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 think what GW is doing with this codex is fairly obvious and that is to place emphasis on the most common unit in the IG army, platoons. Infantry are clearly at the center of this codex. With in the IG, these point costs do make sense.

Nah, if I did these rules would be a hell of a lot better. And more balanced.

Vladsimpaler wrote:I don't think that I can accurately display my feelings for this codex without getting banned.

This entire codex suffers from Sternguard Syndrome. What's next? 100 point Junior Officers? Screw you, Robin Cruddace.

I was excited for this codex until point costs came out. This codex is going to suck.

I went from wanting to buy Ogryns, Stormtroopers, and Valkyries to just the IG Codex itself and the Advisors.

Well... I'm disappointed, but not to that point.

IMO, C: IG is being like C: SM, with a decent Troops choice, a couple support entries, and nothing else really playable.

- I was planning on fielding Ogryns, but at 35+ pts each, that ain't happening.
- I was even planning on Stormtroopers, but at 16+ pts each, that ain't happening.
- I'm on the fence for Sentinels, and they'll probably still move forward, since they got a little price cut.
- I'm still probably going with Valks, because the model is just damn cool and "worth" $50.

But where are the splash / Apoc sets for Valks & Sentinels?!? This is pissing me off.

Have they done splash releases for anythign since the Eldar Warwalkers? Even the Apocolypse boxes were mostly older kits.

Why give a discount on Valks, when everybody is still going to buy them at full price?

focusedfire wrote:I'll buy your storm troopers, chimeras, &LRBT ....negotiations start at .10 cents on the dollar

Oh, please. A tenth of a penny per dollar?

Hell, I'll pay tenfold what you offer: a whole penny per dollar and just resell everything at 10 cents on the dollar.

Polonius wrote:Why give a discount on Valks, when everybody is still going to buy them at full price?

I'd expect a splash box of Valks around Planetstrike. Until then, my Guardsmen will be land-locked.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I think what GW is doing with this codex is fairly obvious and that is to place emphasis on the most common unit in the IG army, platoons. Infantry are clearly at the center of this codex. With in the IG, these point costs do make sense.

Nah, if I did these rules would be a hell of a lot better. And more balanced.

Just making it "better" takes little consideration as to how it impacts other armies. I think the Codex on the whole looks pretty balanced, while individual units are not. Ultimately we need to wait to really know all the capabilities of these units.

I'd recommend a new thread in the proposed rules section, I'm always open to see how people would try to "fix" or "balance" things.

foil7102 wrote:As far as the arty goes I think all of it is overpriced by a large margin considering what you get. I don't know the specifics on the griffin. If it ignores cover that its a steal. If not, well I dont think I would take it. Manticores look cool for fun games, and death strikes look nifty for Apoc.

Personally as far as lascannon's go on Russ's I guess I am old scool, tanks kill infantry, infantry kill tanks. The 6 russ's put out 6 pie plates, and 54 heavy bolter shots a turn. (ork meat platters anyone?) That is all you need for hordes or power armor. My guys will be packing mostly lascanons and meltas depending on inliftration, unit placement, costs, ect. With a few auto canons thrown in.

I think manticores are a bit more respectable than fun games. I didn't like lootas when the ork rumors were coming out, but once you realize that even if you roll a one every time its still decent, and considering that 66% of the time you are getting at least double the number of shots, then it becomes very good. D3 strength 10 ordnance rips up tanks and infantry, and if i have already committed to 3 russes, then I've got my LOS blocking already pre-packaged. If people are seeing my missiles over and through my russes, then i'll buy a net for the manticore.

I might agree with you on the russ lascannons once I've seen all the details for the infantry squads. If I have enough points/orders/KP to spare to make infantry mounted tank kill viable, then i might go your way. if infantry platoons run more efficiently as infantry killers and short range tank killers, then I'm still going to put battle cannons on enemy armor. Another option for me would be to designate some russes as movers and some as pillboxes, the movers can just take the single HB, the pillboxes would get a rack of them.

I think you and I are discussing leaves at this point, not the trees and not the forest. I think I might try and get someone to play against 6 russes 1 other heavy and troops this weekend. I'll even forgo the new order system and use 3rd edition infantry platoons. I just want to see what happens to people's strategy under that kind of bombardment.

aka_mythos wrote:

Rumor at Warseer is that the Hydra is 2x Twin-linked Hydra Autocannons. This seems to be a fairly consistent report on the rules. So I think anyones dreams of 4 autocannons are out.

