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.

Platoons, as currently construed, have been around for ages. Combined squads is a new rule, though. It wasn't in the 4th ed codex, even! Also, FW lists (the Death Korps, at least) present platoons almost exactly as in the IG codex but they do not have combined squads either. It should not be a shock if blobs disappear.

Blobs might be a bit beastly with allies. If they stay not much can take on a blob in cc if it has priests for shred, hate, and reroll armor saves + an inquisitor for rad, psych, and hammerhand.

LD 8 sergeants are pretty solid if you avoid putting them on point.

Blobs could also turn into a msu dakka fest if they change hws and sws into 50 point 10 wound squads with a ld8 sergeant.

 tomjoad wrote:
Platoons, as currently construed, have been around for ages. Combined squads is a new rule, though. It wasn't in the 4th ed codex, even! Also, FW lists (the Death Korps, at least) present platoons almost exactly as in the IG codex but they do not have combined squads either. It should not be a shock if blobs disappear.

Yes, but the DKoK list has other.. things that make up for loseing blobs. Like being DKoK.

 tomjoad wrote:
Platoons, as currently construed, have been around for ages. Combined squads is a new rule, though. It wasn't in the 4th ed codex, even! Also, FW lists (the Death Korps, at least) present platoons almost exactly as in the IG codex but they do not have combined squads either. It should not be a shock if blobs disappear.

True, however iirc the combat squad rule for SM was born during the same codex cycle, and that rule made it into the 6th Ed SM codex.

i don't see them dropping the rule as it makes Guard what they are. as Stalin put it.

Quantity has a Quality all of it's own.

If blobs go, I'll just keep using the 5th Ed codex. It would make orders far less efficient, make KP games essentially auto-lose, make force concentration even harder and also take away a huge degree of tactical flexibility.

2-weapon Vet squads would also mean I have a lot of remodelling to do.

I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

 tomjoad wrote:
Platoons, as currently construed, have been around for ages. Combined squads is a new rule, though. It wasn't in the 4th ed codex, even! Also, FW lists (the Death Korps, at least) present platoons almost exactly as in the IG codex but they do not have combined squads either. It should not be a shock if blobs disappear.

The most recent Elysian rules are exactly in line with the 5th codex. Combined squads and 3 special weapons per vet squad. I wouldn't use what FW do as an indicator of what's to come at all.

 pretre wrote:
I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

Well, in a way, it is CONFIRMED to be the end of Imperial Guard ... and the start of Astra Militarum

Have to say that pic of the Dakkajets about to strafe over the Hydras is awesome in the OP.

Wyvern looks pretty decent albeit still another Chimera-chasis variant.

 pretre wrote:
I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

Here's the basic pattern for 40K codex releases:

1) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

2) Codex ages. Progressively fewer options seem viable as metagames change. Army lists start to look more similar.

3) Codex reaches old age. Army lists have become largely cookie-cutter and reliant upon a handful of crutch units.

4) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

The relevant point here is that there's a certain stage just before #4 at which the player base tends to panic after hearing that their crutches will be "nerfed" or taken away. See Shrouding for Grey Knights, Webway Portal tactics for DE, etc.

Happens again and again and again and again and again...

 gorgon wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

Here's the basic pattern for 40K codex releases:

1) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

2) Codex ages. Progressively fewer options seem viable as metagames change. Army lists start to look more similar.

3) Codex reaches old age. Army lists have become largely cookie-cutter and reliant upon a handful of crutch units.

4) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

The relevant point here is that there's a certain stage just before #4 at which the player base tends to panic after hearing that their crutches will be "nerfed" or taken away. See Shrouding for Grey Knights, Webway Portal tactics for DE, etc.

Happens again and again and again and again and again...

I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, it's not a case of losing out on a 'crutch' for my army.

