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.

BrookM wrote:Different tailbooms, different nose section, different wings, everything is different between the FW Valkyrie and Vulture

Yeah, seriously. I mean one shoots air-to-air small-damage rockets in salvos of 14 and the other one lays spider mines and doesn't even fly!

...hurr hurr hurr

worst case:
AV 13/12/10 russ in squad.
easier to damage and dead on a 4+ (immobilized). :(
points have to drop to 80 then.

I don' think we're going to AV13/12/10 Russes - far too close to the 13/11/10 Pred. The extra armor and Ordnance are key to making IG Guntanks different from SM Guntanks.

skkipper wrote:av 13 front would be better if the are going to squadron them. drop the price down by 20 points. if they keep it at 14 it would need a price increase of 20 or so points.

it is undercosted at 140 and av14 and overcosted at 140 and av13

I don't think that's necessarily correct. Squadron'd russ tanks could only fire at one target, have a 33% greater chance to die to penetrating hits, and can be killed by glances (1/6) as under the Squadron rules immobilization is a kill, and assaults against them are likely to be far nastier (if Daemonprince assaults one and gets 3 destroyed results, all 3 russ tanks would die) and would take up points probably better used by other units like Hellhounds and infantry.




Honestly I'd be incredibly surprised at AV13 Russ tanks, the originator of that rumor on Warseer didn't sound like the most credible source, and it's a rather daft downgrade to a tank that already isn't exactly stellar in terms of efficiency for it's cost.

Depends entirely on how squadrony they are.

If you can simply take a loose squadron, as in 3 for 1 HS Slot, but operate individually (there is precedent for this in Fantasy, and is also how Platoons work at the moment) then no problem.

Wonder what happened to the rumour that they got to fire all guns regardless of movement? Turned up in a blatant Arsedex, and just sort of stuck around.

livingregret wrote: Totally off topic...but every time I read your Sig BrookM I want to know what those phrases are that upon muttering we should shoot to kill.....

Back on Topic...yes the new Valk will in no way replace the FW one. Completely different models and uses in battle.

Those would be stupid questions to which we have the answers strewn about in this section of Dakka Dakka.

In all likeliness the plastic Valkyrie will be the same as the current resin version, only a better construction and less frustrating assembly. GW did the same with the Tau Piranha and Sky Ray, they just turned them into plastic kits for less money and they fit together as if the parts are meant to do just that!

SM Vindi mk.2 is also FW-design

The Russ is in no way undercosted now, its price is comprable to a hammerhead which is far superior.

I'm just wondering what the standard under-wing armament on the Valk is going to be and if the IA Vol. 2 Errata is any indication of points cost/options(if so, then the first question is answered and 125 for a Lascannon/2 Hellstrike skimmer transport isn't too bad)

The chimera link to FW stuff is interesting. I've been playing around with chimeras, and while amusing, they're too expensive to really be worth it. At 55 points, though, it's a lot more reasonable. 10 points for the heavy stubber is nice instead of dealing with all the odd point costs from the current IG list, too.

It is one of the nicer things of the new army lists, no more odd point values.

BrookM wrote:It is one of the nicer things of the new army lists, no more odd point values.

Except for those that end in 5.

If half this stuff is true, I am very interested.

Oh, man. AV 13 Russes? God, I hope not.

warpcrafter wrote:If half this stuff is true, I am very interested.

If the *other* half of this stuff is true, I'm selling my Guard army!

(or switching gears to focus on my CSM)...

I have a lot of hope and faith in GW with regards to the new IG codex. Looking back at their rules from the past 3 years, they've all been pretty solid. The only real duff is Codex: Dark Angels, and that is both the result of beta testing the new marine rules and still a better codex for 5th edition than the current IG. Marines, Orks, Chaos, Blood Angels, and Eldar are all fine codices, 5th edition and Apocalypse are well crafted and fun rules sets, and even Codex: Chaos Daemons is more solidly crafted than we initially though. Going further back Tau is a mess due to 5th edition (but was a well respected codex in it'd day), while of the remaining 4th edition codices only Templars was considered "weak" while Marines and Nids were great books. Even the last 3rd edition book, Witchhunters, has held up amazingly well. That takes us all the way back to the last IG book, which was clearly designed without 4th edition in mind, let alone 5th.

What does this mean? It means that GW has stopped writing the awful codices of the past (Orks, DE 1st edition, the first Chaos book, Daemonhunters) and instead the books are all more capable of holding their own.

Woah woah woah.......

The Old Ork book was great in the hands of a competent player....but yes I do agree that the last few batches of books have been fairly solid, if missing out on some "fluff" or more "flavourful" units

1hadhq wrote:Nice list.

Would not like if the front armor of russes drop to 13.

