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.

Didnt see a thread but I figured I would start it. Basically I wanted to discuss the changes in 6th and how some of them impact our Guard armies and what you may change in your lists to keep up with these changes.

The biggest one I noticed was vehicles and transport got somewhat of a buff. While you now need ap1-2 to kill vehicles unless they are open topped. But as vehicles are more survivable they are now able to be shaken more often making them not shoot as well. So its seems like anti tank ap1-2 might need to be more common in armies if you want to successfully bring down vehicles. Or do you think it would be better to try and glance vehicles down???

Also now whenever a transport suffers damage on the chart the guys inside take a LD test and if the pass they can fire normally rather than snap shooting their weapons.

Now with these changes so far, will you start bringing more lascannons over autocannons? same as melta over plasma guns?(although plasma is still really good against monstrous creatures and elite units). With vehicles being harder to kill will vanquisher be a primary pick for tank commanders now?

Will russes be more common as they were really only killed by assault and melta and now most long range anti needs to roll even higher to kill them.

With vehicles being harder to kill and the troops inside not suffering from snap shooting as much will tauroxes be used more or are chimeras still more dominant. Has anyone thought about running a platoon of guardsmen in tauroxes behind a line? twinlinked autocannon will help glance vehicles, and if you angle the vehicle sideways a bit you could have a squad inside fire a heavy weapon out of it or you could have them disembarked outside firing all weapons. Then when the time is needed speed over the wall or terrain and grab objectives.

With cover now being super easy to get as most ruins and rubble(that usually being most of the terrain) only requires you to stand in it to get a 4+ cover will eradicators and their cheap cost be picked more often as well as wyverns? The new blast and template rules just say that it hits anything under it so now you hit all floors and barrage doesnt just hit the top floor anymore. Ive had great experiences with eradicator with heavy bolters all around and squads of 2 wyverns just tear infantry apart.

Share your opinions and if any other question feel free to add, theres plenty to go over that I havent discussed yet!

With the change to interceptor and increased durability of FMC's (grounding tests at end of phase), I would have had to personally drop the fortifications I've taken for AA and take vendetta's again. Hydras & Quad Guns are now effectively worthless against ground targets, so Vendettas have to come back for AA that isn't a complete point waste if your opponent isn't fielding flyers.

Additionally, vehicles are only harder to kill in that its harder to 1 shot them for an explode result. It is still just as easy to kill them through stripping of hullpoints.

As it is, its a null point for me because my gaming circle isn't switching to 7th. The increased randomness of maelstrom, the psychic phase, and some questionable design decisions (barrage & sniper don't cause pinning? heavy vehicles get a bonus to ramming, but don't give Lumbering Behemoth back in any way?) will make this an easy two year wait for the next edition.

Some of the lesser discussed changes:

- AM psykers got a huge buff in 7th edition. Wyrdvanes and Astropaths were iffy when testing against their weak leadership. But with the new edition, and revamped psychic powers, they are both much better. Both will always have access to at least two powers. I'm seriously considering wyrdvanes with biomancy as a cheap unit with a S4 AP2 Assault 4 shooting profile, in addition to a CC buff. It seems much more sensible to spam psykers (which IG can easily do) rather than upgrade primaris psykers to ML2.

- Rough riders, with everything scoring and tactical objectives it now makes sense to quickly move on an objective before the final turn. Rough riders can move quickly and can hit hard enough to blow most enemy units off an objective.

- Sentinels, might be the perfect objective holders. Armored sentinels can easily move on an objective and either contest it in assault or just sit on it.

- Scions, deep striking might actually make tactical sense now that they can score!

Veterans in Chimeras and will change to LC than AC.
Pretty much the only change I can see.

Vanquishers are now looking more tempting. As are vehicles & transports.

How will psykers work in Kill team now?

Razerous wrote:
Vanquishers are now looking more tempting. As are vehicles & transports.

I have never liked Vanquishers. Sure, they've got the range and pen power, but single shots at BS3 should never be relied upon. I much prefer leaving anti-infantry duty to tanks with blasts and large shot output, while ordering TL and Tank-Hunters onto infantry squads.

 obsidiankatana wrote:

Razerous wrote:
Vanquishers are now looking more tempting. As are vehicles & transports.

I have never liked Vanquishers. Sure, they've got the range and pen power, but single shots at BS3 should never be relied upon. I much prefer leaving anti-infantry duty to tanks with blasts and large shot output, while ordering TL and Tank-Hunters onto infantry squads.

Normally I would agree. Pask and TCs are the exception.

 alarmingrick wrote:

 obsidiankatana wrote:

Razerous wrote:
Vanquishers are now looking more tempting. As are vehicles & transports.

