Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ph34r wrote:If the "Front rank fire, second rank fire" rule does indeed apply to all rapid fire weapons, then I will still be taking plasma guns everywhere. If veterans go down by 2 points just like regular guardsmen, a super-rapid-fire squad of 10 vets with 3 PGs will kill its points in MeQ in one volley.

I was thinking the same thing. If would make plasma guns super uber, unless they add a little exception to that rule. ALA sharpshooters, (this cool rule does not apply to plasma guns)

ph34r wrote:If the "Front rank fire, second rank fire" rule does indeed apply to all rapid fire weapons, then I will still be taking plasma guns everywhere. If veterans go down by 2 points just like regular guardsmen, a super-rapid-fire squad of 10 vets with 3 PGs will kill its points in MeQ in one volley.

It would certainly make 15 point Plasmaguns seem a lot more reasonable!

On the other hand, all of these Plasmagun-wielding Guardsmen are going to melt in two or three turns, because of the Gets Hot! rule. At least its not as severe as the OLD Gets Hot!

MinMax wrote:

ph34r wrote:If the "Front rank fire, second rank fire" rule does indeed apply to all rapid fire weapons, then I will still be taking plasma guns everywhere. If veterans go down by 2 points just like regular guardsmen, a super-rapid-fire squad of 10 vets with 3 PGs will kill its points in MeQ in one volley.

It would certainly make 15 point Plasmaguns seem a lot more reasonable!

They could go down in points in the new codex.

Seriously, I can only hope the Punisher and Eradicator are fakes....frikkin' ridiculous.

Death By Monkeys wrote:Seriously, I can only hope the Punisher and Eradicator are fakes....frikkin' ridiculous.

Punisher and Eradicator? What's so ridiculous about them? the Eradicator seems sort of useless is all....

The Punisher just seems so over-the-top fanboy wetdream (even if it is only "good" when the numbers come down to it) that it just rankles me. As for my beef with the Eradicator - well, as you said yourself, it's just useless. Personally, I think the Devil Dog and the, what, Banehound? are in this same category.

I guess part of what I'm so annoyed about with the Punisher and the Eradicator is that the addition of these two tanks (as well as the Colossus - although less so, frankly, but that's another issue) flies over the top of over a decade of FW Imperial Armor precedent. It bothers the fluff Nazi in me. I mean, I understand that 5E is all about cover saves and forcing your opponent to make lots of armor saves, but there's never been a mention of either of these tanks before anywhere in 40K canon (part of why I'm not so cheesed about the Colossus - there have been vehicles/weapons called the Colossus before - not like this, but not completely dissimilar). Granted, it's not like GW didn't do this before in introducing the Land Speeder Storm or the Thunderfire Cannon for the Space Marines. But frankly, aside from what's in the Codex, there's not really a lot of variation in Space Marine equipment.

Imperial Guard, on the other hand, have seen 4 Imperial Armor books with lots of different tank variants and other useful vehicles. I very much appreciate the fact that GW is adding the Vanquisher, Exterminator, Executioner, Manticore, Hydra, and especially the Valkyrie from the IA books to the IG codex. I really do. But why include Punisher and Eradicator and not Destroyer Tank Hunters? You see Destroyer Tank Hunters throughout the BL novels. And, really, if you're going to add a useless tank, why not just add the Conqueror instead of the Eradicator? Or call it the Conqueror and give it the Eradicator's rules. I wouldn't mind that. Frankly, I wouldn't have even minded so much if they had called the Punisher the Exterminator Mk. II or somesuch. But why these and not Salamanders? Why not Thunderbolts? Or Centaurs?

There's already been years of playtesting with these FW models and rules (which, frankly, largely show them to be underpowered for their points cost). Compared to how much playtesting has there been for the Punisher and Eradicator? Okay, here's an example - under the IA rules, the Executioner is pretty underpowered for its points cost. So GW's looking to add it to the IG codex. They know, through years of playtesting, that if it is to be played in decent numbers that they need to boost the power. Okay, let's make that Plasma Cannon in the turret Heavy 3 instead of Heavy 1. If they keep it a similar points to what it is in IA - hey, that'll be a useful tank. The Vanquisher (and I hope they do this right) actually has good rules per point value under IA - but only when you're able to use both regular shells as well as Vanquisher shells as well as when you're able to give the crew BS 4. GW knows this through years of playtesting. Hopefully, they won't screw it up. The Conqueror - we can see through playtesting in 5E rules (heck, even without playtesting in 5E we can see this), it's useless. So GW left it out. That's fine.

