see more styles. You will actually see armored corps. You will actually see an effort at a melee attributed force. You're going to see blobs. You're going to see airforces and you will see (effectively) special weapons MSU. It's all going to happen.

I wouldn't quite say all LR tanks are reasonably priced honestly (and I still dislike how Executioners now blow themself up all the time). I still miss Rahem (which by the way you don't gain his ability), Chenkov (more because I liked siege infantry that bring in reinforcements), and Kamir. Artillery is admittedly still in FW but I'm sad to see it gone.

Only thing that still upset me was that the standard battle tank and demolisher didnt get some kinda rule to allow them to fire all their weapons at normal bs rather than still being forced to snap fire everything else.

 Jancoran wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Auto-include? He was amusing but hardly an auto-include. He certainly didn't make routine appearances in most tournament lists.

Also I don't really see the logic of auto-include = should be removed from codex. If that were the case then Wave Serpents need to be removed from the next Eldar codex and Vendettas should have been removed from this guard codex.

one doesnt require the other to br true. Marbo wa in tourney lists. elites were underused bby ig and Marbo was an incredibly easy decision. make him more spendy, no one takes him. less or more expensie, everyone takes him. there was no winning, from a design perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Marbo was an auto include which means probably that he shouldn't be in the codex. he was something for nothing pretty much.

Auto-include? He was amusing but hardly an auto-include. He certainly didn't make routine appearances in most tournament lists.

Now that the Death Strike does what it does..are you really going to take a colossus? Just saying.

Yes, because the Collossus can fire more than once and, more importantly, can fire on the first turn.

And Griffons were good for twinlinking the rest of the battery but on their own were no great loss.

They were great anti-infantry units, particularly for smaller games where heavier artillery wasn't cost effective. They are a pretty big loss. The Griffon has also had about the most ridiculous treatment by GW of any IG unit, being a codex unit in 2E/3E blackbook list/3E and 5E books but not in the 3.5E and 6E IG books.

You have to look at these units in the perspective of their actual deployment with Psykers and other characters. It's not as if the designers are stupid enough to think you wont notice that Divination is going to get used, they orders will be coupled with it and that certain units are going to be dirty good with those adjustments!

who knows what the designers think, they're certainly not consistent in such observations, if they exist.

And now that Leman russ's are reasonably priced you will see more styles. You will actually see armored corps.

*some* Russ tanks are more reasonably priced, but many of the units you'd naturally take with them either got more expensive, less effective, or both (e.g. Chimeras, Hydras, Valkyries, Vendettas, etc)

You will actually see an effort at a melee attributed force. You're going to see blobs. You're going to see airforces and you will see (effectively) special weapons MSU. It's all going to happen.

You saw blobs before, you saw airforces before. There's not anything new about that. You probably won't see melee forces beyond a couple random "Because I can" armies as ultimately CC IG still isn't (and really shouldn't be) viable. Special Weapons MSU lost as much as anything it gained through orders and divination through the increase in costs and decrease in effectiveness of transport options.

i see you typing but i dont see you reasoning. Marbo not auto include? lol. as auto include as any death strike will be. Leman russ's are less. you cant argue that. chimeras needed to change. FIVE firing from the back hatch made sense to you?. and your comment on GW's designers tells me all I need to know about your bias.

look. you're acting dismayed because the cheese got moved. it gets moved in every new codex. Its common to every war games new version.

Why not make the answer be making the other elites better? As per bias, it's arguable you have the same. Look at GW, we really know nothing. They don't have faq anymore, even before they stopped using them, and they have already given rules like PRECISION SHOT which people are debating on because it is phenomenally vaguely written (even if RAI seems pretty obvious). These are the same guys that made a unit unplayable in the daemon codex and never fixed the thing and made becoming a daemon prince by a random roll frequently a bad thing. They also largely tossed out all fluff for two regiments.

 Jancoran wrote:
one doesnt require the other to br true. Marbo wa in tourney lists. elites were underused bby ig and Marbo was an incredibly easy decision. make him more spendy, no one takes him. less or more expensie, everyone takes him. there was no winning, from a design perspective.