I have never liked Vanquishers. Sure, they've got the range and pen power, but single shots at BS3 should never be relied upon. I much prefer leaving anti-infantry duty to tanks with blasts and large shot output, while ordering TL and Tank-Hunters onto infantry squads.

Normally I would agree. Pask and TCs are the exception.

My thoughts exactly. With damage tables, having the vanquisher turret on a AV14 mounting, win win.

I personally would rather have blast russes deal with infantry and give them heavy bolters all around to add to wound output. As for anti tank I still prefer the vanquisher. But I really only like taking the vanquisher with pask upgrade or tank commander. I find that a company command squad is to easily killed.

I think Kurov's Aquila got a huge buff...or, more so, psykers and Prescience got much worse. I thought the Aquila was really strong even in 6th, but now that there isn't another reliable way to grant rerolls all around your army, I think it's borderline mandatory.

I've tried out the Pask command squad with two punishers and a vanquisher, I was impressed.

I never was a fan of the vanquisher pre-6th edition IG codex, just because of the BS3 and the inability to make the tank ANY better. Now, with a proper commander you can turn the thing into a killing machine. Back it up with some anti infantry support and you'll kick all sorts of MC's and heavy supports in the teeth.

As for psykers...I'm not convinced they're worth it for the guard player. Granted, presience is nice and all but we have to compete against other armies that can DtW with twice as many dice as we go to spend on the manifest roll. Maybe it's just been my luck, but I'm staying away from them.

Yea if you don't have many psykers and you go up against a psyker heavy army it really sucks.

And honestly ever since the new IG codex hit I've usually run a vanquisher with tank commander. Just seems like a really survivable hq and adds pretty good anti tank.

 tomjoad wrote:
I think Kurov's Aquila got a huge buff...or, more so, psykers and Prescience got much worse. I thought the Aquila was really strong even in 6th, but now that there isn't another reliable way to grant rerolls all around your army, I think it's borderline mandatory.

Borderline mandatory? Not even close, not within a thousand miles.

It suffers from 4 main issues that make it at the very best, barely mediocre:

1) Its in the "noticeable effect" category for cost. 25 points is an extra Priest, which is one extra fearless squad. Its also 5 pts less than plasma sponsons on an LR, or the cost of giving 2.5 of your Russes hull Lascannons. Even 5 Pintle Mount Heavy Stubbers is 15 S4 AP6 shots across the army for the same price.

2) It means you're taking a CCS, and frankly given the units that would most benefit from Kurov's Aquila are Leman Russ tanks, why not just take a Tank Commander HQ choice instead. Hell, take Pask as the Warlord and get P.E anyway.

3) You have to cram things in around the CCS for it to have a noticeable effect if you're not using it with expensive models like Russes that can afford to bunch up. Hence pie plates, positioning issues and so forth will ensue

4) As a result of the above your CCS may or may not end up in a position where a small chain of events that could leave to the CCS, and your warlord, being wiped out of existence trying to maximise or get even some models receiving the benefit. 6'' distance sucks.

I'd say there are right now, three reasons to take the CCS in lists trying to be competitive:

1) If you're playing Mechanised at 1850 points or above (below that I'd expect you're losing out on too much heavy firepower) and the Pask Tank Commander/Tank Commander Squadron hasn't been taken because you've got sufficient heavy firepower otherwise, getting the special orders that greatly benefit Vets in could be pretty good, as would be getting extra special weps.

2) If you're attempting to make something of an Air-Cav list, I'd say two CCS' are mandatory for buffing the airborne Vets to obscene levels and getting more firepower in there. Untested, potentially fun and worthwhile.

3) If you're trying to run footsloggers or HWS where the buff orders are easier spent.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
I think Kurov's Aquila got a huge buff...or, more so, psykers and Prescience got much worse. I thought the Aquila was really strong even in 6th, but now that there isn't another reliable way to grant rerolls all around your army, I think it's borderline mandatory.

Borderline mandatory? Not even close, not within a thousand miles.

It suffers from 4 main issues that make it at the very best, barely mediocre:

1) Its in the "noticeable effect" category for cost. 25 points is an extra Priest, which is one extra fearless squad. Its also 5 pts less than plasma sponsons on an LR, or the cost of giving 2.5 of your Russes hull Lascannons. Even 5 Pintle Mount Heavy Stubbers is 15 S4 AP6 shots across the army for the same price.

2) It means you're taking a CCS, and frankly given the units that would most benefit from Kurov's Aquila are Leman Russ tanks, why not just take a Tank Commander HQ choice instead. Hell, take Pask as the Warlord and get P.E anyway.

3) You have to cram things in around the CCS for it to have a noticeable effect if you're not using it with expensive models like Russes that can afford to bunch up. Hence pie plates, positioning issues and so forth will ensue

4) As a result of the above your CCS may or may not end up in a position where a small chain of events that could leave to the CCS, and your warlord, being wiped out of existence trying to maximise or get even some models receiving the benefit. 6'' distance sucks.