There are just so many options from the IA books that would make Guard players really happy that would require only a few tweaks to make them playable out of the IG codex. I'm just really disappointed that GW went with something that looks like it came from a fan-written codex that 8 months after the release of the codex may never see play because extensive gameplay has determined that it sucks. Consequently, it's taking up useful codex space that could much better be filled with something a whole lot more useful.

*Edited for linebreaks to make my rant more readable.

Excellent rant sir. Take a bow!

I agree, if far less passionately.

The rumored TANK rule I really can't swallow. Reroll to hit, reroll pen, reroll dmg chart, modify dmg chart, all of those I could believe, but +1STR to weapons fired at tanks changes so much!

While I can't say that I've ever playtested a miniatures game, I've playtested CCGs enough to have some pretty strong feelings about letting "coasters" (i.e. useless cards that are only good for setting your drink on, but take up space in booster packs). Consequently, I feel similarly strongly about rules "coasters" for other games as well.

Dexy wrote:The rumored TANK rule I really can't swallow. Reroll to hit, reroll pen, reroll dmg chart, modify dmg chart, all of those I could believe, but +1STR to weapons fired at tanks changes so much!

Why? It's the the old Tank Hunters USR, plus twin-linking (in exchange for having to use Orders, presumably).

Considering that IG rely on long range tank hunting more than any army other than Tau (and they're good at it with AP1, S10 railguns), it makes sense that IG would, you know, be good at the things that they're supposed to be good at.

Does it really make sense that Orks have 2 Attacks and Furious charge? maybe not, but it's what it takes to make Orks good at Close combat, which is what they're supposed to be good at. Same thing with Stealers and rending claws, Dire Avengers and bladestorm, and Assault terminators and storm shields.

One thing that GW seems to finally be realizing post Dark Angels is that for an army to be good at something, it has to actually excel at it. Merely being better at it than anything else doesn't make an army any good.

Death By Monkeys wrote:I guess part of what I'm so annoyed about with the Punisher and the Eradicator is that the addition of these two tanks (as well as the Colossus - although less so, frankly, but that's another issue) flies over the top of over a decade of FW Imperial Armor precedent.

Frankly, I wouldn't have even minded so much if they had called the Punisher the Exterminator Mk. II or somesuch. But why these and not Salamanders? Why not Thunderbolts? Or Centaurs?

There's already been years of playtesting with these FW models and rules (which, frankly, largely show them to be underpowered for their points cost).

I generally agree. There are plenty enough IG tanks already and I would have been happier to see all of the existing FW stuff moved over to the IG Codex. Just rebalance to make all of the Tanks worth the points, and that'd have met and exceeded all of my expectations as an IG treadhead.

IG is shaping up to be a *true* 5ed shooty army. That is to say, GW appears to be giving them the ability to actually put out some serious fire power.

While in the 4ed context, this would be completely overpowered, however, the dynamic has changed in 5ed. Assault is extremely powerful (being able to destroy multiple units in 1 assault phase), so for a shooty army to survive, they need a lot of firepower.

IG will still be beaten brutally in CC (albeit the Ogryns and Commissars will help), but charging at an IG gunline will actually be dangerous now. Heck Orks may actually have to think twice!!


Now, I just hope Tau get some love soon.

There's also enough FW and epic stuff that could be re-imagined to fit in with Fifth edition to make new tanks unnecessary. The punisher is just an upgunned exterminator. Why not make the Conqueror gun a S6 AP4 ordinance that ignores cover? Things like that.

Death By Monkeys wrote:Personally, I think the Devil Dog and the, what, Banehound? are in this same category.

First of all, fine rant. Agree with a lot of it.

Second, I believe you are referring to the Bane Wolf. At first glance I was fairly 'meh' on it, too. But, On second thought, it can have a decent impact on the metagame: An AP 3 Poison template is arguably the best anti-Plague Marine weapon out there. No scatter, hits a decent number of models, wounds on 2+ with no armor save, no cover save, and no Feel No Pain roll. Combine that with, if the rumor is true, the Elite Psyker squad's ability to drain leadership to affect Lash, and all of sudden Lash CSM lists move down a notch.

