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.

Jpepper4451 wrote:Face it you are a power gamer that had a couple nice tricks and with the advent of a new Codex you are lost now. I have heard countless people moan and complain when a new Codex comes out, it's never as good as the previous edition or such-and-such unit is now nerfed. Hey genius, they change up the rules sets and Codices to remake the game and keep it interesting. You know develop new tactics and the like. Don't be so shallow and just face that you have a new army to play test and move on with life. If you want a really hard time in a game try playing straight Daemonhunters for a change. Every army in winnable, it is up to you to figure out how (remember this is supossed to be the fun part).

Oh, spare us your condescending babble. This has nothing to do with previous good lists being invalidated. This has everything to do with an inexperienced idiot writing a Codex that not only changes every single unit in the book for arbitrary reasons, does so in a way that fails to address several problems and ends up creating several others. Ogryns are the poster children to a far larger problem.

In my opinion, anyone who fails to consider the effect of their changes on Inquisition allies while designing a new Imperial armylist is clearly ill-equipped for the task. In this benchmark, Cruddace fails miserably and takes the crown as the Gary Morley Of Codex Design.

Reading this thread compels me to playtest Ogryn and Penal Legion supported by Deathstrikes.

Having seen some of Mr cruddaces "work" pre- other designers getting to fix it I think "incompetence" best fits here. I've tried to like it, although mostly it's the new Valk model...I've always liked them (hell, theyre 40k Harriers, whats not to like!) but could never jsutify the FW price (they really, really dont fit with my renegades IG force AC) - now they come with 3xTL lascannon! for 130 points!!

The Grey Knight Apoc datasheet comes to mind. Bear in mind the fluff on it and the rules we have now, imagine how bad it was before it got edited!

I'm sure if you don't treat them as an assault unit they work out well. Think of them like a dedicated speed bump unit most dedicated assault units (of a similar points value) will have trouble in winning combat with these guys.

When I get a chance I'll post the math-hammer on the combat vs diffent strength, toughness, save & powerweapons.

I can think of better things to spend 410 points on than a speedhump... like a pair of Executioners (460) or 3 Griffons and 2 Hydras (375 w/change).

You realise that 410 points is 2/3rds a Baneblade? Do you really thing 10 Ogryn are worth 2/3rds of a Baneblade?

Ha I still say the IG codex is miles ahead of CSM, and VC codexs. They both crapped all over my nightlords and Necro lord armies, and just ended up being more broken than anything their old codexs could pull off. I'll take Cruddace's work over Gav's anyday.

Agamemnon2 wrote:In my opinion, anyone who fails to consider the effect of their changes on Inquisition allies while designing a new Imperial armylist is clearly ill-equipped for the task. In this benchmark, Cruddace fails miserably and takes the crown as the Gary Morley Of Codex Design.

You have failed to realise that non-Apocalypse allied Inquisition is as dead as the dodo and will not be supported in future Inquisition Codices. It isn't factored for becasue it won't be an issue in a year or so.

Is it good game design? No! Is it Robin Cruddance's fault? Probably not. Otherwise we're in agreement there are some gaping flaws in the new Imperial Guard book, most of which are caused by nuances in 40k's game mechanics and the design principles(TM) applied in a one size fits none fashion to the whole codex line.

BTW: There are a number of Gary Morley that sculps I like.

Amen to that, Hero! I was glad to see the back of Gav as he walked his "I write the rules but can't win a game" ass out the door!

H.B.M.C. wrote:I can think of better things to spend 410 points on than a speedhump... like a pair of Executioners (460) or 3 Griffons and 2 Hydras (375 w/change).

You realise that 410 points is 2/3rds a Baneblade? Do you really thing 10 Ogryn are worth 2/3rds of a Baneblade?

7 chimeras! with 14 heavy flamers!

and then some riders inside with heavy flamers!

H.B.M.C. wrote:I can think of better things to spend 410 points on than a speedhump... like a pair of Executioners (460) or 3 Griffons and 2 Hydras (375 w/change).

