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.

I totally agree with whats been said (for the most part)

I see the drop pod/CC mech rush hurting alot.

I've briefly scanned over the info floating about, and the list is pretty brutal that advisor w/ the - modifer to reserve rolls is as annoying as the lash is.

i can't wait to play against the list i have ALOT of IG friends who are jizzing in their pants over this, it will be exciting to see them smiling at the end of a game

i cant help but think a daemon zilla list w/ greaters and soulgrinders would be effective.

only time will tell

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:Now notice how most of the lists that Shep mentioned are boned against the new IG?

Does nobody else find a problem with this?

You should read the whole post, it might change your critique.

Seemed to me Shep had a pretty fair review for the new book.

/\/\/\

I agree. It is also worth pointing out that he mentioned current popular trends BEFORE the IG book. As the environment changes to acomodate the new book, all the lists will change to combat it. There is nothing to be worried about until dominance is established based on results at the highest level of competition (I say highest level of competition because, for example, gimmick lists can sometimes wreck local environments while having no chance of doing anything drastic on a larger scale). Like it or not, the metagame is important in 40k, and people build lists with combatting weaknesses in mind, as well as beating the most popular/strong lists. With this in mind, we will see changes in how the popular list archetypes are built to accomodate whatever threat th new IG codex reviews. I felt like Shep was very good at pointing this out. He also pointed out why he feels each list is strong or weak against new IG, which should serve as the first hint at what to look at changing in the lists to improve the matchup.

Caffran9 wrote:...It is also worth pointing out that he mentioned current popular trends BEFORE the IG book.

That's exactly right. A lot of the lists I mentioned as being boned can make some tweaks that don't break down the core of their list, but help immensely against IG.

The more kommandos and deffkoptas the ork horde lists add, the harder it gets for IG to comfortably sit back and shoot. I just played a competitive game last night against an ork army that had 3 single deffkoptas with buzzsaws. Even after fleet officer re-rolls, his three units killed a full 3x griffon squadron and a valkyrie along with its cargo. About 450 points worth of high value targets for a 210 point investment.

I don't really pity lash, CSM has the tools to rip up IG, but if their player base continue to play the non-aggressive plaguemarine/obliterator/lash setup then they are going to give IG too much time to unload all of their shooting. All they need to do is play a more aggressive list and they'll do better immediately. You can still have lash princes in the lists I'm talking about. But rather than focusing on oblits to do all of your killing, having some CC elements like berserkers and lesser demons qualifies as 'more aggressive'

Nids I see as being unfortunate. I bet they'll have a much better game against IG with a new codex that focuses more on alternate deployment, speed, and model count. Until then, I think they are just victims of their codex being outdated. Thats going to be true with a lot of the rest of the stuff I mentioned, eldar has been just a little under the power curve for at least a year, especially against horde orks. Any new book thats going to come out is just going to interact better with the 5th edition rule set than these old timers.

Space marines will have to make very little in the way of changes to give IG a real fight. Pure drop pod builds can be countered, but they could before, and I never felt that they were all that intimidating to begin with. I've faced off against a thunderfire cannon and whirlwind combo recently. I lost a 30 man blob platoon in 2 turns to that combination. Spread out combat squads are exceedingly difficult for IG to deal with. They are looking for large units to wipe out with their ordnance, and their direct firing weaponry lets power armor save (except for the plasma gun).

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:Mystics? Advisors? Cool I can co-ordinate the Pods to drop next to them. Say hello to my little Ironclad.

Well, you have to actually use/fight an Ork Gunline in order to see. Autocannons can penetrate most of your vehicle armor and insta-kill any big 'n important fellows that might be thrown at them.

Oh look, Lootas carry Autocannons.