I play blob guard because I love the style, look and feel of the army, not for any competitive reason, and basically, the removal of combined squads would remove the very thing I play the army for. My entire playstyle, fluff and army would be invalidated, and require me to significantly alter elements of each, something that I should not have to do. New codexes should never remove units or options, in my opinion; there is no reason for blobs to be taken away, other than to force people to change and (in GW's plans) buy new models to facilitate a new playstyle.

So in short, I have no intention to alter my playstyle and army with the new codex, and as such, if it becomes impossible to play that way with the new one, I shall continue to use the old one.

Infantry squads could go up to 80 points a piece base and I'd still play them as combined squads. Competitiveness means nothing to me, but if the option is there, I will pay for it If it's not there, I shall continue to use the 5th Ed codex.

 Paradigm wrote:
New codexes should never remove units or options, in my opinion
...
So in short, I have no intention to alter my playstyle and army with the new codex, and as such, if it becomes impossible to play that way with the new one, I shall continue to use the old one.

The last 20 years speak differently. Every codex and edition change invalidates units and options from the previous one.

I have re-wargeared more units than I care to count and have plenty of units that sit on the shelf because they are either useless or not part of the codex anymore.

That's always been part of the game.

My Ravenguard assault scout army was nullified by the 6th edition rules. They are on the shelf now. I moved on.

If you are using the 5th edition codex, can I use the 4th edition codex and the old Witchunters book????

An all infiltrate drop troop Guard army with an inquisitor who has the liber heresius was lots of fun. I miss that army as well.

Yea if you are playing with the current IG dex after the new one comes out then can I use the 3.5 Chaos dex against you? because I like that one better

pretre wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
New codexes should never remove units or options, in my opinion
...
So in short, I have no intention to alter my playstyle and army with the new codex, and as such, if it becomes impossible to play that way with the new one, I shall continue to use the old one.

The last 20 years speak differently. Every codex and edition change invalidates units and options from the previous one.

I have re-wargeared more units than I care to count and have plenty of units that sit on the shelf because they are either useless or not part of the codex anymore.

That's always been part of the game.

I understand it's a part of the game, I'm simply saying it shouldn't have to be, especially now when more and more options are being added to the game. As I say, even if blob squads became the poorest unit in the game, I would still base my army around them, so long as I could.

General Hobbs wrote:

My Ravenguard assault scout army was nullified by the 6th edition rules. They are on the shelf now. I moved on.

If you are using the 5th edition codex, can I use the 4th edition codex and the old Witchunters book????

An all infiltrate drop troop Guard army with an inquisitor who has the liber heresius was lots of fun. I miss that army as well.

Sure, I would be more than happy to let you use the 4th ed books if I were playing against you, if that was the army you wanted to play and you couldn't do it with the current book. Heck, I'd even let you tweak points and whatever within reason to make it more effective. Luckily, I am fortunate enough to play with a couple of groups who share my mindset, and will allow me to keep using the old book.

Also, your comment about the 6th Ed rules nullifying your Scout army, I'm assuming due to the supposedly impossible position of the Assault rules. In that case it's a different argument to mine. You abandoned an army because it was not as competitive (a perfectly fair reason) whereas I was more talking about the style and feel of my army, regardless of competitiveness ,which would be lost if blobs were removed. I play entirely non-competitively so the usefulness of blob squads doesn't matter to me, so long as the option exists. As I say above, I would play them if they were the worst unit in the game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sonofruss wrote:
Yea if you are playing with the current IG dex after the new one comes out then can I use the 3.5 Chaos dex against you? because I like that one better

Yes, I would allow it.

 gorgon wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I think it is a bit early to declare it the end of IG that necessitates a return to an old codex based on a rumored change of blobs.

Here's the basic pattern for 40K codex releases:

1) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

2) Codex ages. Progressively fewer options seem viable as metagames change. Army lists start to look more similar.

3) Codex reaches old age. Army lists have become largely cookie-cutter and reliant upon a handful of crutch units.

4) New codex is released. New toys and options seem decently plentiful, but most old crutch units are removed. New playstyles and lists emerge.