Are we sure people are just basing this off what Forgeworld had them listed as?

Korcheski wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Rumor at Warseer is that the Hydra is 2x Twin-linked Hydra Autocannons. This seems to be a fairly consistent report on the rules. So I think anyones dreams of 4 autocannons are out.

Are we sure people are just basing this off what Forgeworld had them listed as?

The 2x Twin-linked was from the new Codex. Col.Gravis doublechecked it I believe.

aka_mythos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I think what GW is doing with this codex is fairly obvious and that is to place emphasis on the most common unit in the IG army, platoons. Infantry are clearly at the center of this codex. With in the IG, these point costs do make sense.

Nah, if I did these rules would be a hell of a lot better. And more balanced.

Just making it "better" takes little consideration as to how it impacts other armies. I think the Codex on the whole looks pretty balanced, while individual units are not. Ultimately we need to wait to really know all the capabilities of these units.

I'd recommend a new thread in the proposed rules section, I'm always open to see how people would try to "fix" or "balance" things.

Sorry, in my rush I quoted the wrong post. I was responding to a poster that said he bet I worked for GW from the last version of this thread. I honestly have no idea how I ended up quoting that paragraph. I apologize.

As for rebalancing the codex I would be happy too. I already have fixes for the space marine, tyranid, and ork codexes half written and mostly in mind. I want to see the codex first though.

Is anyone else having flashbacks to the 2003 release of the current IG Codex back There was a ton of excitement and optimism based on lots of rumors of awesome new doctrines and great new units, as well as buffs to existing marginalized units. ("We've fixed Ogryns, Commissars and Stormtroopers! We promise!")

Then the other details emerged, and people got annoyed. Rumors emerged from people flipping through preview Codecies, and as soon as they started reporting point costs, a lot of people realized that the doctrines were (by-and-large) garbage. People came to similar realizations about the new units, and a lot of the "improvements" to marginalized units didn't go far enough to make them worth taking. Plus, a lot of things got slightly more expensive (LCs, assault weapons, PHQs) and some popular units were removed / nerfed. So there was a lot of preemptive rage among IG players. My initial gut feeling was that IG actuall got slightly weaker compared to the (admittedly short-term) previous status quo of the old IG Codex benefiting from ID and SS from Codex: EOT.

Then we all realized how powerful Drop Troopers was, and laughed on into the night.

I'm not expecting that we're going to get Nob Bikers or anything, but it's entirely possible that we're missing something that's going to make a huge difference in how this army plays.

But until we find it, the smart money says Stormtroopers and Ogryns won't be worth taking.

Dave47 wrote:
But until we find it, the smart money says Stormtroopers and Ogryns won't be worth taking.

I think they'll be worth taking, just not "en masse." They strike me as being more niche units where before they were treated much more like uber front line units. Unfortunately the latter is what most people were hoping and expecting. Ogryn are your counter assault unit. Stormtroopers have 3 separate niche distinguished by their "mission" but generally function as your anti-heavy infantry, infantry unit.

There is a silver lining to the new codex...
At first I thought that I would have to purchase 2-3 more infantry boxes, a command squad, a few commissars, the advisor box, some psykers, a leman russ and a forgeworld turret for it, 3 sentinels, 3 boxes of vostroyans for vets and 3 chimeras to go along with them, and to top it all off some servitors for my enginseers. With the initial rumored costs for everything, I could have fit almost all this in my army list with minimal shuffling.
Now, however, I do not even have points room for the models in the army I use now. This means that I will not be spending any money, and if the IG codex is bad enough I might not even buy that!
Thanks, GW!
Of course I know you can always surprise me at the last minute and have all these terrible rumors turn out to be false, but that sure didn't happen for my Iron Warriors!

I think we've gone beyond the "they're just rumors" stage.

What we're missing now is the "other stuff" that might make some of what we've already learned appear better/worse...

Tell me about it. There's no real pressing need to redo any army list entries or buy any of the new boxes. The Command squad is full of nice bitz, but nothing that I actually need. Same with the Valkyrie. There appears to be nothing in the Codex that actually benefits from being dropped off one while at the same time maintains at least the semblance of points-efficiency.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Tell me about it. There's no real pressing need to redo any army list entries or buy any of the new boxes. The Command squad is full of nice bitz, but nothing that I actually need. Same with the Valkyrie. There appears to be nothing in the Codex that actually benefits from being dropped off one while at the same time maintains at least the semblance of points-efficiency.