I would think the solution would be rather blatantly obvious there...fix the other Elites such that they aren't under-used anymore? Just a thought, I mean, that's where I'd have started.

Just because the other options suck doesn't mean it's good game design to remove the one that doesn't.

I mean, it would have been nice for everyone had they made Ogryns useable, Stormtroopers (or "Scions" now...) something other than DS'ing Vets with Armor Piercing Nerf guns, Psyker Battle Squads (or "Wyrdvane" whatevers) something other than a less capable and more expensive version of an HQ unit (that takes no HQ slots and can be taken in 3's). There are a lot of other options there.

i see you typing but i dont see you reasoning.

So you saw the words, but didn't actually bother to read and comprehend them then...

Marbo not auto include? lol. as auto include as any death strike will be.

Look at the IG lists of the last couple years, especially ones that ranked in larger tournaments. If you took the time to look, you'd see Marbo is in very few of them indeed, he isn't even in a majority of them. I think you're about the only person left who thinks Marbo was an auto-include.

The Deathstrike likewise isn't going to be anymore auto-include than anything else. It might be *included* now, but it's certainly not an auto-include. It's 160pts that does *nothing* turn 1 (possibly the most important turn for many IG armies) and then *might* do something on *one* turn thereafter. The only thing that changed was they standardized the blast from a variable 8"-12" radius to a median 10" radius, and they made it more likely to get launched on turn 2. That doesn't mean its an auto-include.

Leman russ's are less. you cant argue that.

As I said before, *SOME* Leman Russ tanks are less. The basic LRBT is the same, the Demolisher went *UP* and the Executioner got cheaper but now faces a very real chance of killing itself over the course of a game. I will indeed argue that all Russ tanks are less because they are not.

chimeras needed to change. FIVE firing from the back hatch made sense to you?.

Seems to work fine on many real life vehicles. The vehicle that the Chimera was based off of, the Soviet BMP, can actually have potentially up to 6 guys firing out of the top of it.

It's not like the 6E vehicle/transport changes didn't already take care of any chance of Mech IG being particularly spectacular, one will notice they too largely disappeared from event lineups and certainly are basically nonexistent from top places in most big 40k events. A price hike, firing point nerf, and a more complex replacement rule certainly weren't warranted on top of that.

I mean, I understand the change to Vendettas, I might have done it differently, but I'm not overly butthurt about them, but there wasn't any good gameplay/balance reason to nerf the Chimera.

and your comment on GW's designers tells me all I need to know about your bias.

And you mean...what by that? It's a rather lame evade, as you didn't actually address anything specific I brought up.

look. you're acting dismayed because the cheese got moved. it gets moved in every new codex. Its common to every war games new version.

Well you sure got me

That's it, I'm butthurt the cheese got moved, yes. It's not that that the huge grip of units that needed help largely didn't get it, it's not that several units that didn't need to be nerfed got nerfed, it's not that we had a huge clutch of characters and units removed without any good gameplay/balance reasons, it's not that basically all the new releases are largely redundant and boring, it's it's obviously just because I'm mad the cheese got moved.

Please, you can do better than that.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:In 5th edition, you had a TON of variety: foot guard, Mech guard, etc.. I played a foot-mech hybrid null deployment IG army that is literally impossible to play now because of 6th edition

What? The codex removed exactly one play style - mass outflanking. The codex removed no other play styles. Your complaint about null lists is with 6th edition, not with the guard codex.

Davor wrote:Hmmm.... Is this the Tyranid codex all over again?

Deja vu?

A little bit. Things stayed basically the same, but instead of being happy with it, people are outraged that their new codex didn't make them more powerful, so every little change must be drug up as a tragedy that they must martyr themselves to fix.

Like the above, for example. 6th ed took away my null list, therefore the new guard codex is merciless crap, and you must take pity on me. 6th ed didn't make my rough riders any better, and took away those penal legionnaires I never used, therefore the new guard codex is merciless crap, and you must take pity on me. The new guard codex gave me new units I didn't ask for, and don't want to play with, therefore the new guard codex is merciless crap, and you must take pity on me. PITY ME!