Funny I was just wsaying the other day that was a good way to go, it would make the Russ more like the Soviet T-34

Not too good, but you can get a lot of them. It would also make the Land Raider more special.

bah land raider is special enough....the problem is there are SOOO many things that can pop even armour 14. God forbid your fighting a Bright Lance Eldar army...GOOD BYE TANKS

livingregret wrote: Good question Sexiest...good question indeed. Seems like someone studied to must of Russian military practice during WW2...or watch that stupid Sniper Movie. What was it called? Enemy at the gates?.....

Yep, Enemy at the Gates. IIRC the 1 rifle for 2 men thing happened, but in WWI not Stalingrad, can`t remember if the commissars shooting their own men was historical or not.

This is not very exciting to me, to be honest. What the Guard need are varied and interesting rules. Like Doctrines+. Although hopefully they will be competitive.

They should have done all three Inquisition and Guard at the same time. duh.

Tacobake wrote:This is not very exciting to me, to be honest. What the Guard need are varied and interesting rules. Like Doctrines+. Although hopefully they will be competitive.

Guard already have varied and interesting rules. They have more options than any other legal codex in 5th Edition. But no one uses those options, because they're not competitive.

Obviously, the ideal situation is to be competitive and varied, but that's a really hard balancing act. In writing the new codex, we should all hope that they choose to make the list competitive.

I am looking forward to it. I will probably make my own ruleset once I see the final copy. Not to ... toot my own horn. toot-toot.

The Conscripts thing sounds interesting at least. Last I heard the Guard book would lean heavily towards Red Army WWII. As opposed to say Shermans and special forces.

Sadly we know that what we consider "competitive" is not what GW strives for. They have stated over and over that they do not look at Tournaments as the end all be all when it comes to there armies...they realize that is really only a very small portion of there fan base. We also are aware that is not 100% true...just look at the hit to skimmers and rending + Troops needed to take objectives in 5th

I keep wondering why this AV 13 thing keeps on coming up.

I may be looking in all of the wrong places but I've never seen anything that suggests it.

if missing out on some "fluff" or more "flavourful" units

I disagree, after Chaos, all of the book shave been bringing back cool old units like weirdboys, conversion beamers, and even the eldar got harlies back. GW is definitely bringing back the old school to an extent, which is awesome in my opinion. I like having tons of options, even if some of them are fun game only stuff. It really bugs me when people cry out to get rid of units like ratlings or ogryns or rough riders. Why? If you dont like them don't use them. Being able to mix things up is good and keeps armies looking and playing different.

I am very excited for the new IG. My favorite army to play and one of my favorite to play against. This codex could be huge for GW if they do it right like Orks.

Vladsimpaler wrote:I keep wondering why this AV 13 thing keeps on coming up.

I may be looking in all of the wrong places but I've never seen anything that suggests it.

Ditto here. I've never seen a SOURCE of this rumor. That being said, if we can actually field nine AV 14 vehicles, even the horrible squadron rules would make Russes pretty broken. It seems logical that only Land Raiders and Battlewagons (and Monoliths) would get AV14 since they are supposed to be huge, while the smaller Russ would get AV13 and be more spamable.

I dunno. I still don't like the idea of Russ squadrons. I hate the idea of vehicles having to maintain coherency and the dead on Immobilized rule.

Let's see... plasma pistols and autocanons would now be a kill-threat to the Russ from the front. That just doesn't roll off the tongue all that well.

I just hope that they don't skip out on the background section of the book.

Yeah, the fluff section. Something else for me to walk around wen I see it laying on the sidewalk.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Nice list.

Would not like if the front armor of russes drop to 13.

Funny I was just saying the other day that was a good way to go, it would make the Russ more like the Soviet T-34

Not too good, but you can get a lot of them. It would also make the Land Raider more special.

wait..... good?

Have a WW1-design and not only "cannonfodder"-infantry but also "cannonfodder"-tanks is good ?

Isn't a Land raider special enough: AV rear (against CC attack ) + BS 4 + PotMS + assault ramp + TL-weapons.
Can't see the need to change the russ in stats. Maybe a design change would be good.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

livingregret wrote: Good question Sexiest...good question indeed. Seems like someone studied to must of Russian military practice during WW2...or watch that stupid Sniper Movie. What was it called? Enemy at the gates?.....

Yep, Enemy at the Gates. IIRC the 1 rifle for 2 men thing happened, but in WWI not Stalingrad, can`t remember if the commissars shooting their own men was historical or not.

Commisars shooting their own men could be historical,but shooting commissars if caught is for sure.

I do think if we get "greatcoats" at the price of IG beeing crappy "pseudo-red armists" (aka cannonfodder), some will drop their
IG armys. Makes no sense to build and paint payloads of models to get "victims" or "fire-magnets" on the table.