Death By Monkeys wrote:But why these and not Salamanders?

Why, why, why did you have to bring this up??

Edit: Grammar friend is your.

Meh, I am happy with all of the new tanks. Did I like the existing fluff? Sure, but if your only gripe about these tanks is the fluff that you got nothing to gripe about. Give it one new set of books, and these new tanks will be firmly canon.

ubermosher wrote:

Death By Monkeys wrote:Personally, I think the Devil Dog and the, what, Banehound? are in this same category.

First of all, fine rant. Agree with a lot of it.

Second, I believe you are referring to the Bane Wolf. At first glance I was fairly 'meh' on it, too. But, On second thought, it can have a decent impact on the metagame: An AP 3 Poison template is arguably the best anti-Plague Marine weapon out there. No scatter, hits a decent number of models, wounds on 2+ with no armor save, no cover save, and no Feel No Pain roll. Combine that with, if the rumor is true, the Elite Psyker squad's ability to drain leadership to affect Lash, and all of sudden Lash CSM lists move down a notch.

At the risk of thread-derailment, why wouldn't plague marines get a FNP roll?

Janthkin wrote:At the risk of thread-derailment, why wouldn't plague marines get a FNP roll?

They would.

Ok, I was wondering that too when I read his post. I didn't know if there was a special poisoned weapons ignore FNP rule.

Ok, re-checked Feel No Pain, and I misunderstood the provision "Neither can it be used... against which no armor save can ever be taken." (BGB, pg. 75). I was thinking that since it couldn't take an armor save, it couldn't use Feel No Pain. Distinction noted.

Back on track by regurgitating even more Warseer rumors. Someone stop me...

Warseer's ehlijen wrote:
I've just been extensively told about things regarding the codex from a staffer who claims to have read the codex. Some of this contradicts what he told me before and I have not seen it myself, so pinch of salt and all that.

Platoon:
The basic platoon is still the current 25 men minimum to which can be added 0-3 infantry squads, 0-5 heavy squads, 0-2 special squads and 0 or 2-5 conscript squads.
The conscripts form one unit of 20-50 men and the infantry squads can be merged to ones heart desire, but every thing else is set in the unit sizes. There is apparantly no maximum number of squads.

Troops choices:
Veteran squads are a seperate troops choice and are much like they are now (no details were mentioned though).
Penal squads are a seperate troops choice with only basic equipment but stubborn. They also roll for their 'crime' at the start of their game and get appropriate boni, ie psychos are better fighters, scroungers have more gear.

Psykers:
There is a psyker squad with what was described as a commisar handler who will shoot d3 of them on any perils result.

All vehicles are in squadrons with subtypes mixable, ie russes, hounds and arty. Deathstrikes are not squadrons.

Lumbering behemoth means the turret gun does not count towards the number of weapons fired (ordnane or not) but cruising speed is only 6+d6.

Heavy weapon squads: basic armament is 3 mortars for 60 points total. Apparently mortars were reduced in cost the most.

Orders: He meantioned 3:
Tank!, as said (very much tank hunter)
Fire in ranks, extra shot as has been said.
Down! Go to ground with +1 cover save (ie the unit can't shoot for this turn).

Creed has a special order:
For cadia: squad becomes fearless and gains furious charge.

The valhallan platoon commander SC can upgrade his platoons conscript squad for 75 points allowing a special order called
Send in the next wave: the squad is immediately removed and next turn walks back on from the table edge at full starting strenght.

As I said, no clue about the truth content, I've just been told this stuff.

I'm sure random rolls for penal guard abilities will go down well...

Maybe penal guard become possessed?

foil7102 wrote:Meh, I am happy with all of the new tanks. Did I like the existing fluff? Sure, but if your only gripe about these tanks is the fluff that you got nothing to gripe about. Give it one new set of books, and these new tanks will be firmly canon.