You realise that 410 points is 2/3rds a Baneblade? Do you really thing 10 Ogryn are worth 2/3rds of a Baneblade?

why would you spend 410pts? I can't see a reason to take more then 3 (130) or max 5 (210) you don't need more then this. Unless you're more or less force to (SM Tactical squads) why take a max sized unit?

sexiest_hero wrote:Ha I still say the IG codex is miles ahead of CSM, and VC codexs. They both crapped all over my nightlords and Necro lord armies, and just ended up being more broken than anything their old codexs could pull off. I'll take Cruddace's work over Gav's anyday.

The problem with what you are saying here, hero, is that Chaos Space Marines still have several of the best lists in 40k. So maybe your own personal army list got the axe, but pretty much everything in the Codex is at least 60-80% viable. As I mathed earlier, Ogryns are only about 30% viable.

@ Tri : If you use them, large or small, they still aren't worth it even compared to regular Guardsmen. For the price of three Ogryns you can get 26 Guardsmen, or for ten Ogryns, you could get 82 Guardsmen. This is also where math fails. Yes, three Ogryns bring nine T5 wounds, which might outlast 26 T3 wounds (doubt it), but you also get 26 lasguns, equipment options, fielding options (25 Guardsmen is actually two full squads and the command squad, so you get an order, too), among others. Ogryns? Well you get three Ogryns. That's about it....

I couldn't slam too much on Cuddace. The core of the Guard, the hard winning Guardsmen, has been improved a bit. What hurts them the most is the loss of their comman bubbles, which is a bit of a "WTF?" because they have had that since time unmemorable, why it was removed is beyond me.

George Spiggott wrote:You have failed to realise that non-Apocalypse allied Inquisition is as dead as the dodo and will not be supported in future Inquisition Codices. It isn't factored for becasue it won't be an issue in a year or so.

Is it good game design? No! Is it Robin Cruddance's fault? Probably not. Otherwise we're in agreement there are some gaping flaws in the new Imperial Guard book, most of which are caused by nuances in 40k's game mechanics and the design principles(TM) applied in a one size fits none fashion to the whole codex line.

BTW: There are a number of Gary Morley that sculps I like.

There's been no chatter suggesting Inquisition is on the pipeline for 2010, and even if it was, I think that codexes should be made for the here-n-now, not some future metagame that might develop after Codex Grey Marines and Codex Woman Marines eventually get released. There's a difference between making the Daemon codex forwards-compatible with the 5E rules that landed a few months after its release, and writing an IG codex with balance issues that will only be resolved at some future date when the Inquisitorial loophole closes.

Hey, and I like some of the rules in the new IG book as well! See, the simile works!

At any rate, I think I shall post some Ogryn update suggestions in my old Ogryn Update thread.

Agamemnon2 wrote:There's been no chatter suggesting Inquisition is on the pipeline for 2010, and even if it was, I think that codexes should be made for the here-n-now, not some future metagame that might develop after Codex Grey Marines and Codex Woman Marines eventually get released.

So do I but that isn't how GW sees it IMO. Codices are written so that they don'yt make reference to things outside of their codex that may not exist when new product is released

2010, 2011, 2012 whenever the principal is the same. I don't see why (assuming Space Wolves Q3 and Dark Eldar Q4 for 2009) that Inquisition can't be 2010 (I'm not suggesting they are).

Because they've got Space Hulk and therefore Tyranids and Blood Angels to do in the meantime.

Tri wrote:why would you spend 410pts? I can't see a reason to take more then 3 (130) or max 5 (210) you don't need more then this. Unless you're more or less force to (SM Tactical squads) why take a max sized unit?

And what good would taking 3 Ogryn do? Really, I'm struggling to find a reason here, and smaller units certainly doesn't make them any more attractive/useful/not ass-rapingly overpriced.

The best general offense against Ogryns as a defense is to simply ignore them. The best defense against an Ogryn offense is to simply ignore them.

