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.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 rabidguineapig wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I am still not seeing where Marbo has gone away.

That's cause he's too damn sneaky.


But here it is: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/04/astra-militarum-vendetta-and-sly-marbo.html

Ok, so we are trusting natfka again I see.

These are pretty "old" news, and have been almost confirmed since (can't remember if it was the spanish or italian source).

There's too much to keep track of in the rumorsphere, just posting what I remembered.

I'm interested to see which of the random variations of Leman Russ point costs is correct, seems like the foreign language stuff has been sort of unclear on that front.

 Peregrine wrote:

FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Outflanking platoons are still viable as we have not heard of anything saying that Creed no longer allows one unit to outflank.

It is speculation that it works this way, and even if it does it commits you to taking Creed, which may not be an appealing option in the new codex. Plus, the Al'rahem lists from the current codex can take both him and Creed, to outflank a supporting unit along with the platoon.

And the changes to conscripts points, combined with the points being saved by not paying for send in the next wave and Chenkov means that whilst you can not get infinite men, you can field a lot more conscripts to start off with. Also nothing is stopping a foot general from putting some of his conscripts in reserve and bringing them on as a "next wave" if they are worried about a crowed DZ.

But it's still a pointless nerf. SITNW might not be point-efficient compared to new conscripts, but it was fun. Now the character is gone for no good reason, and you have to try to approximate the same effect some other way.

In fact I would argue in favour of this codex being better to for foot guard as the ability to put cheap priest and commisars in conscripts and giving them massive buffs is a huge boost to that unit. add to this the order to "move shoot and run" and those foot slogging conscipts have the potential to move up field quickly!

Who cares about priests and commissars? You've already got inquisitors available, and even if it works it's an incredibly one-dimensional list. That's not very impressive as the best part of the new codex.

Combine this with the rumours of HWS being only 45 points to start (coming with 3x morters) and we getting some serious fire power.

Even cheap HWS are still bad. It's still a BS 3 unit with no extra wounds, extreme vulnerability to instant death, and no mobility. Dropping the cost a bit doesn't do anything to fix the real problems with them in the current codex.

with by Platoon squads with AC and GL

Eww, no. AC/GL is how you waste units. Never do this if you want to win.

HWS armed with Rockets for AA

Eww, no. Flak missiles are stupidly overpriced. I can't think of a single situation where I'd want to use them. Even snap firing LCs is probably a better plan, if you're stubbornly determined to keep real AA units out of your list.

1) I think arguing the creed point back and forth is not gonna help our discussion, as you pointed out its speculation at this time, so sorry for bringing that one up!

2) I see what you are saying about the SITNW removal. I used that rule all the time and I admit that I am sad that it not available any more. I was just pointing out that it is possible to get a similar effect for the same points cost, just trying to make the best out of bad situation.

3) Personally I care very much about the new priest and commisar rules! I collect a pure IG army and do not feature allies. Please do not think I am anti allies, I think using allies is a ligit strategy. And many of the players that I have come across both near and far away from where I live have a similar mindset. The priests and commisars are a nice nod to pure guard players.

4) HWS are key if you are playing a pure foot guard list. You need them to get concentrated heavy weapons fire that you can order to bring it down. I know you pointed out why many IG players do not take them but they are essential for a pure IG foot list. I know you will want to say "But just use saber platforms instead and other forge world". Unfortunately my local tournament scene only allows the use of one FW unit. So even with a squad of sabers i'm still gonna need HWS in my pure infantry list to fill a gap. This is same for many tournaments who do not allow forgeworld models or restrict them.

5) AC/GL is great please explain why you do not like them? My reason for liking them is it the most cost effective way at getting you platoons squads anti infantry. AC wounds infantry on 2+ and GL blast adds 2-3 more lasgun equivalent hits to the pool. Never lets me down and I win quite a lot with my pure infantry list (trying not to sound boastful) (:

6) And why eww to flakk? It the only AA a pure infantry list can get outside of a single ADL quadgun.