Nothing Deepstriking, Pods or Daemons, will be effective against IG now. The 32 point Mystiquistor that you are decrying, coupled with judicious deployment of other troops and vehicles will ensure that nothing will land sufficiently close enough to the Inquisitor to eliminate it, and will enable potentially ridiculous amounts of firepower to be directed at each and every unit that deepstrikes near enough to have an effect on the game turn in which that unit hits the board. Potential units that could unload on each and every nearby deepstriking units consist of: 3 x Hydra w/heavy stubber (12 S7, 9 S5 and 9 S4 shots), 2 x Plasma Russes (8 plasma cannon equivalent shots), 3 x Vendettas (9 TL Lascannons), a massed infantry platoon (way too many lasguns, 3+ special weapons and 3+ heavy weapons), etc.

While I don't think, by any means, that the new IG codex is suddenly the most powerful codex in the game, I really don't see Pods or Daemons (or any other heavily DS'ing army) being terribly effective against them, assuming the presence of the 32 points Inquisitor + 2 Mystics.

You can kill armor with DL's! WTF!!! Oh, and lets just do a little mathhammer on this one: 30 DL's, 20 hits, 10 glance or pen, 5 are saved because of infantry screen or camo netting, and you kill around 3 tanks if in a squadron. Oh noooes! looks like 3 tanks are 80% of my army!!! No, wait, they aren't! Congratulations. You've killed three tanks while shooting your whole army! Yay! You definitely have an insta-win there!

You must truly be a certifiable idiot... Fist off are you mounting your guard on giant piece of slate, in a jumping position? Because last time I checked they don't cover 25% of the tank let alone half...



Next you are assuming that you are fired upon from the front, while in reality over half the shots will be on side or rear armor thanks to a 12" movement. So even if we assume that it is all max armor that still gives me 3 Glances and 7 pens, at the very least you will have 10 tanks that can not shoot in your next turn. I would call that crippled.

Not to mention the ability to launch a turn 1 assault.

I just don't see guard being a top list. stong, yes. top, no

Clthomps wrote:

You can kill armor with DL's! WTF!!! Oh, and lets just do a little mathhammer on this one: 30 DL's, 20 hits, 10 glance or pen, 5 are saved because of infantry screen or camo netting, and you kill around 3 tanks if in a squadron. Oh noooes! looks like 3 tanks are 80% of my army!!! No, wait, they aren't! Congratulations. You've killed three tanks while shooting your whole army! Yay! You definitely have an insta-win there!

You must truly be a certifiable idiot... Fist off are you mounting your guard on giant piece of slate, in a jumping position? Because last time I checked they don't cover 25% of the tank let alone half...



Next you are assuming that you are fired upon from the front, while in reality over half the shots will be on side or rear armor thanks to a 12" movement. So even if we assume that it is all max armor that still gives me 3 Glances and 7 pens, at the very least you will have 10 tanks that can not shoot in your next turn. I would call that crippled.

Not to mention the ability to launch a turn 1 assault.

Not that front vs. site armor on a Leman Russ matters much to a Dark Lance.

Not that front vs. site armor on a Leman Russ matters much to a Dark Lance.

Thats why I did the math for 12 AV. But it will make a hell of a difference on an basilisk squad.

Clthomps wrote:

Not that front vs. site armor on a Leman Russ matters much to a Dark Lance.

Thats why I did the math for 12 AV. But it will make a hell of a difference on an basilisk squad.

Its easy for vehicle squads to manipulate armour facing though 3 tanks in a T shaped formation for example can present their highest armour facing to a wide coverage arc...

Jack

Its easy for vehicle squads to manipulate armour facing though 3 tanks in a T shaped formation for example can present their highest armour facing to a wide coverage arc...

But doing that they lose LoS for a lot of weapons Sponsons taking the biggest hit. Not to mention you only have to have to see the side or rear of one to use that armor for all the rolls on that squad.

We should look at this from a tourny perspective, not "oh, you're playing that list? okay, i'll play this list that i made just to beat yours"

DE that I have seen don't just take Dark Lances, they take a mix especially in a tourny setting.