Some units you can simply ignore when making a defense or an offense, but can not be ignored when doing the opposite. If a unit CAN be ignored in both offensive and defensive tactics, then that unit is pretty much total sod.

It's not smart to use expensive models as a speed bump. It becomes ridiculously stupid to use expensive units as a speed bump to protect cheap, expendable units.
Example.
You don't use nobs protect grots. You don't use carnafexis to protect gaunts. In a list designed around massed low strength gun lines, accompanied by heavy tanks to lay down heavy support fire, the WORST thing to include would be an over priced wall that doesn't actually work that well as a wall, and has less offensive capabilities than unit half their cost.
I would go so far as to say that where I to think up the worst idea for a unit to include in the IG, it would remarkably be exactly like the ogryn.

jayjester wrote:It's not smart to use expensive models as a speed bump. It becomes ridiculously stupid to use expensive units as a speed bump to protect cheap, expendable units.
Example.
You don't use nobs protect grots. You don't use carnafexis to protect gaunts. In a list designed around massed low strength gun lines, accompanied by heavy tanks to lay down heavy support fire, the WORST thing to include would be an over priced wall that doesn't actually work that well as a wall, and has less offensive capabilities than unit half their cost.
I would go so far as to say that where I to think up the worst idea for a unit to include in the IG, it would remarkably be exactly like the ogryn.

Actually, I would also add that that unit can't take Commissars to boost their dismal Leadership and make them unable to embark in fast moving skimmers...

EDIT : Then I would sell the model for $20 per when it probably costs me around $5, but they would be very nice models.

Ogryns are expensive because they dont want to make IG an assault army. And taking a single squad may worry marines but dedicated assault units like bloodcrushers laugh at ogryns.

thehod wrote:Ogryns are expensive because they dont want to make IG an assault army. And taking a single squad may worry marines but dedicated assault units like bloodcrushers laugh at ogryns.

And this time it's me who has to use that oft-quoted maxim:

If you want to make something rare, make it rare instead of raising it's cost. There's nothing wrong with a simple 0-1 restriction.

Making a unit so overpriced that it is better to take ANYTHING else other than that unit is just 100% folly, thehod! Even if! Ogryns are an ELITES choice, which is limited to three units! That means only three squads of these guys on the table! If they were abhorrently cheap, it still wouldn't make the IG an "Assault Monster" army, they can't embark onto a Valkyrie, so they aren't going to be jumping around, they aren't fast nor fleet, so they aren't going to be sprinting anywhere, even in a Chimera, they aren't going to be jumping around the board and could be treated like any other squad when it comes to road blocking them.

Skinnattittar wrote:Making a unit so overpriced that it is better to take ANYTHING else other than that unit is just 100% folly, thehod! Even if! Ogryns are an ELITES choice, which is limited to three units! That means only three squads of these guys on the table! If they were abhorrently cheap, it still wouldn't make the IG an "Assault Monster" army, they can't embark onto a Valkyrie, so they aren't going to be jumping around, they aren't fast nor fleet, so they aren't going to be sprinting anywhere, even in a Chimera, they aren't going to be jumping around the board and could be treated like any other squad when it comes to road blocking them.

I dont know what you are trying to get at. Ogryns arent monsters to begin with so that "assault monster" statement is inaccurate.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Because they've got Space Hulk and therefore Tyranids and Blood Angels to do in the meantime.

Tri wrote:why would you spend 410pts? I can't see a reason to take more then 3 (130) or max 5 (210) you don't need more then this. Unless you're more or less force to (SM Tactical squads) why take a max sized unit?

And what good would taking 3 Ogryn do? Really, I'm struggling to find a reason here, and smaller units certainly doesn't make them any more attractive/useful/not ass-rapingly overpriced.