PITY MEEEE!!!!!!!

So yeah. Not that unlike the new tyranid codex in a way.

tankboy145 wrote:Only thing that still upset me was that the standard battle tank and demolisher didnt get some kinda rule to allow them to fire all their weapons at normal bs rather than still being forced to snap fire everything else.

Yeah, and that's kind of unfortunate. There are three decisions that they made that I genuinely don't understand. The first is the price hike in the devil dog, the second is the lolwhut nerf of the hydra, and the third is making demolishers MORE expensive. It's enough to make me think it was a typo that just nobody noticed. Why the demolisher is 50 points more expensive than a vindicator makes no sense to me.

My name is Blacksails.

And I approve of Vaktathi's message.

 Ailaros wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:In 5th edition, you had a TON of variety: foot guard, Mech guard, etc.. I played a foot-mech hybrid null deployment IG army that is literally impossible to play now because of 6th edition

What? The codex removed exactly one play style - mass outflanking. The codex removed no other play styles. Your complaint about null lists is with 6th edition, not with the guard codex.

It also removed mass infiltration (via Forward Sentries, Harker, Marbo, etc.), and spamming Chimeras is no longer really viable. Try playing a few games with some of the units that you love / hate so much before you give advice on them.

I don't need a tiny pool of subjective data points to prove what a simple deconstruction of the rules plainly shows.

For example, like how it shows that spamming chimeras is going to be pretty much the same as it was before. Chimeras get +15 points, and vets get -10. Chimeras lose 3 fire points, but gain free lasguns that can independently target, and while you might have to (gasp!) actually get dudes out of their transport once they reach their target destination, they now benefit from better orders (which they could never take while embarked).

Of course, I could find that all out by guessing after playing some games, or I could find it all out by just reading my codex.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't need a tiny pool of subjective data points to prove what a simple deconstruction of the rules plainly shows.

For example, like how it shows that spamming chimeras is going to be pretty much the same as it was before. Chimeras get +15 points, and vets get -10. Chimeras lose 3 fire points, but gain free lasguns that can independently target, and while you might have to (gasp!) actually get dudes out of their transport once they reach their target destination, they now benefit from better orders (which they could never take while embarked).

Of course, I could find that all out by guessing after playing some games, or I could find it all out by just reading my codex.

Yawn.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't need a tiny pool of subjective data points to prove what a simple deconstruction of the rules plainly shows.

For example, like how it shows that spamming chimeras is going to be pretty much the same as it was before. Chimeras get +15 points, and vets get -10. Chimeras lose 3 fire points, but gain free lasguns that can independently target, and while you might have to (gasp!) actually get dudes out of their transport once they reach their target destination, they now benefit from better orders (which they could never take while embarked).

Of course, I could find that all out by guessing after playing some games, or I could find it all out by just reading my codex.

FWIW, Chimeras only went up by 10, so mechvets are exactly exactly the same price, except with a slight Chimera nerf where you lose 1 special weapon that you could other wise have used. On the other hand, you gain six lasguns, so.... *shrug*

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't need a tiny pool of subjective data points to prove what a simple deconstruction of the rules plainly shows.

For example, like how it shows that spamming chimeras is going to be pretty much the same as it was before. Chimeras get +15 points, and vets get -10. Chimeras lose 3 fire points, but gain free lasguns that can independently target, and while you might have to (gasp!) actually get dudes out of their transport once they reach their target destination, they now benefit from better orders (which they could never take while embarked).

Of course, I could find that all out by guessing after playing some games, or I could find it all out by just reading my codex.

FWIW, Chimeras only went up by 10, so mechvets are exactly exactly the same price, except with a slight Chimera nerf where you lose 1 special weapon that you could other wise have used. On the other hand, you gain six lasguns, so.... *shrug*

Actually you only gain 4 lasguns, and they're at lower Bs.

So you're trading 3 special weapon + 2 lasgun shots at Bs4 for 2 special weapon shots at Bs4 + 6 lasgun shots at only Bs3.