The relevant point here is that there's a certain stage just before #4 at which the player base tends to panic after hearing that their crutches will be "nerfed" or taken away. See Shrouding for Grey Knights, Webway Portal tactics for DE, etc.

Happens again and again and again and again and again...

I think there's a lot of truth to this. If you're upset because something you think you rely on competitively is going, there'll be other things you can use competitively in the new book, and this refreshes things a bit. If you're upset because, say, you've got a fluffy army you've put a lot of work into that you worry won't be valid anymore, in friendly games folks'll probably let you bend the rules a bit anyway, I know I would. If there's room in the hobby for homebrew (hint: there totally is) there's room for letting people use their 5th ed IG foot list that doesn't work in the 6th ed codex.

According to whispers I've been reading on other 40k sites, apparently this weekend we're going to get another 'big reveal' for Astra Miliarium/Imperian Guard in the form of a new never-before-seen tank.

Apparently it's going to be a Heresy era tank in line with the previously mentioned rumor; the larger than a Land Raider but smaller than a Baneblade/Shadowsword kit.

Who knows what it'll be, or if it's even true, but as for me, here's what I'm hoping for:

THE FOLLOWING IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART. Call it wishlisting if you must.

Turret with at least three to four weapon options. Twinlinked Punisher Cannon, Twinlinked Battlecannon, Twinlinked Vanquisher Cannon, or Twinlinked Demolisher Cannon for options. AV: 14/14/11, 4 hull points, with standard I.G. vehicle upgrades available. Sponson options: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Flamer, Multimelta or Plasma Cannon. Default hull mounted weapon of some sort (Heavy Bolter, with Heavy Flamer/Lascannon and maybe Multimelta as other hull options)
Also, added option for tank Commander upgrades as has been mentioned in the WD info we've seen earlier. The 'standard' variant would come equipped with the Twinlinked Battlecannon, hull heavy bolter, and no sponsons on it (a-la the Leman Russ). I'd say it's base cost would be at *least* 200 points. It would also be a heavy vehicle like the Leman Russ also.

Side note: The vehicle may have a pair of turrets with independently firing 'main guns'. By that I mean it has the Split Fire special rule by default. If that is the case I'd say it'll cost at least as much as a Land Raider (or close to it, 225 to 250 points minimum).

So what say you, fellow Dakkaites. If such a tank does get added to the I.G./Ast-Mil stable. would you consider getting one? (In general I mean, not withstanding my guesses at it's stats or abilities above.)

I'd have to say I'd be sorely tempted to pick one up and run it, as I love tanks and having such a vehicle would be a nice centerpiece for my Vostroyans. My Heavy Supports would be two Griffon Mortars (assuming they're not removed from the codex like I doubt they would be) A trio of Leman Russ tanks running as a squadron, one of these new 'Big Tanks' (TM) and a fourth Leman Russ HQ choice for additional fire-support. The rest of the army would consist of a flyer or two (points allowing) along with a good amount of Infantry, and perhaps a couple of sentinels for additional firepower (again, points allowing.)

That's all I've got to add at the moment, thanks for looking/reading and I'll catch you guys soon.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

By other sites, you mean BOLS? Because Larry Vela has a really crappy tack record.

 pretre wrote:
By other sites, you mean BOLS? Because Larry Vela has a really crappy tack record.

BOLS was one, I've seen it on a couple of others I lurk on also, but they may be just parroting what Larry said, who knows. And his track record may be crap at the moment but hey, the question still stands. *IF* said vehicle shows up, will people buy it and play it? I think I would, personally, but I'm a sucker for armor + big guns.

C'est-la-vie. We'll see this weekend I suppose.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Basically that's only 1 paper thin source to go on though. You seem to be extrapolating a lot from it. Currently we count 3(?) plastic kits from the release - scions, wyvern/hydra and ogryns, which seems about par for the course. In any case we'll know for sure when the codex is released, but I doubt there will be any other new units. I'd love to be surprised, but don't get your hopes up.

