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.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Currently Codices are all about reducing options to support the massive wave of (now or soon) discontinued metal and Finecast models, only slightly countered by the release of one or two new units noone needs.
And do you really think that all 50 Space Marine HQ models will keep rules in the next Codex?

Are they? I own the current Codex Eldar, Tau and Space Marines, and in none of them were any characters dropped. In fact, new ones were added to the list (Illic Nightspear and Commander Longstrike). Some characters were lost from the transition from 3rd ed to 4th ed though (Iyanna Ariennal, Anghkor Prok but in that new edition several new ones were introduced like Yriel or Aun Va, so I'd call it a trade off)

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 Bla_Ze wrote:

 BrassScorpion wrote:
The Taurox looks like a fun model with lots of great detail, but the tracks are more than a little odd looking. If you're going to have four separate track sections for my taste this model has a better aesthetic.

Onslaught Miniatures
September 12, 2013
WIP render of the upcoming Juno APC for the Sisterhood:

Why replace fail with fail? The suspension system on the Taurox are badly designed and so is your scifi model.

The suspension is not worse than on a Chimera or Leman Russ. Flank armoured plates should never go down to the ground level, to let some free space for the wheels to absorb irregularities of the ground.
At least on "Juno APC", there is some room for the 4 tracks blocks to move upwards.

It does not really matters anyway, because this tank will not be available to play for WH40k anytime soon : it's an Epic 6mm scale miniature.

Place the front turret on the top and this vehicle can do the role of Taurox 'armored car'
Otherwise I can't figure out which roles of Imperial vehicle does it fills?

Not IG, but I think that would make an interesting alternate rhino hull. <edit>. maybe do a little bitz work to make a sort stug/jadgtiger version of a LRBT or chimera.

I was planning for this codex to be my last 40K book, now I'm not sure I even want to get it. None of the new models interest me - taurox looks dumb/seems to have horrid stats, no interest in wyvern/hydra seems questionable, and I was contemplating grabbing Eisenfurst models even before the scion box was redone. Nothing seems appealing, I think I'll cancel my FLGS book order. Only thing I MAY pick up is the cards. Maybe.

Well the cards show as sold out now.

So the Hydra is Open Topped, no Interceptor, no ignores jink?

Hrm, yeah, colour me uninspired. That means the Vendetta is still the option of choice for anti-air.

Is there a chance this Codex was made with the rumored new rule set in mind?

I find it hard to believe GW would make such drastic changes without a plan.

 primalexile wrote:
Is there a chance this Codex was made with the rumored new rule set in mind?

I find it hard to believe GW would make such drastic changes without a plan.

what changes would deduce you into thinking it was made for the new ruleset?

all rumors so far seem consistent with 6th.

 Barksdale wrote:
Personally, I'm waiting for the Harker Dataslate. I'm hoping Marbo gets one as well.

If they are actually removed, I'd expect them to return in a Catachan dataslate. The others, like Al'Rahem, I expect to be more individual dataslates.

decker_cky wrote:

 Barksdale wrote:
Personally, I'm waiting for the Harker Dataslate. I'm hoping Marbo gets one as well.

If they are actually removed, I'd expect them to return in a Catachan dataslate. The others, like Al'Rahem, I expect to be more individual dataslates.

so essentially what GW is doing, is realizing that taking softcover rulebooks for 18 pounds and turning them into hardcover rulebooks with some 20 extra pages for 30 pounds just isnt enough, now they start stripping ICs off of it and sell them as DLC..err...dataslates to make another half dozen more quid.

Yay! paying 36 pounds to get the same content I had gotten for 18 pounds last edition, now in hardback and full color and requiring an e-reader for the rest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way guys, did you notice how Astra Militarum is (I think) the first 6th edition codex that actually does NOT have more pages than the previous codex of that army?

They advertise the new Astra Militarum codex to be 104 pages thick like its some awesome thing when the old Imperial Guard codex had a thickness of.... 104 pages.

decker_cky wrote:

 Barksdale wrote:
Personally, I'm waiting for the Harker Dataslate. I'm hoping Marbo gets one as well.

If they are actually removed, I'd expect them to return in a Catachan dataslate. The others, like Al'Rahem, I expect to be more individual dataslates.

We don't know this. I personally think they'll be gone for good, with the exception of Marbo (who will come back in some way).

You think Marbo, with his ancient model, is more likely to return than the very recent Harker model?

I am convinced Sly Marbo has not been removed, he has just not been found in the codex yet. A year from now we will all have a good laugh as the rules for Marbo will be right where they have always been on page 51B.

 Sir Arun wrote:

By the way guys, did you notice how Astra Militarum is (I think) the first 6th edition codex that actually does NOT have more pages than the previous codex of that army?

They advertise the new Astra Militarum codex to be 104 pages thick like its some awesome thing when the old Imperial Guard codex had a thickness of.... 104 pages.

I actually only just noticed all 6th ed books except Space Marines are 104 pages.

decker_cky wrote:
You think Marbo, with his ancient model, is more likely to return than the very recent Harker model?

Yup because Marbo is one of very few IG characters who is used generally in almost every guard army I've seen. The official model is irrelevant- nobody I know bought the marbo model, they bash together their own.

If GW was not planning on doing something with Marbo, they will as they get the droves of 40K players clamoring for Marbos return.

People like Marbo, they want to use Marbo, and they'll pay for a dataslate with Marbo or whatever. I see no evidence anybody would buy a dataslate for Sergeant Bastone, the iron-body guy, or the faux-russian conscript leader.

 primalexile wrote:
Is there a chance this Codex was made with the rumored new rule set in mind?

I find it hard to believe GW would make such drastic changes without a plan.