Chimera vets only get a slight nerf. The Chimera in general got a larger nerf which it really didn't need. IMO the vets needed the nerf, not the Chimera.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't need a tiny pool of subjective data points to prove what a simple deconstruction of the rules plainly shows.

For example, like how it shows that spamming chimeras is going to be pretty much the same as it was before. Chimeras get +15 points, and vets get -10. Chimeras lose 3 fire points, but gain free lasguns that can independently target, and while you might have to (gasp!) actually get dudes out of their transport once they reach their target destination, they now benefit from better orders (which they could never take while embarked).

Of course, I could find that all out by guessing after playing some games, or I could find it all out by just reading my codex.

FWIW, Chimeras only went up by 10, so mechvets are exactly exactly the same price, except with a slight Chimera nerf where you lose 1 special weapon that you could other wise have used. On the other hand, you gain six lasguns, so.... *shrug*

Actually you only gain 4 lasguns, and they're at lower Bs.

So you're trading 3 special weapon + 2 lasgun shots at Bs4 for 2 special weapon shots at Bs4 + 6 lasgun shots at only Bs3.

Chimera vets only get a slight nerf. The Chimera in general got a larger nerf which it really didn't need. IMO the vets needed the nerf, not the Chimera.

It's an odd catch isn't it? Vets themself didn't really need a nerf, they were only functional if mechanized, not footslogging but chimera vets arguably did.

 StarTrotter wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't need a tiny pool of subjective data points to prove what a simple deconstruction of the rules plainly shows.

For example, like how it shows that spamming chimeras is going to be pretty much the same as it was before. Chimeras get +15 points, and vets get -10. Chimeras lose 3 fire points, but gain free lasguns that can independently target, and while you might have to (gasp!) actually get dudes out of their transport once they reach their target destination, they now benefit from better orders (which they could never take while embarked).

Of course, I could find that all out by guessing after playing some games, or I could find it all out by just reading my codex.

FWIW, Chimeras only went up by 10, so mechvets are exactly exactly the same price, except with a slight Chimera nerf where you lose 1 special weapon that you could other wise have used. On the other hand, you gain six lasguns, so.... *shrug*

Actually you only gain 4 lasguns, and they're at lower Bs.

So you're trading 3 special weapon + 2 lasgun shots at Bs4 for 2 special weapon shots at Bs4 + 6 lasgun shots at only Bs3.

Chimera vets only get a slight nerf. The Chimera in general got a larger nerf which it really didn't need. IMO the vets needed the nerf, not the Chimera.

It's an odd catch isn't it? Vets themself didn't really need a nerf, they were only functional if mechanized, not footslogging but chimera vets arguably did.

IMO vets needed a nerf of some sort. There's really never been any point taking a special weapons squad not necessarily because they are bad but vets are so much better. I know I'm not going to be popular for suggesting it, but I think vets needed a drop in the number of special weapons they can take. Or maybe make it varied to represent that the weapons aren't necessarily assigned but rather "acquired" over the vet's career (so you can take multiple special weapons, just not of the same type). I think they were better costing 10pts more with krak grenades, as then the grenades worked like a "tax" for taking lots of vets.

Vets were more common than regular infantry, at least in most armies I've seen. Now they're 10pts cheaper for a squad I don't really see that changing.

I was saying something similar but in fact more general in a thread that got moved, berated and then locked so I don't have a great deal of confidence when I say this but yes, it seems GW are either making rushed designs into products to counter market competition -or they just have more money than sense and are not as careful in the fluff to product ratio that they once were. Although there are certainly some nice new things on balance with the axe there is little that has improved the game. I don't think we are moving through a series of better, more enjoyable rules rather things are just shuffled. However since weaponry and orders and army lists seem to be creating an overall inflation where everything gets more powerful apart from the lasgun... I wonder what 7th ed will look like. The relative boom in recent years in the spread of codices and alternative rulebooks; planet fall, urban, apocalypse etc just seems like marketing ploys. Prices are not likely to drop any time soon either so GW will continue to do as they please, I can't see any codex enraging fans so much that they turn their backs in droves. I thnk proposed rules amongst friends reflecting beloved fluff is the best way to go, mix and match bewteen eds, I'm sure there are loads of players that like to see regimental variety.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't need a tiny pool of subjective data points to prove what a simple deconstruction of the rules plainly shows.