If I wanted a heresy era tank, I'd buy. a Malcador. I'd like something more "current" with the 40K aesthetic and universe that doesn't look like the Taurox. There's always scratchbuilding....

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Basically that's only 1 paper thin source to go on though. You seem to be extrapolating a lot from it. Currently we count 3(?) plastic kits from the release - scions, wyvern/hydra and ogryns, which seems about par for the course. In any case we'll know for sure when the codex is released, but I doubt there will be any other new units. I'd love to be surprised, but don't get your hopes up.

I wouldn't call it getting my hopes up, but just wondering if anyone (in general) would be interested in a vehicle like this and if (emphasis on the word if) we are surprised and do get it, would people pick one up and use it?

In any event, in the presence the current info on the presence of HQ tank options in the new codex, I for one am going to be picking up at least one more Leman Russ tank and probably getting a single forgeworld turret for it as well to help differentiate it from the rest of my Russes. I'll likely be picking up a Vanquisher turret, as having what I hope will be a BS:4 tank will be a fun way to field a solid, reliable anti-tank vanquisher round for the army on a fairly resilient platform. We'll see of course.

For now, I'm off to get ready for work here. You guys take it easy for now.

-Red__Thirst-

Honestly, something like this might not be happening. Who knows? But it does pass the smell test for me. A semi-super-heavy, like the Imperial Knight, would be very much in line with not only the Imperial Guard's main aesthetic, but it would also fit with the direction that GW have been going the past year. I'd be a little surprised to see it just because we haven't had reliable word that it exists yet, but if you told me a month ago that storm troopers would get their own book, I'd have said that this big tank was more likely than that crazy idea.

I would go for a 'Big Tank' to complement my army, not to mention have the chance to have a moderately big center peice without having to forgoe eating for a few days..

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
I would go for a 'Big Tank' to complement my army, not to mention have the chance to have a moderately big center peice without having to forgoe eating for a few days..

Anything bigger than a land raider and on par with a knight will cost the same as that baneblade you always wanted. So please, forgo eating.

General Hobbs wrote:


If I wanted a heresy era tank, I'd buy. a Malcador. I'd like something more "current" with the 40K aesthetic and universe that doesn't look like the Taurox. There's always scratchbuilding....

I don't quite understand what you mean, the Malcador has a very similar aesthetic to the "current" IG tanks.

 pretre wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
New codexes should never remove units or options, in my opinion
...
So in short, I have no intention to alter my playstyle and army with the new codex, and as such, if it becomes impossible to play that way with the new one, I shall continue to use the old one.

The last 20 years speak differently. Every codex and edition change invalidates units and options from the previous one.

I have re-wargeared more units than I care to count and have plenty of units that sit on the shelf because they are either useless or not part of the codex anymore.

That's always been part of the game.

Truth.

Unfortunately, literally, welcome to 40K.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


If I wanted a heresy era tank, I'd buy. a Malcador. I'd like something more "current" with the 40K aesthetic and universe that doesn't look like the Taurox. There's always scratchbuilding....

I don't quite understand what you mean, the Malcador has a very similar aesthetic to the "current" IG tanks.

That's exactly what he just said. "something more 'current' with the 40k aesthetic and universe". In other words, something that's is an old, pre-heresy era tank, but which fits in with the current Chimera and Russ based tanks visually.

shade1313 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


If I wanted a heresy era tank, I'd buy. a Malcador. I'd like something more "current" with the 40K aesthetic and universe that doesn't look like the Taurox. There's always scratchbuilding....

I don't quite understand what you mean, the Malcador has a very similar aesthetic to the "current" IG tanks.

That's exactly what he just said. "something more 'current' with the 40k aesthetic and universe". In other words, something that's is an old, pre-heresy era tank, but which fits in with the current Chimera and Russ based tanks visually.

But I'm confused because the Malcador, to me, looks like it's from the same family as a Leman Russ... what would something more "current" and "40k" look like if not a Malcador?