1) Unless you're also saying you'd never take a Primaris, this isn't a valid criticism. If you'd also never take a Primaris, then, ok, fair enough.

2) You're assuming I wouldn't also take Pask, and you seem to be assuming that other Russes wouldn't be the primary beneficiary of the Kurov bubble. In my mind, neither of those assumptions is correct.

3) As above: Lots of Russes, a few members of a blob within 6" of a Chimera; boom, that's nearly the whole army.

4) Being within 6" of a Chimera is maybe not as hard as you think it is. Also, I cannot imagine the CCS containing my warlord. Pask should always be present and is a much better warlord. Coteaz, even, is a better choice (unless 7th stops you from taking an Inquisitor as your warlord).

 tomjoad wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
I think Kurov's Aquila got a huge buff...or, more so, psykers and Prescience got much worse. I thought the Aquila was really strong even in 6th, but now that there isn't another reliable way to grant rerolls all around your army, I think it's borderline mandatory.

Borderline mandatory? Not even close, not within a thousand miles.

It suffers from 4 main issues that make it at the very best, barely mediocre:

1) Its in the "noticeable effect" category for cost. 25 points is an extra Priest, which is one extra fearless squad. Its also 5 pts less than plasma sponsons on an LR, or the cost of giving 2.5 of your Russes hull Lascannons. Even 5 Pintle Mount Heavy Stubbers is 15 S4 AP6 shots across the army for the same price.

2) It means you're taking a CCS, and frankly given the units that would most benefit from Kurov's Aquila are Leman Russ tanks, why not just take a Tank Commander HQ choice instead. Hell, take Pask as the Warlord and get P.E anyway.

3) You have to cram things in around the CCS for it to have a noticeable effect if you're not using it with expensive models like Russes that can afford to bunch up. Hence pie plates, positioning issues and so forth will ensue

4) As a result of the above your CCS may or may not end up in a position where a small chain of events that could leave to the CCS, and your warlord, being wiped out of existence trying to maximise or get even some models receiving the benefit. 6'' distance sucks.

1) Unless you're also saying you'd never take a Primaris, this isn't a valid criticism. If you'd also never take a Primaris, then, ok, fair enough.

Uh, no? You say this like going for buffers is always the best, absolutely mandatory course of action, and that is plainly not true, especially the notion that it isn't a valid criticism for me to suggest otherwise, which made me raise my eyebrows.

Buffers can be useful, but here they're just an "In addition to" rather than actually making anything happen. And here its also flawed in other ways, potentially even detrimental beyond the points cost.

2) You're assuming I wouldn't also take Pask, and you seem to be assuming that other Russes wouldn't be the primary beneficiary of the Kurov bubble. In my mind, neither of those assumptions is correct.

A Pask Tank Commander squadron comes to about 430~ points or more, and eliminates the need for a CCS, making your whole army have more raw firepower as a whole. Nevermind the fact that the Pask Executioner/Punisher squadron isn't feasible because you're paying 70 points for essentially a blind pie plate, BS4, pointless anti-vehicle buffing and a one-time smoke launcher use while firing with the former while with the latter you're out of range because you're too busy trying to put your entire army together in one silly 6'' bubble. I'd imagine that the formation lay out would make it difficult for movement if you decided to waste the points efficiency of the Kurov by trying to get Pask closer too, as either infantry are in front and can fire, or they're behind the tanks and they can't.

So the two single best loadouts for Pask are effectively pointless.

If the buffer here doubled the firepower output then maybe, sure I'd see the logic, but all it does is give a small effect that is in other ways detrimental and simultaneously rips out about 120 points of your list for a mediocre benefit when I just could buy another Leman Russ Eradicator or shuffle points to get something better.

At 1850/2000, maybe it'd be barely decent of a proposition, but then you're at the points level where they'll annihilate their way through to the CCS even easier with firepower.

60 points for preferred enemy is just frankly garbage and when I did the last post I thought it was 25 as a mistake. Losing out on 6 LR hull lascannons, or 4 sponson plasma cannons/multi-meltas there is terrible enough. I could go on for ages about all the different things you could spent 60 points on.

3) As above: Lots of Russes, a few members of a blob within 6" of a Chimera; boom, that's nearly the whole army.

You're more vulnerable to pie plates, and there is still the real prospect the Chimera is popped and the CCS soon follows. Sure, if you want to bubble almost your whole army like that, fine, but don't be surprised if you lose board control and the objectives, as well opportunities for close range murder just because you wanted to make a garbage upgrade work.