For example, like how it shows that spamming chimeras is going to be pretty much the same as it was before. Chimeras get +15 points, and vets get -10. Chimeras lose 3 fire points, but gain free lasguns that can independently target, and while you might have to (gasp!) actually get dudes out of their transport once they reach their target destination, they now benefit from better orders (which they could never take while embarked).

Of course, I could find that all out by guessing after playing some games, or I could find it all out by just reading my codex.

FWIW, Chimeras only went up by 10, so mechvets are exactly exactly the same price, except with a slight Chimera nerf where you lose 1 special weapon that you could other wise have used. On the other hand, you gain six lasguns, so.... *shrug*

Actually you only gain 4 lasguns, and they're at lower Bs.

So you're trading 3 special weapon + 2 lasgun shots at Bs4 for 2 special weapon shots at Bs4 + 6 lasgun shots at only Bs3.

Chimera vets only get a slight nerf. The Chimera in general got a larger nerf which it really didn't need. IMO the vets needed the nerf, not the Chimera.

It's an odd catch isn't it? Vets themself didn't really need a nerf, they were only functional if mechanized, not footslogging but chimera vets arguably did.

IMO vets needed a nerf of some sort. There's really never been any point taking a special weapons squad not necessarily because they are bad but vets are so much better. I know I'm not going to be popular for suggesting it, but I think vets needed a drop in the number of special weapons they can take. Or maybe make it varied to represent that the weapons aren't necessarily assigned but rather "acquired" over the vet's career (so you can take multiple special weapons, just not of the same type). I think they were better costing 10pts more with krak grenades, as then the grenades worked like a "tax" for taking lots of vets.

Vets were more common than regular infantry, at least in most armies I've seen. Now they're 10pts cheaper for a squad I don't really see that changing.

There really isn't anything wrong with veterans, one will notice that they only really worked when mechanized (either via Chimera or Valkyrie). The problem with Special Weapon Squads is they serve the same role as Vets, but can't take a transport to get them where they need to be. If they could take a Chimera, you'd probably see them a whole lot more often.

Besides, Vets are there to represent not just "scarred survivors" but also elite regiments and units like combat engineers. Making them take different guns would ruin their utility, you'd never see them at all if you did that to them.

 Iron Wings wrote:
...it seems GW are either making rushed designs into products to counter market competition -or they just have more money than sense and are not as careful in the fluff to product ratio that they once were...

Taking that out of context just to point out that the rush in designs has to do with the accelerated release schedule for sure. People didn't seem to understand before that faster =/= better in terms of releases. The less time GW has to spend on the books means less: new units, new fluff, time spent trying to balance things (I say "trying" because they do TRY, they just don't always succeed) and generally less time to get stuff done that we demand. We don't like to admit it, but you can't get everything without losing something and the faster releases that we've been banging on for YEARS have a price and everything else suffers a little bit for it.

 Vaktathi wrote:


That's it, I'm butthurt the cheese got moved, yes. It's not that that the huge grip of units that needed help largely didn't get it, it's not that several units that didn't need to be nerfed got nerfed, it's not that we had a huge clutch of characters and units removed without any good gameplay/balance reasons, it's not that basically all the new releases are largely redundant and boring, it's it's obviously just because I'm mad the cheese got moved.

Please, you can do better than that.

I fail to see how the "grip" of units that needed improvement didn't get it. I see nothing but improvement in the elites. There were gameplay reasons to remove Marbo. And...if you're that "bored:... dont play it.