Woah... quiet down. I think this is the first instance of anything supporting Shuma's idea that GW doesn't do this just to sell minis.

Shep wrote:

foil7102 wrote:As far as the arty goes I think all of it is overpriced by a large margin considering what you get. I don't know the specifics on the griffin. If it ignores cover that its a steal. If not, well I dont think I would take it. Manticores look cool for fun games, and death strikes look nifty for Apoc.

Personally as far as lascannon's go on Russ's I guess I am old scool, tanks kill infantry, infantry kill tanks. The 6 russ's put out 6 pie plates, and 54 heavy bolter shots a turn. (ork meat platters anyone?) That is all you need for hordes or power armor. My guys will be packing mostly lascanons and meltas depending on inliftration, unit placement, costs, ect. With a few auto canons thrown in.

I think manticores are a bit more respectable than fun games. I didn't like lootas when the ork rumors were coming out, but once you realize that even if you roll a one every time its still decent, and considering that 66% of the time you are getting at least double the number of shots, then it becomes very good. D3 strength 10 ordnance rips up tanks and infantry, and if i have already committed to 3 russes, then I've got my LOS blocking already pre-packaged. If people are seeing my missiles over and through my russes, then i'll buy a net for the manticore.

I might agree with you on the russ lascannons once I've seen all the details for the infantry squads. If I have enough points/orders/KP to spare to make infantry mounted tank kill viable, then i might go your way. if infantry platoons run more efficiently as infantry killers and short range tank killers, then I'm still going to put battle cannons on enemy armor. Another option for me would be to designate some russes as movers and some as pillboxes, the movers can just take the single HB, the pillboxes would get a rack of them.

I think you and I are discussing leaves at this point, not the trees and not the forest. I think I might try and get someone to play against 6 russes 1 other heavy and troops this weekend. I'll even forgo the new order system and use 3rd edition infantry platoons. I just want to see what happens to people's strategy under that kind of bombardment.

Yeah, but I am worried about how the rules work on the manticore. If it is 4 d3 shots, that I am cool with it. However if it is d3 shots, and once you expend 4 rockets you are done.... Well then I am not so sold, especially as you can only max 3 of them.

foil7102 wrote:Yeah, but I am worried about how the rules work on the manticore. If it is 4 d3 shots, that I am cool with it. However if it is d3 shots, and once you expend 4 rockets you are done.... Well then I am not so sold, especially as you can only max 3 of them.

You get 4 rockets per Manticore for the game and each rocket lays down D3 Ordnance templates if that makes it any clearer.

What is this sneak peak that has been mentioned being the 21st?

Ah! well now..... Its not like my tanks live past turn 4 now.... That is well, makes things a little more interesting.
No wonder you can not squadron them, a possible 27 str 10 templates per turn. That would be one heck of an Alpha strike. As they are now, well mixing one in would be cool. Not sure if I would be willing to give up a heavy support slot though.

ph34r wrote:There is a silver lining to the new codex...
At first I thought that I would have to purchase 2-3 more infantry boxes, a command squad, a few commissars, the advisor box, some psykers, a leman russ and a forgeworld turret for it, 3 sentinels, 3 boxes of vostroyans for vets and 3 chimeras to go along with them, and to top it all off some servitors for my enginseers. With the initial rumored costs for everything, I could have fit almost all this in my army list with minimal shuffling.
Now, however, I do not even have points room for the models in the army I use now. This means that I will not be spending any money, and if the IG codex is bad enough I might not even buy that!
Thanks, GW!
Of course I know you can always surprise me at the last minute and have all these terrible rumors turn out to be false, but that sure didn't happen for my Iron Warriors!

So you aren't interested in adding more than 3 leman russes to your army? Or any valkyries? Or any of the new artillery pieces? New ratlings? New psyker? Armor 12 sentinels? Was GW going to be able to please you no matter what it did? I'm an apocalypse fanboy, so I already have a tank company and 3 bassies painted. But I've already been buying manticores, executioners, and chimeras, and will be buying the advisors, and a bunch of sentinels for starters, and will probably go on a run where i buy an obscene number of valks and stormtroopers, ogryns ratlings, psykers and tech-people once I've got my tourney list built and painted. Looks like I'll be spending enough for the both of us.