Yes, all you have to do is immobilize a veihicle to destroy it in a squad. who cares? I know I'll have plenty more tanks for you to go through.

Armor facing, if you can't see 50% of 50% of the squad, they get cover. If you try shooting at an armor facing you aren't in, that's a 3+ cover. Only things getting around their minipulation are maybe a single skimmer that was really close.

I see the IG being a very strong codex. Maybe not the best but a good one. People are saying all this stuff how they'll pin everything on the board and nothing will survive. Well what happens when you do that then as you do everything you can to knock out my Leman Russes. That Basilisk/Medusa battery down in back uses its indirect fire or direct if the basilisks have to (which they still can) to drop some hurt on all your long range guns. Yeah I'll take that any day Oh and your tiny dark lances that have one turn to kill me before I come surging forward for some 3 shot rapid fire goodness.

The Transports are paper thin to the point that Grenade Launchers should be there worse nightmare. I mean really you guys assume everything you shoot hits and completely obliterates there army.

I think it is any armies worst nightmare when an IG army goes first in this new codex. O I'm sorry do you not have anymore guns strong enough to pin anything? Oh my bad.

I just saw the Dex, and I must say that I am impressed.

However they DO pay a justifiably high points cost for many of their new toys, especially the russes.

If you decide that you are going to take 9 tanks (AWESOME!) that is going to be at least HALF your points, if not more if you want to kit them out or take the really good new variants.

then come the platoons, you need two of them, and their kit gets expensive very quickly.

I mean it when I say i really like this dex, but people are htrowing out "I'll have x" a little too easily, me thinks.

for example, advisors, they are great, but advisors AND mystics AND tanks (especially good kitted out tanks)nleave you very little to outfit your troops, putting you at a disadvantage. not everyone will always have advisors and mystics in their army, because there is too much cool stuff to have in your army. like psyker squads!

We should look at this from a tourny perspective, not "oh, you're playing that list? okay, i'll play this list that i made just to beat yours"

DE that I have seen don't just take Dark Lances, they take a mix especially in a tourny setting.

I call shenanigans!!!

How many DE lists have you seen in person, let alone at a tourney? They only have DL , Blastsers (a DL with 12" range) and disintegrators (only available on boats), so 30 DLs is a conservative number in a game were you are taking more than one squad of Russ or other heavies.

Armor facing, if you can't see 50% of 50% of the squad, they get cover. If you try shooting at an armor facing you aren't in, that's a 3+ cover. Only things getting around their minipulation are maybe a single skimmer that was really close.

Pg. 64

"Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron - use the rules for vehicles to determine if each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron, as if they were not there), then use the rules for normal units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not."

It is doing to be damn near impossible to find enough cover for a squad of 3 LRBT, and the chances of a skimmer at any range not being able to see the facing of any one of three tanks in the arc that it is in is so minuscule its not even worth debating.

Ok, so I've had an actual copy of the Imperial Guard codex for the last two weeks and i can find nothing in here that says they can take mystics from the inquisition or by that matter anything. Am i missing something?

Dyslexic wrote:Ok, so I've had an actual copy of the Imperial Guard codex for the last two weeks and i can find nothing in here that says they can take mystics from the inquisition or by that matter anything. Am i missing something?

You're looking in the wrong book. Codex: Daemonhunters contains the relevent rules. Specifically page 21, sidebar Using Daemonhunters As Allies. Witchhunters have similar rules.

Clthomps wrote:

Its easy for vehicle squads to manipulate armour facing though 3 tanks in a T shaped formation for example can present their highest armour facing to a wide coverage arc...

But doing that they lose LoS for a lot of weapons Sponsons taking the biggest hit. Not to mention you only have to have to see the side or rear of one to use that armor for all the rolls on that squad.

I'm at work and don't have my rulebook handy, but IIRC you have to shoot the armour facing of the closest vehicle (hence my point), additionally you're only allowed to claim the oblique shot if the the facing you're actually in is entirely obscured, you cannot voluntarily choose a side shot from the front facing if the front of the tank is visible.