Yes. I think it IS the cheese. Like it is with almost every other codex where these threads get steam. Don't you tire of this list of glittering generalities like "largely redundant" and "not viable". At some point, people, you just gotta DEAL. As badly as I want to punch someone in the face for the DELUGE of rules supplements, I know that I love the ever living sh** out of these models. I want to play with them. I don't CARE that much that someones pet model got removed. I'm the one who lost what I thought was a GREAT addition to any list, and I'm not belly aching about it. I will adapt and I will move on. I will have fun. I will not sit here and dwell.

You should do the same. Really.

 Jancoran wrote:
There were gameplay reasons to remove Marbo.

No, there really weren't. He might have been an "auto-take", but that was primarily for fluff reasons. In pure gameplay terms Marbo wasn't all that impressive, he was cheap but usually he just did 65 points worth of damage and then died. Take away his awesome story and hardly anyone would have been interested. But since he was such a fun and popular character even competitive players were often willing to pay the cheap 65 point tax to bring their favorite model. Marbo was the perfect example of 40k at it's best: a fun and fluffy character that is also balanced well enough to see regular use instead of just sitting on the display shelf. GW should have been aiming to make more units like Marbo, not to remove them.

And really, what exactly was gained? The elites section didn't get any real improvement (ratlings are still terrible, ogryns are still too expensive, and storm troopers lost everything that made them useful to get their cost reduction), and there's no Marbo-like unit to replace him. It's purely a loss, and one that makes absolutely no sense.

 Ailaros wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:In 5th edition, you had a TON of variety: foot guard, Mech guard, etc.. I played a foot-mech hybrid null deployment IG army that is literally impossible to play now because of 6th edition

What? The codex removed exactly one play style - mass outflanking. The codex removed no other play styles. Your complaint about null lists is with 6th edition, not with the guard codex.

Somehow, the codex managed to hit me most where I thought it would hit me least.

Goodbye six outflanking chimeras. Gone, but not forgotten. :(

 daedalus wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:In 5th edition, you had a TON of variety: foot guard, Mech guard, etc.. I played a foot-mech hybrid null deployment IG army that is literally impossible to play now because of 6th edition

What? The codex removed exactly one play style - mass outflanking. The codex removed no other play styles. Your complaint about null lists is with 6th edition, not with the guard codex.

Somehow, the codex managed to hit me most where I thought it would hit me least.

Goodbye six outflanking chimeras. Gone, but not forgotten. :(

Something about being hit where you least expect it feel oddly fitting in this case.... huh.

Blacksails wrote:What I like are that the playstyles I have played in the past are still viable, if not more. The Russ price drops were good, and the HQ units (commissars, priests, psykers, orders) all helped foot playstyles.

What I don't like was that the units that needed help, largely didn't get it and didn't really open up any options that were unusable before.

There's good and there's bad, but I don't think the book really opened up too much.

I mourn the loss of the fluff for other regiments though.

*Edit* Also, stormtroopers got platoons...why not rough riders? Would be so awesome.

This, pretty much.

On the balance, I don't think we saw that big a change. Lost some and gained some...

But it was a wasted opportunity to fix what needed fixing and expand the Guard to encompass a variety of play styles. We still don't have a proper armoured regiment, nor cavalry squadrons or light infantry platoons. Of course, being as cynical as I am in regards to Games Workshop, I never expected this to happen anyway as they're not in the habit of giving stuff away for free when they can instead sell you yet another overpriced codex.

StarTrotter wrote:Conflicted. Hydra got an unwarranted nerf, Wyvern feels like a headache, Chimera special rules are.... intriguing, and mechanized is odd. On the one hand, much of it got cheaper. On the other, the Executioner is personally ruined for me, artillery is almost entirely removed to FW (meaning I have to find the most recent rules again), the demolisher still sucks, and they still didn't really make sponsoons on a Leman Russ Battle tank worth it. Oh and the Taurox is redundant. Several units that needed buffing still didn't get it. Perhaps most negatively, a lot of special characters got removed (I miss mass flank and send in the next wave) and fluff for other regiments was torn out (which is stupid in a codex to represent the most diverse fighting force out there).

Besides that, tons of buffs everywhere.