I mean, my gripe is partly fluff, but a lot of it is about playability (or lack thereof). With FW tanks we have over a decade of playtesting for many of these models. GW can draw on this experience to modify and make them better and more balanced for the book. With these new models, we've maybe got 6 months - maybe a year of playtesting max. You're taking a bigger gamble with what you put into the codex. It could be great, but it could be crap. And for myself, while it seems like there's going to be some really good stuff, I'd much rather maximize the good stuff than have some good stuff combined with something that could be good or could be crap. I think the Punisher and Devil Dog have the potential to be good. But the Eradicator looks like crap. And the Colossus and Bane Wolf are 'meh'. Wouldn't you rather have 5 solid entries than 2 solid entries, 2 mediocre ones, and a crap one?

ubermosher wrote:

Warseer's ehlijen wrote:Troops choices:
Veteran squads are a seperate troops choice and are much like they are now (no details were mentioned though).

Good to hear. Now I'm more confident about assembling my Vet Squad.

ubermosher wrote:

Warseer's ehlijen wrote:All vehicles are in squadrons with subtypes mixable, ie russes, hounds and arty. Deathstrikes are not squadrons.

Finally! Someone answers at least one part of my question about Leman Russ squadrons. Interesting to hear though that Hounds and Arty will also be getting squadrons. I'm still wondering if these squadrons will be 0-1, though.

ubermosher wrote:

Warseer's ehlijen wrote:Lumbering behemoth means the turret gun does not count towards the number of weapons fired (ordnane or not) but cruising speed is only 6+d6.

This is pretty ambiguous. It doesn't clarify whether or not this rule overrides the rule saying that if you fire ordnance you can't fire anything else. I'm inclined to believe that it doesn't. Granted it does mean you can fire your main cannon and move at cruising speed (if only for a distance of 7-12 inches).

ubermosher wrote:

Warseer's ehlijen wrote:The valhallan platoon commander SC can upgrade his platoons conscript squad for 75 points allowing a special order called
Send in the next wave: the squad is immediately removed and next turn walks back on from the table edge at full starting strenght.

Hahahahahahahahahaa....that's great! They promised the opening scene of "Enemy at the Gates" and I think in this rule, we got it!

Oh wow, the points costs for 9 Russ's in a single list get expensive fast. But say 3 Russ, 3 heavy mortar type tanks, and three medusa.... Thats a lot of pie.

Even with 9 Russes, though - let's say you take them at 160 pts a pop - 1440 pts. In an 1850 point game, that's still 410 left. Let's say 110 per naked min-sized platoon for your troops (two platoons, natch), and 100 for a command squad. Use the 90 pts you have left for some heavy/special weapons, and you've got a playable, legal army. Don't know how good, but it'd be fun to try at least once (just to see the look on your opponent's face!

Or use the 90 points to upgrade three of the Russes to demolishers for some str 10 love

The heavy weapons counting as twin-linked and +1str vs vehicle thing is going to be huge, if true. Perfectly reasonable to require a leadership check to use that. Str8 Autocannons to take down the light vehicles, Str10 Lascannons for the heavy stuff you really need a melta for currently. Very excited about that. Might even start bothering to shoot lascannons at Arm14 again. Although the Missile Launcher looks like it still wont have a useful role to fill.

As for the vehicles...

In 4th it was "use your vehicles vs infantry, use your infantry vs vehicles". With the addition of the melta-hound and long barelled melta-Russ (name escapes me at the moment), it looks like theyre giving us good anti-tank options for vehicles too. So you can mix/match your roles a bit more.

Has anyone confirmed if Sentinels will have a multi-melta option yet?

Also, has anyone given any thought to how a swarm of arm 12 support sentinels would play? Assuming you can squadron them as fast attack choices you're talking 9 or more arm12 walkers. And with Arm12, one is quite capable of tying up a squad of MEQs (potentially even with a PF) for a few turns. I wonder if we'll see sentinel spam as a competitive option.

Maybe penal guard become possessed?

Hahaha, good one!

Throwing a lot of AV12, in the form of Sentinels and Chimeras (with some AV14 to draw some fire), is going to present an interesting challenge for many armies.

Armies that have limited anti tank, or do not have a lot of powerfists (or other melee heavy hitters), will have a hard time.

AV12 Sentinels gives me ideas especially...

Think of one AV12 Sentinel charging a squad of BloodCrushers (not hard to do actually). Assuming a Monster does come over and ruin your fun, you could tie up a whole squad for the game!