3 Ogryns = 9 wounds at T5 they have the attacks and strength to make them use full against say orks they could pile in against a 30 strong mob and only really have to worry about the nob with a P.Klaw. A full 30 man mob (with choppers ad shootas) with a nob and P.klaw is at the very least 200pts. lets see how well 130pts of ogrin does against that

If the Ogryns get the charge (kills rounded to the nearest .5)
The Ogrins get 13 attacks at str6 || 4/6 4/6 5/6 = 5 wounds taken
the boys get 72 attacks at str 3 || 3/6 1/6 4/6 = 4 wound taken
Nob gets his 3 attacks at str 8 || 3/6 5/6 = 1 wound taken
combat is drawn ... one ogryn is dead
Orks turn boys and ogryns strike at the same time
Ogrins 7 attacks at str5 || 3/6 3/6 5/6 = 1.5 wounds
boys get 72 attacks at str 3 || 3/6 1/6 4/6 = 4 wound taken

If the Orks get the charge
the boys get 108 attacks at str 4 || 4/6 2/5 4/6 = 16 wounds
All the Ogrynis are dead

... shame both time they died. But on the other hand the orks are now just standing there in your turn, feel free to shoot them to hell. IMHO that is how a speed bump unit should work, hold the enemy for a turn, so you can deal with them later. I doubt that I'll convince you to take up my style of play.

Tri wrote:3 Ogryns = 9 wounds at T5 they have the attacks and strength to make them use full against say orks they could pile in against a 30 strong mob and only really have to worry about the nob with a P.Klaw. A full 30 man mob (with choppers ad shootas) with a nob and P.klaw is at the very least 200pts. lets see how well 130pts of ogrin does against that

If the Ogryns get the charge (kills rounded to the nearest .5)
The Ogrins get 13 attacks at str6 || 4/6 4/6 5/6 = 5 wounds taken
the boys get 72 attacks at str 3 || 3/6 1/6 4/6 = 4 wound taken
Nob gets his 3 attacks at str 8 || 3/6 5/6 = 1 wound taken
combat is drawn ... one ogryn is dead
Orks turn boys and ogryns strike at the same time
Ogrins 7 attacks at str5 || 3/6 3/6 5/6 = 1.5 wounds
boys get 72 attacks at str 3 || 3/6 1/6 4/6 = 4 wound taken

If the Orks get the charge
the boys get 108 attacks at str 4 || 4/6 2/5 4/6 = 16 wounds
All the Ogrynis are dead

... shame both time they died. But on the other hand the orks are now just standing there in your turn, feel free to shoot them to hell. IMHO that is how a speed bump unit should work, hold the enemy for a turn, so you can deal with them later. I doubt that I'll convince you to take up my style of play.

Cheap alternative to that poor, poor, poor plan. So poor a plan in fact it is mind bogglingly poor waste of both points and good models. Instead, buy 165 points of Armored Sentinels and do the exact same thing. The ork boys can do nothing against the sentinels, only the ork Nob and his power claw have a chance to harm the Sentinels. A bit more expensive, but higher survivability and usefulness, for such things as ranged anti-infantry action, options to buy anti-armor weapons, not to mention possible use to disrupt the rear of your enemy's lines in other missions.

If you just want a speed bump that will let you mow down the orks after the tear apart your unit, buy either just an Infantry Squad or Special Weapons squad with grenade launchers/sniper rifles/flamers for just 50pts. Both squads are more likely to be rolled over no matter what they do, so you have delayed the orks for a moment, and if you played your cards right, you got to send a few fusillades of lasguns, bloops of grenades, gouts of flame, or pinning shots of sniper fire before they go, softening up the orks for your next round of firing!

Either option is far and wide superior to Ogryns, either cheaper, or more flexible.

@Tri that is all just fuzzy math

sexiest_hero wrote:Ha I still say the IG codex is miles ahead of CSM, and VC codexs. They both crapped all over my nightlords and Necro lord armies, and just ended up being more broken than anything their old codexs could pull off. I'll take Cruddace's work over Gav's anyday.

From a fellow Night Lord... EXACTLY.

The IG codex seems crappy to me, but it isn't the soul destroying work that the CSM travesty is. We lost pages and pages worth of rules.