I agree in regards to the Taurox. Disregarding for a moment that it's one of the ugliest models ever released, I just can't quite see where it fits in. It's all-terrain, yes, but it's not a command vehicle as the Chimera is. It has a Battlecannon (of sorts), yes, but using Forge World rules the Chimera has a much greater variety of weapons available.

I just can't see what the point is. It's not nearly good enough to make it an auto-include in comparison to the Chimera, so why did they bother to release it? They could have made a new pseudo super heavy tank on the lines of some of the tanks that Krieg got in Epic. Now, that would have been interesting, but instead we get a fugly unit that's in direct competition with the Chimera which is, in my opinion, a much better choice.

They made that joke instead of new, plastic Rough Riders...and then got rid of the griffon, again.

Overall kinda like it.

Yes, vendettas got nerfed, but they're still the only fast attack choice worth a damn. (maybe armored sentinels with las or plas will be a surprise hit?)

Elite choices are all bad. The only elite choice worth a damn (psyker battle squad) got nerfed into the ground.

Love the bigger focus on the non-traditional russes. Love the buff to vet doctrines. Love the buff to deathstrike. Love the tank commanders. Love Pask buff. blah blah blah

 Jancoran wrote:

I fail to see how the "grip" of units that needed improvement didn't get it. I see nothing but improvement in the elites.

Ogryns are still overcosted with crap Ld and require babysitting. Stormtroopers/Scions got cheaper but lost a ton of abilities and capabilities while their core problem remains perfectly intact, that of being an AP3 delivery system that has neither the range, weapon strength, nor resiliency to use that AP3 effectively. PBS/Wyrdvane psykers have been made largely redundant by higher Ld (and similarly costed) HQ options that don't require FoC slots. Ratlings got a small buff that's relatively inconsequential.

There were gameplay reasons to remove Marbo.

Aside from just being the one useable choice amongst a bunch of bad ones? I haven't seen one pointed out yet. Nobody but you thinks it was an auto-include, and the other elites being bad aren't Marbo's problem.

And...if you're that "bored:... dont play it.

I'm not, hence why those Taurox boxes are sitting on the shelves unsold at my local store.

Yes. I think it IS the cheese. Like it is with almost every other codex where these threads get steam. Don't you tire of this list of glittering generalities like "largely redundant" and "not viable". At some point, people, you just gotta DEAL.

"deal wit' it"/"L2P" retorts aren't really saying anything, instead of actually analyzing the arguments presented as to why people think the design changes were bad, your response is "just deal". That doesn't add much to the conversation.

As badly as I want to punch someone in the face for the DELUGE of rules supplements, I know that I love the ever living sh** out of these models. I want to play with them. I don't CARE that much that someones pet model got removed.

So you "love the ever living sh** out of these models" but don't care when they're removed, or is it only so long as *your* models don't get removed? Either way, I don't see where this was supposed to persuade me about anything.

I'm the one who lost what I thought was a GREAT addition to any list, and I'm not belly aching about it. I will adapt and I will move on. I will have fun. I will not sit here and dwell.

Then don't enter the conversation. You had a choice to enter the conversation or not. People came to an internet message board about their tabletop miniatures game that they play and are voicing their opinions on said internet message board, and your problem is that you want everyone to just "shut up and deal"...in a discussion thread on an internet message board. Kinda defeats the purpose of an internet message board where people come to discuss things.

As is, ultimately this makes just about any army I've run out of the codex the last few years both more expensive and less capable, even the lists without any vets, vendettas or marbo. For instance, my mechanized infantry company (largely just CCS, infantry platoons, devil dogs, and hydras) is now ~150pts more expensive, easier to kill, has less utility from its transports and tanks, and to get more use out of the new stuff (like orders and psykers) that fit the army, it must put itself into much more dangerous situations than it had to before to take full advantage of all those.

Were this a videogame, that wouldn't be as huge a problem, as the costs of switching to a new playstyle aren't particularly huge. When I have a rather hilarious amount of money and time invested in models in an army however. To take best advantage of the new book, effectively I'd need to build half an army over again, and for what IG cost, is largely similar to buying a new MEQ army, several hundred dollars.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:In 5th edition, you had a TON of variety: foot guard, Mech guard, etc.. I played a foot-mech hybrid null deployment IG army that is literally impossible to play now because of 6th edition

What? The codex removed exactly one play style - mass outflanking. The codex removed no other play styles. Your complaint about null lists is with 6th edition, not with the guard codex.

