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.

Perfect Organism wrote:

 bu11etmagn3tt wrote:
I believe the Imperial Guard codex will be more than just Imperial guard- Like how Tau Empire has Kroot and Vespid, IG might include Auxila, Navy, and Mechanicus.

Doesn't the current IG codex already have all of those? I thought that abhumans, naval officers, flyers, priests and techpriests weren't technically part of the Imperial Guard. Come to think of it; are commissars part of the guard, or a separate part of the departmento munitorum?

I think they will expand the entries and options... i.e. make a mechanicus army from the codex perhaps....

As much as I'd love to see all the IG armies get covered in a new 'dex, I think it's way beyond what GW is willing to do.

I'm excited for the new kits, if the rumor's ring true; ogryns have always been a unit I've wanted but refused to spend the money on. Veterans getting their own 'upgrade' kit is pretty cool but anyone who has an IG army of respectable size has enough bitz to make their own Vet's anyhow. Vehicle wise I'd like to see a complete Basilisk kit (I've wanted to field it's variants so many times now and not have to buy FW models), in addition to the rumored siege tank.

Of course now that the cynicism instilled in us by GW has hardened us to the possible 'dex changes, they'll pull a 180 and make it the best codex ever, complete with rules for every regiment, six new kits, and the book costs fifteen bucks.

Has anyone tried playing IG again with only the 3rd Ed BRB entries?

Anything above that is just a godsend from GW and we should feel lucky.

 Frankenberry wrote:


Of course now that the cynicism instilled in us by GW has hardened us to the possible 'dex changes, they'll pull a 180 and make it the best codex ever, complete with rules for every regiment, six new kits, and the book costs fifteen bucks.

At $15 for a codex I might even stop playing Warmachine and buy a book and play 40k for a change. This carries even more weight since At $15 I wouldn't find it over priced, and would pay for it instead of procuring it by unscrupulous means.

Oh wishful thinking...

Oh, and for those that mention warmachine costing more than $15 for a book. I'll point out the one time investment of rule book, plus Tablet app covers you on everything for the current edition if you don't care about fluff.

It does make me wonder what kind of Cadian we'll be getting on the cover of our book. Or maybe a commissar, fingers crossed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The current Marine Codex (and the FW HH books for that matter) have shown us that you can do multiple armies in a single book without the need for pointless expansions and supplements. The Marine Codex contains what many other books (Eldar, Guard and especially Chaos) should have - fluff and rules sections for multiple different factions. It's not a difficult thing to do, and the fact that they don't do it more often is a sign of either greed or incompetence. Maybe both.

Exactly. Supplements should only be for significant deviations from the norm; like a traitor guard or genestealer cult army, rather than a new warlord traits table, a couple of characters and some FOC/Doctrine alterations. If the rules changes are less than 10 pages, put them in the main book.

Of course now that the cynicism instilled in us by GW has hardened us to the possible 'dex changes, they'll pull a 180 and make it the best codex ever, complete with rules for every regiment, six new kits, and the book costs fifteen bucks.

Dang, now you've spoiled it!

Exactly. Supplements should only be for significant deviations from the norm; like a traitor guard or genestealer cult army, rather than a new warlord traits table, a couple of characters and some FOC/Doctrine alterations. If the rules changes are less than 10 pages, put them in the main book.

I second that notion. Black Legion for example was completely and utterly redundant as the effective changes could be summed up on one page.

If you think BL was bad, pick up Cypher.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If they're going to do more supplements, make them meaningful ones and not throwaway arbitrary fluff expansions that detail a single bit of a greater whole. The Farsight Enclaves gave lots of information for a real faction of the Tau, and not some random Cadre of Fire Warriors. The Iyanden gave information for an entire Craftworld, not some specific Warhost within a Craftworld. More of that (if we must have more of anything). Less of the single-company nonsense.

In GW's mind, a supplement on one specific squad of ten space marines™ is the equivalent of a supplement on a whole family of species, like, say, a kroot supplement .
Oh, well, that is not true actually. That was an understatement. I forgot how kroots got absolutely no supplement whatsoever, while a grand total of one (1) space marine™ was deemed worthy of a dataslate.
Business as usual.

I just love the idea of these mini titans, unstoppable little bad asses.So you can bet your ass I will be getting one or three when they come out.  I know many codex purists won't like them, and to be honest they won't likely become a staple of my lists as well, but they are cool and I like having an answer to those dirty Xenos walkers :p.Now I don't think they will be super heavies, or at least I hope not.  One I don't think its needed, but who knows with GW.  With an armor profile similar to a Leman russ and a walker, I don't think that would be bad at all, throw in a void shield, some awesome guns, and a few special rules and there you have it.Based of of Epic, there are many classes of Knights, ranging from fast CC units to long range firepower based ones.  I really hope the full breadth of the Knights are brought with the release and it isn't just a couple of the same knights that you can bring.