Clthomps wrote: Pg. 64

"Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron - use the rules for vehicles to determine if each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron, as if they were not there), then use the rules for normal units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not."

It is doing to be damn near impossible to find enough cover for a squad of 3 LRBT, and the chances of a skimmer at any range not being able to see the facing of any one of three tanks in the arc that it is in is so minuscule its not even worth debating.

You clearly play with smaller pieces of terrain then I do, particularly since 5th we've moved towards more large stuff precisely so units can claim some blocked LOS on occasion. Buildings and ruins are both great for this. I would actually argue that its easier to get a squadron of vehicles in cover, particularly a two tank squad as only one needs to be able to claim any cover, once its covered the unit benefits as per any other squad (majority in cover = all get cover)

Jack

I'm at work and don't have my rulebook handy, but IIRC you have to shoot the armour facing of the closest vehicle (hence my point), additionally you're only allowed to claim the oblique shot if the the facing you're actually in is entirely obscured, you cannot voluntarily choose a side shot from the front facing if the front of the tank is visible.

This is correct, but my point is that a fast skimmer will have no problem shooting at what ever tank / side it wants to.

You clearly play with smaller pieces of terrain then I do, particularly since 5th we've moved towards more large stuff precisely so units can claim some blocked LOS on occasion. Buildings and ruins are both great for this. I would actually argue that its easier to get a squadron of vehicles in cover, particularly a two tank squad as only one needs to be able to claim any cover, once its covered the unit benefits as per any other squad (majority in cover = all get cover)

A couple points here:

While the size of terrain is a factor tanks still do not benefit from area terrain, cover is determined by true LoS. A squad of three tanks will almost never be more than 50% and still maintain coherency. If you do happen to have that much terrain on the board, the chances of have LoS to a target will be next to none.

Also while it will be easier to claim cover for two tanks, you have to remember that the cover save will be reduced by one. So they will receive a 5+ cover save.

Clthomps wrote:
This is correct, but my point is that a fast skimmer will have no problem shooting at what ever tank / side it wants to.

Hence my thinking on the formation shape, if you maneuver the tanks correctly you can make a fairly broad facing be the front amour...

Clthomps wrote:A couple points here:

While the size of terrain is a factor tanks still do not benefit from area terrain, cover is determined by true LoS. A squad of three tanks will almost never be more than 50% and still maintain coherency. If you do happen to have that much terrain on the board, the chances of have LoS to a target will be next to none.

Also while it will be easier to claim cover for two tanks, you have to remember that the cover save will be reduced by one. So they will receive a 5+ cover save.

Not amount of terrain, just its size, like if its 2cm high walls, its easy for a tank to see over and still claim 50% concealment.

Why would it only be a 5+ save, there is no dispute on the cover, if one tank is covered and the other is not, that's a unit in cover i.e. a 4+? The reduced save would be if there was some dispute over the unit being in cover or not (personally, thats only come up a few times (mostly with monstrous creatures) for me so I don't think about the disputed cover save rules all that much.

Jack

i think a vulkan list in drop pods will work well you have anti infantry and you can get close to the tanks and smash them to peices.

Spivey wrote:i think a vulkan list in drop pods will work well you have anti infantry and you can get close to the tanks and smash them to peices.

Yeah, IG will either want to start off board, or build a big enough screen of terrain and infantry to keep the pods from being able to land close to high value targets (perhaps also guarded by some demolishers with Inquisitor+ mysticsx2)

Jack

Clthomps wrote:

Not that front vs. site armor on a Leman Russ matters much to a Dark Lance.

Thats why I did the math for 12 AV. But it will make a hell of a difference on an basilisk squad.

Leman Russ are AV13 on the side now by the way.