Somehow, the codex managed to hit me most where I thought it would hit me least.

Goodbye six outflanking chimeras. Gone, but not forgotten. :(

Something about being hit where you least expect it feel oddly fitting in this case.... huh.

It would take some sort of tactical genius to make a change like th-KIRBYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

I fail to see how the "grip" of units that needed improvement didn't get it. I see nothing but improvement in the elites.

Ogryns are still overcosted with crap Ld and require babysitting. Stormtroopers/Scions got cheaper but lost a ton of abilities and capabilities while their core problem remains perfectly intact, that of being an AP3 delivery system that has neither the range, weapon strength, nor resiliency to use that AP3 effectively. PBS/Wyrdvane psykers have been made largely redundant by higher Ld (and similarly costed) HQ options that don't require FoC slots. Ratlings got a small buff that's relatively inconsequential.

There were gameplay reasons to remove Marbo.

Aside from just being the one useable choice amongst a bunch of bad ones? I haven't seen one pointed out yet. Nobody but you thinks it was an auto-include, and the other elites being bad aren't Marbo's problem.

And...if you're that "bored:... dont play it.

I'm not, hence why those Taurox boxes are sitting on the shelves unsold at my local store.

Yes. I think it IS the cheese. Like it is with almost every other codex where these threads get steam. Don't you tire of this list of glittering generalities like "largely redundant" and "not viable". At some point, people, you just gotta DEAL.

"deal wit' it"/"L2P" retorts aren't really saying anything, instead of actually analyzing the arguments presented as to why people think the design changes were bad, your response is "just deal". That doesn't add much to the conversation.

As badly as I want to punch someone in the face for the DELUGE of rules supplements, I know that I love the ever living sh** out of these models. I want to play with them. I don't CARE that much that someones pet model got removed.

So you "love the ever living sh** out of these models" but don't care when they're removed, or is it only so long as *your* models don't get removed? Either way, I don't see where this was supposed to persuade me about anything.

I'm the one who lost what I thought was a GREAT addition to any list, and I'm not belly aching about it. I will adapt and I will move on. I will have fun. I will not sit here and dwell.

Then don't enter the conversation. You had a choice to enter the conversation or not. People came to an internet message board about their tabletop miniatures game that they play and are voicing their opinions on said internet message board, and your problem is that you want everyone to just "shut up and deal"...in a discussion thread on an internet message board. Kinda defeats the purpose of an internet message board where people come to discuss things.

As is, ultimately this makes just about any army I've run out of the codex the last few years both more expensive and less capable, even the lists without any vets, vendettas or marbo. For instance, my mechanized infantry company (largely just CCS, infantry platoons, devil dogs, and hydras) is now ~150pts more expensive, easier to kill, has less utility from its transports and tanks, and to get more use out of the new stuff (like orders and psykers) that fit the army, it must put itself into much more dangerous situations than it had to before to take full advantage of all those.

Were this a videogame, that wouldn't be as huge a problem, as the costs of switching to a new playstyle aren't particularly huge. When I have a rather hilarious amount of money and time invested in models in an army however. To take best advantage of the new book, effectively I'd need to build half an army over again, and for what IG cost, is largely similar to buying a new MEQ army, several hundred dollars.

**shrug**. Then be unhappy.

I have the models to play almost exactly the old list I used to play and I dont care. I have always preferrerred reliable, edition proof builds that dont require me to be TFG to win nor some wierd twisted permutation of rules to get to my end. When things change, I go into learning mode. So when I saunter to the table, its ME you're playing and not my army. And Im the one thats going to beat you. Not it.

So my cheese can move all it wants. Ill catch it, kill it and make a sandwich out of it. What I refuse to do is NOT HAVE FUN. That, sir, i will not do.