Perfect Organism wrote:

 bu11etmagn3tt wrote:
I believe the Imperial Guard codex will be more than just Imperial guard- Like how Tau Empire has Kroot and Vespid, IG might include Auxila, Navy, and Mechanicus.

Doesn't the current IG codex already have all of those? I thought that abhumans, naval officers, flyers, priests and techpriests weren't technically part of the Imperial Guard. Come to think of it; are commissars part of the guard, or a separate part of the departmento munitorum?

Naval Officers are part of the Imperial Navy. They are not part of the Guard.

Techpriests are part of the admech. Since they are the suppliers of IG's war machines, they tend to tag along to make sure everything is running properly. Still not actually part of the Guard.

Priests are part of the Adeptus Ministorum. They aren't part of the Guard either.

Commissars are from the Commissariat, a part of the departmento munitorum. Closer to the Guard than the above, but as they don't follow the IG hierarchy, they aren't really part of IG.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
If you think BL was bad, pick up Cypher.

I'd say, the amount of new rules is about equal, so rules per model-wise, cypher dataslate wins. I've read both and honestly, they seemed to have poured as much thought in the cypher sup as they did in the whole BL sup.

 bu11etmagn3tt wrote:
I just love the idea of these mini titans, unstoppable little bad asses.So you can bet your ass I will be getting one or three when they come out.  I know many codex purists won't like them, and to be honest they won't likely become a staple of my lists as well, but they are cool and I like having an answer to those dirty Xenos walkers :p.Now I don't think they will be super heavies, or at least I hope not.  One I don't think its needed, but who knows with GW.  With an armor profile similar to a Leman russ and a walker, I don't think that would be bad at all, throw in a void shield, some awesome guns, and a few special rules and there you have it.Based of of Epic, there are many classes of Knights, ranging from fast CC units to long range firepower based ones.  I really hope the full breadth of the Knights are brought with the release and it isn't just a couple of the same knights that you can bring.

They won't have you take named knights. You would just be able to choose the loadout that you want. Like, I want to buy the knight for 150 points and I want to keep the CC weapon and replace the bolters for a battlecannon for another 20 points, for a total of 170.

Also, I doubt they're gonna add void shields. Either it will become a walker like a dread, or less likely it will become an MC with 4-6 wounds. Looking at its comparisan to a SM it doesn't seem to be SH size.

I doubt they will be in the IG codex. I think if they were gonna be added to the game they'd be in the SM codex.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
If you think BL was bad, pick up Cypher.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Cypher data slate. It was crammed with new fluff, had loads of rules to include him in multiple armies. Much more than any other dataslate and so it cost more.

 monkeypuzzle wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
If you think BL was bad, pick up Cypher.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Cypher data slate. It was crammed with new fluff, had loads of rules to include him in multiple armies. Much more than any other dataslate and so it cost more.

It was a good dataslate but cost too much just for rules for one guy. I wish the fluff was sold seperately. I wish there was a way to buy only the rules for dataslates, codexes, and rulebooks but GW would lose out on some money so we have to buy the fluff. I don't see that ever changing.

Speaking about rules-only editions: Now, not to say something unmentionable (and catch a hit with a power banhammer) but, you know, the supps and slates are released digital, so if you need the rules on your table, you have to print them out anyways. There is more than one way to obtain the original file for print.

Of course, I'm speaking about the iTunes store and the Black Library page, shame on you for thinking anything else *innocent whistle*

 bu11etmagn3tt wrote:
I believe the Imperial Guard codex will be more than just Imperial guard- Like how Tau Empire has Kroot and Vespid, IG might include Auxila, Navy, and Mechanicus.

I really, really hope not. The differences between the Ad Mech and the IG are as great as those between the IG and marines. OK guardsmen and poorly equipped Skittari could be represented by the same unit entry but beyond there is absolutely nothing in the IG that can be used to represent Praetorians or any of the other unique Ad Mech military forces. The Ad Mech really needs its own codex to do it justice. One of the old IG codexes tried to represent Skittari with one of its doctrines but it was basically guardsmen with some bionic bits. The rumoured inclusion of Knights (who have absolutely nothing to do with the IG) does lend some credance to the inclusion of Ad Mech style units but it is more probable that GW has butchered, I mean retconned, its fluff again.

The IN doesn't have any ground forces (it isn't allowed them except for honour guards and small shore parties who would be armed with shotguns, carapace armoured and not much else).

Auxillia would be reasonable as conscripts do fill that role at the moment (although they could really do with considerably expanded equipment options).

It was actually a web published "Supplement" for the 'doctrines' Guard book that "tried to represent Tech Guard" not Skittari.