Seems like the IG received a pretty bad shuffling job, but it doesn't seem like they lost quite as much.

Either way, Ogryns are a funny, funny joke. Unless you play IG. In which case they're a "laugh to hide the tears" kind of joke. Sorry guard players. I feel for you.

What I find ironic about Chaos players is that their fluff is all about receiving gratuitous amounts of pleasure from inflicting pain upon other, and in the case of some, upon themselves as well. Perhaps this horrible schism that has befallen their codex is a bit of poetic irony?

In all due respect, I don't see how Chaos players can complain so much about their codex, they pull some plenty flavorful lists that are still extremely competitive (nay, some of the best) armies. Okay, you lost a lot, and the Guard Codex is still out and about as to whether or not it is a good one tactically (we'll have to wait for the players to figure out the good lists in testing and opposing players to figure out how to combat them before we can make that decision), but Chaos is still far better off compared to Tyranids, Tau, Dark Eldar (a growing concern as of late I have noticed), and Squats (oh yeah, I pulled that one out of the deck!).

Why don't you guys start a thread about the problems with the Chaos Space Marine codex? You bring it up in everyone that even breathes a complaint or compliment about something from another codex, or mentions Chaos.

Skinnattittar wrote:I don't see how Chaos players can complain so much about their codex

Two words:

Generic-fething-Daemons.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:I don't see how Chaos players can complain so much about their codex

Two words:

Generic-fething-Daemons.

totally agree with HBMC. Oh and the fact the only real competitive builds seem to always center around 2-3 of the same units and almost no flavor in that damn codex.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Why don't you guys start a thread about the problems with the Chaos Space Marine codex? You bring it up in everyone that even breathes a complaint or compliment about something from another codex, or mentions Chaos.

Hmm. This is the second time I've ever personally mentioned the Chaos codex on dakka. But ok, if you're going to broaden it to Chaos players, then why don't you compare our most recent 2 codexes, then the 2 most recent guard codexes. I certainly see a parallel. Namely, things that were not anywhere near being "broke" were "fixed" and we both lost out on some stuff.

The main reason for our complaints is the fact that we had few actual changes in our recent codex. We just lost stuff. We lost all of our (good) daemons plus pages worth of cult/legion specific rules. I'm going a bit off topic to explain it but it warrants an explanation in this context.

@ Mad Rabbit : And if every Chaos player makes at least two posts about it.... In this thread alone, I think complaints about the current Chaos Codex have been proffered or used as a "don't complain so much, just look at Chaos" in about one out of five posts (off hand), and at least five times in every thread that makes comments about issues with any other Codex. I rarely (if ever) see anything like that with any of the other armies, so little in fact, I don't think any other codex has been mentioned in this thread other than Imperial Guard and Chaos.

@ HMBC and Thehod : I think I was trying to be relative with that comment. You lost a lot of fluff, but I still don't see Chaos players being tumbled easily in battles, even if they take their lesser and greater demons, though I don't see either unit often. The codex didn't seem to break Chaos as an army. I hear a lot of "They invalidated my list, hurr!" but when I usually profer for more information, I am given things like "my sonic blasters aren't sonic blasters anymore!" to which I ask "can you still use the models though?" and am responded to with "yeah, but they aren't sonic blasters!" Okay, I can appreciate that, is your army now unusable, are the units that are replaced unusable? Answer, 75% of the time it is "No, I can still use them, they just aren't the same though..."

All in all, it just doesn't sound or look as bad as what I am constantly hearing for the past... how many years has it been? Hey, at least Chaos wasn't an effectively unusable army for over ten years like Guard was. Yeah, they were mildly competitive, but I can count on my fingers the number of tournaments (local and otherwise) won by an IG list. I think every other army won at least twice as many, including Dark Eldar (I may be wrong with that one). Heck, even Tau won more if I remember correctly! Okay, SOME army has to be at the bottom, but for Guard to be there ever since 3rd Edition... that's just wrong...