As far as I can tell, Robin has removed the vast majority of obstacles that stood in my guard armies way. My inability to tangle with top tier lists has evaporated. I've got the firepower I need, coupled with reasonable transports to spoil assaults, and enough of a KP fix to tune something competitive for this years GT circuit. I'm happy. When I'm not playing tourney style, I have tons of fun toys and combos to play with (many of them brand new).

aka_mythos wrote:
I think they'll be worth taking, just not "en masse." They strike me as being more niche units where before they were treated much more like uber front line units. Unfortunately the latter is what most people were hoping and expecting. Ogryn are your counter assault unit. Stormtroopers have 3 separate niche distinguished by their "mission" but generally function as your anti-heavy infantry, infantry unit.

This quote is entirely too rational for this thread.

foil7102 wrote:Yeah, but I am worried about how the rules work on the manticore. If it is 4 d3 shots, that I am cool with it. However if it is d3 shots, and once you expend 4 rockets you are done.... Well then I am not so sold, especially as you can only max 3 of them.

Didn't think of that possibility. If thats true, then i wonder if forgeworld takes returns

Shep wrote:So you aren't interested in adding more than 3 leman russes to your army? Or any valkyries? Or any of the new artillery pieces? New ratlings? New psyker? Armor 12 sentinels? Was GW going to be able to please you no matter what it did?

Well, I for one was, but with the way the points costs are shaping up, my 1,000 point army is turning into a 1,250 point army with the simple addition of a commissar or two. I might pick up one tank to get me to 1,500, but beyond that, there's just no room in the list, nor flexibility enough to fit in as many toys as I want to.

ph34r wrote:There is a silver lining to the new codex...
At first I thought that I would have to purchase 2-3 more infantry boxes, a command squad, a few commissars, the advisor box, some psykers, a leman russ and a forgeworld turret for it, 3 sentinels, 3 boxes of vostroyans for vets and 3 chimeras to go along with them, and to top it all off some servitors for my enginseers. With the initial rumored costs for everything, I could have fit almost all this in my army list with minimal shuffling.
Now, however, I do not even have points room for the models in the army I use now. This means that I will not be spending any money, and if the IG codex is bad enough I might not even buy that!
Thanks, GW!

Join the club, my good friend. This codex is going to be absolutely terrible. Hmm, 350 points for a squad of 10 Ogryns. Our codex writer must have several brain tumors. Idiot.

P.S. Could we have a list of all the point costs that have been rumored?

Shep wrote:So you aren't interested in adding more than 3 leman russes to your army? Or any valkyries? Or any of the new artillery pieces? New ratlings? New psyker? Armor 12 sentinels? Was GW going to be able to please you no matter what it did?

For modeling reasons sure, for play, not very impresssed yet. All the new toys don't really fix the IGs weaknesses....

Shep wrote:As far as I can tell, Robin has removed the vast majority of obstacles that stood in my guard armies way. My inability to tangle with top tier lists has evaporated.

Really? Weaknesses like impotency in close combat, poor ability to take objectives, low staying power, signifcant morale issues all around and tank vulnerability to assault, complete KP absurdity?

I admire your zeal sir, but even with all these potentially confirmed new units and abilities I'm not convinced the IG will be any better at all. I predict they still will be swept off the field in many games, remain challenged at taking ground, get embarassed in almost every assault and generally remain at the bottom of the pile.

Also for the record on models:

Where are the great coat plastics?
Where are the roughrider models?
Cadians and Catachans, again?
Imperial Hobbits make me want to completely quit the army...

I think one issue I'm seeing with peoples reactions is that they want it all. Its not good enough that you can take a massive amount of infantry with new abilities; its not enough that we can choose to take 9 Leman Russes; its not enough we have valkyries... some people want it all and want it for cheap enough to all fit in one 2000 pt army. Some one said this before, this army is all about synergy, I hate that word but there it is. So there are things not to your liking. Am I going to have to redo my Grenadiers and do something with them, of course, but that's part of the game. Even if this codex isn't the greatest, it is a flavorful improvement.

Shep wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:
I think they'll be worth taking, just not "en masse." They strike me as being more niche units where before they were treated much more like uber front line units. Unfortunately the latter is what most people were hoping and expecting. Ogryn are your counter assault unit. Stormtroopers have 3 separate niche distinguished by their "mission" but generally function as your anti-heavy infantry, infantry unit.

This quote is entirely too rational for this thread.

Thanks? I think...

Augustus wrote:Really? Weaknesses like impotency in close combat, poor ability to take objectives, low staying power, signifcant morale issues all around and tank vulnerability to assault, complete KP absurdity?