And it was not a single doctrine that tried to do so, but rather they actually had posted a whole listing of doctrines in Black Gobbo that one might use for a "Tech Guard" force. Those doctrines were:
Iron Discipline
Sharpshooters
Cyber-Enhancement
Carapace Armor
Tech-Priest Engineseers

That resulted in units that had 4+ saves with a 6+ Invulnerable save, the ability to reroll a single "To Hit" roll of 1 that could use the leadership of an Officer or Senior Officer and ignore a -1 modifier for being under half strength and allowing for regrouping below half strength.

That whole thing though came with a "Genestealer Cult" set of doctrines that were...a bit strange.

Whether AdMech will be included or not depends on GWs relation with Forgeworld and their strategy.
I think it will go this way:
Since FW does have AdMech units allready, they will roll the maybe 1-2 new GW AdMech units (if any at all!) into the Guards Codex and maybe release a supplement or something, unless FW gets their own full-blown AdMech codex done (which I won't put past them). With the current state of the armies (models without overhaul since 3rd edition, ork codex still from 4th edition, tons of units still in metal and suchlike) I highly doubt whether GW will bother to introduce AdMech as a faction in their own right. So any mechanicus-fans out there should maybe rather pray to the FW-aspect of the Omnissiah for any divine favours.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It was actually a web published "Supplement" for the 'doctrines' Guard book that "tried to represent Tech Guard" not Skittari.

And it was not a single doctrine that tried to do so, but rather they actually had posted a whole listing of doctrines in Black Gobbo that one might use for a "Tech Guard" force. Those doctrines were:
Iron Discipline
Sharpshooters
Cyber-Enhancement
Carapace Armor
Tech-Priest Engineseers

Which were all in the main codex although the cyber enhancement doctrine was specifically included to represent 'tech guard' (Skittari by another name). Either way using an IG codex to represent the Ad Mech is at best a crude approximation.

And it would make your average squad cost, minus special and heavy weapons, almost twice the normal cost, clocking in at 110 pts if I remember the costs correctly.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That resulted in units that had 4+ saves with a 6+ Invulnerable save, the ability to reroll a single "To Hit" roll of 1 that could use the leadership of an Officer or Senior Officer and ignore a -1 modifier for being under half strength and allowing for regrouping below half strength.

And cost 11 points each. A horrendous set of Doctrines, including the second worst Doctrine (the actual worst being Hardened Fighters).

How many hull points would a knight have? 5-6?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
That resulted in units that had 4+ saves with a 6+ Invulnerable save, the ability to reroll a single "To Hit" roll of 1 that could use the leadership of an Officer or Senior Officer and ignore a -1 modifier for being under half strength and allowing for regrouping below half strength.

And cost 11 points each. A horrendous set of Doctrines, including the second worst Doctrine (the actual worst being Hardened Fighters).

Who cares, at least they where there! The option was available. I take things that arent worth it (and the majority of players do in my experience) simply because its cool or they have it as models and so forth. And frankly its better customization compaired to our current codex. I dotn care if they are bad I just want the options there.

Options with no use aren't options, they're the illusion of choice.

I would prefer GW actually hire real game designers who care about making good books with a scope beyond their own little play club. It doesn't take much effort to create decent useful options, the problem is they do not make rules for anything other than physical models which stifles creativity.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Who cares, at least they where there!

thats not really the point though. yes they were there but so useless in game terms that an army of based on those doctrines was barely even worth using. It was better to use the standard rules and model the standard guardsmen (or Veterans) as Skittari.

But most people arent bothered at all, (that I have ever seen). I have seen many really odd lists because people take what they want over whats good. Options are still options especially to casual players like me who like adding a bit of story or character to the army beyond the looks of a model.

GW rules are great for us casual gamers, because if the options are truley that bad, we can just edit them ourselves. But if the options are there already thats the groundwork for us already done.

As long as the options are there most people will be happy (unless they are on the internet I guess)

*runs away from the flowing can of worms*

 Swastakowey wrote:
I have seen many really odd lists because people take what they want over whats good. )

As do I but there is a limit and that limit is crossed when basic troops choices are doubled in price, but certainly not in effectiveness, simply to be 'fluffy' (but even then they weren't really). In such cuircumstances I find its far better to simply rely upon the visual aspects of wargaming.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I have seen many really odd lists because people take what they want over whats good. )

As do I but there is a limit and that limit is crossed when basic troops choices are doubled in price, but certainly not in effectiveness, simply to be 'fluffy' (but even then they weren't really). In such cuircumstances I find its far better to simply rely upon the visual aspects of wargaming.

If thats the case the options wont fuss you then, because if they arent good then you will just make them look the part and be happy

In all seriousness though its also good not to get your hopes up, its easier when you arent competative though.