The trouble with drop podders is that an IG player with an astropath (with is likely to be most of them) will just start off the board and move 2/3rds of his army onto it on his second turn. If you combine this with deepstriking valks, ensuring that he will be able to claim distant objectives, and officers of the fleet (OOTF) limiting when the rest of your pods come in, it wont be an easy match-up at all.

Any IG player with more than two brain-cells has been using mystics against deamons since the demon 'dex came out so this is no surprise really.

It seems that IG dont really have any way to deal with very aggressive armies. If you can tie-up those 50 man stubbon tar-pits then they still fall over in combat. They also cant deal with heavy tanks at range so landraider heavy armies will have an easy time of it.

We may see a shift from the current favorites of very unbalanced armies to more traditional all-comers lists. Ork armies with lots of boyz and stormboyz backed up by lootas may make a come back because you cant kill everything before something hits you.

I like the new Ig book. Its very 'techy'. It seems to have an answer for everything if you know how to build your list correctly.

@Shep

Have you played or seen played a game of IG vs Jetbike-council eldar? I'd be interested to know how they hold up.

Leman Russ are AV13 on the side now by the way.

It doesn't matter lances treat everything as AV 12, hence the reason the math was done that way.

Hence my thinking on the formation shape, if you maneuver the tanks correctly you can make a fairly broad facing be the front amour...

which still does not matter since I am firing lances.

Not amount of terrain, just its size, like if its 2cm high walls, its easy for a tank to see over and still claim 50% concealment.

There is no way in heaven or hell that 2 CM covers a tank 50% or more.

Why would it only be a 5+ save, there is no dispute on the cover, if one tank is covered and the other is not, that's a unit in cover i.e. a 4+? The reduced save would be if there was some dispute over the unit being in cover or not (personally, thats only come up a few times (mostly with monstrous creatures) for me so I don't think about the disputed cover save rules all that much.

I think the rules are rather clear here, if more than 50% of the unit is in cover it gets a cover save, if less than 50% it does not get a cover save. If its exactly 50% the unit gets a cover save at -1.

This new codex is going to present some major issues for most armies. I think many guard armies are going to be taking several AV14 tanks, which is going to dramatically increase the demand for AT in the metagame.

Of course, the ork codex recently increased the need for AP in a successful army. Trying to make an army capable of meeting both needs in the extreme is going to be tough.

I don't see all infantry guard working too well. I don't recall exactly, but I don't think infantry platoons get the option to infiltrate anymore, and trying to fit a large (1850+) all infantry army into the deployment zones isn't going to work well. Also, the major infantry killy units (heavy weapon squads) are more limited and easier to destroy.

I'm thinking we'll see armies with AV 14 spam and probably some horde AV 12 armies (chimeras and valks).

Hmm...might have to sit down and hammer out a theoretical AV 12 horde list....could be fun. Too bad the sentinals (both scout and armored version) aren't quite worth the points.

Lances are fine, they can kill a squad member on a glance roll of 6, awesome.

The problem arises when cover is involved. Since 5th ed. came out our store has been using some plateaus that give pretty much anything but monoliths a cover save.

If you are not using terrain that could possibly give a vehicle a cover save you are using unbalanced terrain that caters to your army which is putting yourself at an unfair advantage.

All I am saying about the Lances is that they are not unbeatable because you can knock out quite a few at a time, even with the smaller tanks' guns. First turn get will matter very much in Guard vs. DE.

Also, it seems a tourny list of DE is going to be very anti-tank, what could you possibly do to counter something like infantry horde?

I have only ever known 2 DE players and both of them played the same, lances and blasters. Blasters won't do much against the higher armor tanks. Also if you move your raiders at all or over 6" then the guys inside can't shoot limiting your mobility with firepower.

I will give DE this, they will be the only ranged army the Guard will fear. They have the means to field enough anti-tank to live through first turn of shooting with at least some punch left.

I don't see what the big issue here is, I honestly think people are getting worked up over nothing. I agree with the person addressing theory hammer 40k, "I'll take this if you take that."