4) Being within 6" of a Chimera is maybe not as hard as you think it is. Also, I cannot imagine the CCS containing my warlord. Pask should always be present and is a much better warlord. Coteaz, even, is a better choice (unless 7th stops you from taking an Inquisitor as your warlord).

You would have to take Coteaz as I'm pretty sure Pask can't be the Warlord with a CCS present. So now you have points invested in 3 HQ choices, a tiny pool of psychic dice that'll get denied out the ass and you could have just taken a Leman Russ Executioner with plasma cannon sponsons and hull Lascannon instead of Coteaz and the CCS, even after that still saving you 25 points, and have been done with it.

Coteaz can't be the warlord, unless Inquisition is your primary detachment.

Spoletta wrote:
Coteaz can't be the warlord, unless Inquisition is your primary detachment.

I suppose an FAQ might be needed about this, but shouldn't the specific allowance in Codex: =][= take precedence over the general prohibition of allies being the warlord in the BRB? I guess this is more for YMDC, but that's how I assume it works.

Doesn't the INQ codex have some special rule where you can make the inquisitor your warlord? I think if Coteaz is on the field or an inquisitor of some kind, even pask and yarrick would know who the boss is.

Kurovs value IMO is 100% down to the re-roll 1s mean being able to re-roll blasts debate.

If yes, totally worth the investment, if no, then not really.

How about the new wyvern? Depending on your army I suppose it will depend on whether you run it or not. I tried it in a Gunline guard army and I will say it seems like it's almost an auto include to have at least one squad of 2 in most of my lists.

 tankboy145 wrote:
How about the new wyvern? Depending on your army I suppose it will depend on whether you run it or not. I tried it in a Gunline guard army and I will say it seems like it's almost an auto include to have at least one squad of 2 in most of my lists.

If you're not using wyverns you're doing it wrong. It's so cheap and so deadly. It's the first thing that I put on my list now because there's no better value for 65 points. It's much better than any of the other artillery options.

Wyverns are very very good. I would run at least two separately if you have the slots.

I'd question the value of splitting them up. With how wounds are applied to squads, a battery of two is vastly superior to two seperate ones.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
I'd question the value of splitting them up. With how wounds are applied to squads, a battery of two is vastly superior to two seperate ones.

If they only have one squad that you want to target with a wyvern I think you have already won.

With things going more towards MSU two wyverns is going to be overkill against most units. Also with two you can center the second shot somewhere else and start eliminating different models.

The only problem with the Wyvern is that it's a lil, bit over 1$ per point value ('least in Canada)...but if I'd had the free funds, I'd buy a couple of as well

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
The only problem with the Wyvern is that it's a lil, bit over 1$ per point value ('least in Canada)...but if I'd had the free funds, I'd buy a couple of as well

After months of trying to make my basilisk viable, I'm converting it to a Wyvern. Just need to figure how to cut the barrel in half without damaging it, I'm going for a double barrel arty look.

Ive experimented with them a couple of times and they now seem to be the go to unit. It just seems mandatory to have at least one squad of 2 wyverns in just about any list.

Ive also looked into using scions as allies to get some deep striking scoring units.

One thing I still tend to see as an issue with AM/IG is getting scoring units down the field, what are everyones solutions to this?

 tankboy145 wrote:
Ive experimented with them a couple of times and they now seem to be the go to unit. It just seems mandatory to have at least one squad of 2 wyverns in just about any list.

Ive also looked into using scions as allies to get some deep striking scoring units.

One thing I still tend to see as an issue with AM/IG is getting scoring units down the field, what are everyones solutions to this?

I haven't played enough games yet to answer this as well as I'd like, but my ideas are:

I've dropped the ADL and now I feel very free to move my blob squad around. Obviously, they're not very fast moving, so I am not expecting to get Linebreaker with them, but claiming the Relic is a reasonable expectation, I think.

Also, melta vets in a Chimera can probably help. Melta wants to get in close anyway, and that's two OS units that, if you hide them a bit and present enough other targets to you enemy's guns, might be able to survive a whole game.

Aside from that, the allied in scions (or maybe some sort of marines) will probably be our best bets to score objectives in the opposition deployment zone.

Yes, this has been IG's perennial problem.

In 3rd and 4th I used chimeras, deep-striking platoons, and infiltrating platoons to get downfield (I miss regimental doctrines that the 2003 Codex had).

In 5th with the 2009 Codex, I switched to using Chimeras (platoons and/or vets depending on what I felt like) and blobs to get downfield. I also used Al'Rahem from time to time since I'm a Tallarn army.

In 6th, I noticed my blobs tended to dissolve when they foot-slogged it so I I used Chimeras and out-flanking Al'Rahem platoons.

In 7th, I've been using Chimera-mounted squads and allied stormtroopers to nab down-field objectives.


-Tallarn Commander
IG, "We are many. They are few."