Its talk like this that makes all armies end up as MEQs. Close combat, is suppose to be a general weakenss, but the issue has been mitigated by improvements to Ogryn and Roughriders. Well now we can take many chimeras and valkyries to carry troops to seize objectives, we have a troop choice with an optional 4+ armor save, we have cheaper commissars to mitigate morale in addition to a rally order.

Every armies' tank has a vulnerability to assault. Its the core rules.

We have the most flexibility as far as KP go. We can go 50 men as one KP to 5 squads each a kill point and everywhere in between. That's a level of flexibility no other army really has.

Weaknesses and strengths are what define an army. You want all the strengths and none of the weaknesses. These are the IG's weaknesses, they can be minimized or mitigated but not removed.

Augustus wrote:
Also for the record on models:

Where are the great coat plastics?
Where are the roughrider models?
Cadians and Catachans, again?
Imperial Hobbits make me want to completely quit the army...

Great coats have been denied adamantly.
Rough riders are in Wave 2.
Cadians and Catachans aren't being changed just added to. Least effort to reach largest yield.
Ratlings are one of the few things that keeps the IG from being just a futuristic analogue for a modern military. Ratlings are 40k, as much as eldar (space elves), orks(space orc), space marines (space knights), or necron (space undead). You have to ask yourself why you care at all about a game that seems to fly in the face of your concept of what it is.

aka_mythos wrote:I think one issue I'm seeing with peoples reactions is that they want it all... Even if this codex isn't the greatest, it is a flavorful improvement.

OK, I would agree with that.

The new Imperial Guard will obviously be a powerful army, but sadly some options are clearly better than others, so the internal balance of the codex is flawed. Vendetta's are clearly the superior option for anti-tank. 4-6 of them will be absolute staples in every Imperial Guard army. The basic infantry squads within platoons are clearly the best infantry in the codex, being vastly more efficient than both veterans and storm troopers. In fact, the basic 5 point guardsmen with a lasgun, when given the front rank, second rank fire order, is the most efficient anti-infantry firepower in the entire codex, so you will see people taking 2-3 units of 30 plain guardsmen (3 units merged make 30) with no special weapons (why give them special weapons when you can spend those points on more vendettas?). Some of the Leman Russ variants may be used, but I expect the 6 vendetta, 120 plain guardsmen army to be very very powerful.

I dont think guard are still at the bottom of the pile, but they still will lose to 'power lists' worse than others, so about middle of the pack. The more advanced tactic we wont know until we see the book itself. (cmon internet)

Remaining things to confirm:
1. Hvy weapon squads, 6 or 10? People have said both. If its 6 there is no one to take a vox for orders.
2. Is Lumbering fire Turret and all weapons or Turret and then as normal (1 if move, all if stationary)
3. What squads can merge, all in a platoon, only infantry squads, command squads?
4. What does the Tank character do thats worth 50 points? (BS4 isnt worth that)
5. Are upgrades like improves comms, regimental standard, honorifica still around?

Augustus wrote:

Shep wrote:So you aren't interested in adding more than 3 leman russes to your army? Or any valkyries? Or any of the new artillery pieces? New ratlings? New psyker? Armor 12 sentinels? Was GW going to be able to please you no matter what it did?

For modeling reasons sure, for play, not very impresssed yet. All the new toys don't really fix the IGs weaknesses....

Shep wrote:As far as I can tell, Robin has removed the vast majority of obstacles that stood in my guard armies way. My inability to tangle with top tier lists has evaporated.

Really? Weaknesses like impotency in close combat, poor ability to take objectives, low staying power, signifcant morale issues all around and tank vulnerability to assault, complete KP absurdity?

I admire your zeal sir, but even with all these potentially confirmed new units and abilities I'm not convinced the IG will be any better at all. I predict they still will be swept off the field in many games, remain challenged at taking ground, get embarassed in almost every assault and generally remain at the bottom of the pile.

From what you say the problem is that the IG could still lose, will actually have to work in order to take ground, and will be a shhooty tank army that can't beat dedicated assault armies in HtH.

So, the codex will be bad because its not an auto-win.

Gestalt wrote:1. Hvy weapon squads, 6 or 10? People have said both. If its 6 there is no one to take a vox for orders.

I think the more accurate question might be 3 models(as Weapon teams are 2W models now, not 2 models) or 7(3 HW Teams plus 4 guardsmen for "10" men)?