When the book comes out I'll still be fortune spamming eldrad on wave serpents and boosting 24" while at the same time marching wraithguard, wraithlords, and an avatar up the field. You wipe me off the board? Woo, I promise you won't do it twice. All the bitching and moaning is really more that people as a whole hate change and on the other hand have come to love their lash lists/Raider Spam/Nob & loota spam and dont really want to do anything else.

Keep it in perspective people, the same war is never fought twice. Strategies change, Warriors change, Weapons change. This is the 41st millenium: Adapt, overcome, or be annihilated while hugging your knees.

I guess I'll be the first person to throw down a list that has worked well for me so far:

Eldrad

Avatar

7 x Banshees (these could be swapped for scorpions as they go through guard like butter)
Exarch w/executioner - Acrobatics - Warshout
Wave serpent w/TL BL
SS

7 x Fire Dragons
Exarch with DB Flamer - Crack Shot - Tank Hunters
Wave Serpent w/TL BL
SS

10 x Wraithguard
Spiritseer
Conceal

10 x Dire Avengers
Exarch w/Dual Cannons and bladestorm
Wave Serpent w/TL BL
SS

Wraithlord
Scatter Laser
Wraithsword

Wraithlord
Scatter Laser
Wraithsword

Fire Prism

Yea it's not the best list, but there isnt anything on foot that isn't T6 or better. Meh, it's worked so far either you shoot the tanks and have some really scary stuff on you second turn or you shoot the monsters and have scary stuff tearing through your flanks. Yes, I've played against the new guard; yes, I was impressed; no, I am not intimidated. If everything stayed the same I would've quit 40k after a few months. However I do think walker scatter laser spam has just gotten more effective.

I still believe that the guard heavy gunline is the most effective list in the IG arsenal. Never have I lost a game so badly as when I played a friend with his gunline list.

Tanks are pretty

Tanks are shiny

Tanks are tough

Tanks are expensive as a golden toilet in a guard list

Some of you guys are spouting what you'd take and I don't really think you comprehend that you WON'T be taking that much extra crap unless it's an apocalypse setting. Face it you're stuck just like the rest of us in a tournament setting, either you gear for all comers, horde, or MEQ.

I do want to whine a little though [whine] I want my phoenix lords to actually be worth it! [/whine]

Clthomps wrote:
which still does not matter since I am firing lances.

Sorry I was addressing squadrons armour facing generally rather then your lance specific example, where of course, it matters not at all, for Leman Russ' though it would for Chimera hulled vehicles.

Clthomps wrote:There is no way in heaven or hell that 2 CM covers a tank 50% or more.

Pardon I was generalizing and should not have tossed off a specifc measurement, in any case terrain tall and thick enough to actually give tanks cover in 5th, i.e. walls and such, specific height varies from tank model to tank model of course. 1 inch or so is often enough for the smaller models.

Clthomps wrote:
I think the rules are rather clear here, if more than 50% of the unit is in cover it gets a cover save, if less than 50% it does not get a cover save. If its exactly 50% the unit gets a cover save at -1.

That is not correct. Cover is for 50% or more of a squad being in cover:

BRB pg 22, second column, paragraph 2 wrote: If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves.

The reduced cover save only comes into play if it is not determinable that half of the unit is in cover or not. In other words when you and your fellow gamer do not agree, this is mostly an issue for multiple shooters at multiple target models (as in the example given in that same section), or with particularly irregular models (a buddy's lord of change model for example).

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:The reduced cover save only comes into play if it is not determinable that half of the unit is in cover or not. In other words when you and your fellow gamer do not agree, this is mostly an issue for multiple shooters at multiple targetrs (as in the example given in that same section), or with particularly irregular models (one of my friends lord of change models for example).

Jack

This is true. Additionally, getting IG tanks in cover isnt gonna be that hard anyway; Chimeras are big enough, and 55 pts. whee!