Hard to believe... It's GW!


I'm still generally optimistic for the Guard, if the rumors about LR point costs are true I'll probably start fielding those again (I have way too many, it's about time they come back). Orders and Warlord traits seem solid, and platoons might be pretty good with the Priests. I didn't pre order a codex, but my FLGS has to order a few of them so I'll go check it out on Friday/Saturday and then join in with the whiners if it's actually terrible.

Okay. So the Heavy Weapon Squad's free weapon upgrades might be a misprint. Apparently, it says in the Italian codex that you can take any weapon from the "Heavy Weapon List" - however, that list does not contain any points costs. Seems like a misprint to me, can't be 100% sure though.

I'm actually contemplating on going Green and using the Taurox as an Ork Battlewagon or looted vehicle.

I like the kit, but it's not a "Guard Kit" if you know what I mean?

 410mcollins wrote:
People should remember that these are only rumors, untill Saturday. I'm know we won't like some things GW will do but nobody likes change. For those who really dont like anything from GW anymore i will see you on eBay

Wednesday is when they show up in stores in North America. I should have mine before the Saturday and unless someone beats me to it, I'll do a review/ overview/ Q&A here like I have with nearly every dex since Tau.

can someone link the warlord tables

 Ravenous D wrote:

 410mcollins wrote:
People should remember that these are only rumors, untill Saturday. I'm know we won't like some things GW will do but nobody likes change. For those who really dont like anything from GW anymore i will see you on eBay

Wednesday is when they show up in stores in North America. I should have mine before the Saturday and unless someone beats me to it, I'll do a review/ overview/ Q&A here like I have with nearly every dex since Tau.

Looking forward to it. Make sure you do comparisons to the current IG codex to help people compare and contrast the two books

I usually don't have time, I post and answer questions fast enough and do comparisons off the top of my head.

Generally the thread gathers those who are too afraid to post about the new book though which is generally the purpose. It gets the information out there so people can make an informed decision. GW doesn't allow the return of books, which is sneaky as feth IMO, you essentially get to spend a stupid amount of money to find out if you have super expensive paper weights.

 primalexile wrote:
Is there a chance this Codex was made with the rumored new rule set in mind?

I find it hard to believe GW would make such drastic changes without a plan.

Without a plan..?



Essentially what you have is a book that has gone to ridiculous levels to re-brand IP and ensure that no horrible little garage companies make so much as a cent off GW's prestigious IP. Creativity, dynamism, rule balance and an exciting book for your fans be damned.

Out of interest, a chap mentioned previously carrying on using the existing Imperial Guard codex. As this is technically a 'new' title (with a new name), is there anything to stop you ignoring this release and just carrying on with the previous codecies, forge world books or whatever, and playing 'Imperial Guard'?

I will get it on friday at noon, also at $37.

I got a really awesome local store.

can someone link the warlord tables

 jae4x4 wrote:
can someone link the warlord tables

http://natfka.blogspot.se/2014/04/astra-militarum-rules-pask-bullgryns.html#more

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest, a chap mentioned previously carrying on using the existing Imperial Guard codex. As this is technically a 'new' title (with a new name), is there anything to stop you ignoring this release and just carrying on with the previous codecies, forge world books or whatever, and playing 'Imperial Guard'?

Imma ally my Imperial Guard with Astra Militarum for much needed goodness.

 Pacific wrote:

 primalexile wrote:
Is there a chance this Codex was made with the rumored new rule set in mind?

I find it hard to believe GW would make such drastic changes without a plan.

Without a plan..?

Spoiler:

Essentially what you have is a book that has gone to ridiculous levels to re-brand IP and ensure that no horrible little garage companies make so much as a cent off GW's prestigious IP. Creativity, dynamism, rule balance and an exciting book for your fans be damned.

Out of interest, a chap mentioned previously carrying on using the existing Imperial Guard codex. As this is technically a 'new' title (with a new name), is there anything to stop you ignoring this release and just carrying on with the previous codecies, forge world books or whatever, and playing 'Imperial Guard'?

No more than they could stop you using any older codex because you liked it better. People willing to play against it will let you run it. People not willing to won't take well to anyone arguing that the name change on the cover lets you use the old one anyway.

so the only useful thing regular ogryns gained, is hammer of wrath and krak grenades.

but they lost frag grenades.

has their ranged weapon changed?

what do you think constitutes "ancient commander", Creed or other named commanders or you will be able yo buy a ancient commander upgrade?

also will all commanders have voice of command?

 Rostere wrote:
Okay. So the Heavy Weapon Squad's free weapon upgrades might be a misprint. Apparently, it says in the Italian codex that you can take any weapon from the "Heavy Weapon List" - however, that list does not contain any points costs. Seems like a misprint to me, can't be 100% sure though.

Apparently this is the case, I'm also reading that Italian codex list lacks heavy weapons upgrade prices.
So the only relevant information we have about HWS is : 3 * mortars cost 45 points, instead of 60 pts in V5, and instead of 80 pts in V4 (damn, that was insane ! ).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So the Hydra is Open Topped, no Interceptor, no ignores jink?

Hrm, yeah, colour me uninspired. That means the Vendetta is still the option of choice for anti-air.

Wow, seriously?

Most sensible people: the Hydra is kind of weak, it used to be awesome in 5th but making it skyfire-only was a pretty big nerf and it's too fragile to stay alive long enough to shoot down its targets. We should make it better in the new codex, let's try adding Tau-style optional skyfire so it can still shoot at ground targets effectively.

GW: the Hydra is kind of weak, let's give it a new model and then make the rules even worse so that nobody will buy it.

Why exactly do these incompetent morons still have a job?