Thanks for the quick response BTW and please do not feel like I am trying to be awkward, I just appreciate your view points on the subject and the chance to see things from another IG players view! Plus there is nothing like a good discussion (:

Double checking the translation :

Q :
Per quanto riguarda i costi dei leman?ci puoi chiarire la situazione?e poi c'è traccia di psikers cn divinazione nel codex? grazie e scusa se assillo.
A :
Per la prima sono cambiati i punti in ordine come sul vecchio codex 150 130 135 120 170 140 155 e si ci sono gli psikers con divinazione

Q :
Concerning Leman russ costs, can you clarify the situation ? And is there any trace of divination psykers in the codex ? Excuse if I bother you.
A :
For the first, the points are changed, in the order of the old codex : * list * , and yes there are divination psykers.

So taking my V5 codex, heavy support Leman Russ section, I can confirm the listing (Provided that the source has copied them right of course) :
LRBT : 150
exterminator : 130
vanquisher : 135
eradicator : 120
demolisher : 170
punisher : 140
executioner : 155

I would add that these prices seems coherent with my gaming impressions, except for the executioner, which deserves the ~170 point range pricing, more than the demolisher IMHO. In current rules, and at least in my metagame, he is just that good.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Exact Leman Russ costs, from L'astropate:

150 LRBT
130 Exterminator
135 Vanquisher
120 Eradicator
170 Demolisher
140 Punisher
155 Executioner

Henry says they're in the exact order as the 5th ed Codex, which either means the above as the tanks are laid out on the non-cost page or:

120/130 -LRBT/Exterminator
135 - Vanquisher
140- Eradicator
150- Demolisher
155-Punisher
170-Executioner

This, in the same order of rising costs as in 5th

For the first changed the points in order as the old codex 150 130 135 120 170 140 155 and there are psikers with divination

http://astropate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/nuova-astra-militarum-foto-del-codex-e.html

I'm also wondering now if the Hydra never lost its ignores jink saves rule, and if the rule has instead been moved to the weapon profile (where hence it would be explained in the armoury), as is the new trend in 6th.

Looking at the 5th edition codex, I'm going with the second list you've posted.

120 - LRBT
130 - Exterminator
135 - Vanquisher
140 - Eradicator
150 - Demolisher
155 - Punisher
170 - Executioner

If this is the case, and accurate, I'm actually quite happy with how the Leman Russes have shaken out. My current theoretical guard list is fielding an HQ Squadron of Leman Russes consisting of a Vanquisher which will (assuming hull lascannon upgrade costs stay the same and the rumored cost of the standard HQ upgrade is 30 points/Heavy Stubber cost is 5 points) cost me 185 points. I'll have a full bore dakka Punisher (sponson/hull mounted HB's and a pintle mounted heavy stubber) rolling with it and will be using the divide fire order from the commander 9 times out of 10, with the popping smoke order being used once a game, generally early typically.

My other Leman Russes will consist of a standard LRBT and either an Exterminator with full dakka complement (See above Punisher complement) or a Demolisher, depending.

The points savings for the LRBT, Vanquisher, Exterminator, and Punisher more than make up for the 10 point price increase per Chimera transport I field (Typically only two of them)

-30 points from the LRBT, -20 points from the Exterminator, -20 points from the Vanquisher, and -25 points from the Punisher. Net point savings: 95 points. That's enough to completely pay for a chimera with extra armor and a pintle heavy stubber and still leave you a surplus.

Now of course, that doesn't factor in upgrade costs for certain tanks. In the instance of the Vanquisher, if the hull lascannon upgrade costs the same as it does in the current I.G. codex, then you're still saving points, but only about 10 if you don't run sponsons on it.
The Punisher on the other hand makes out like a bandit in my opinion. You can buy a Punisher and (again assuming sponson costs are the same) put sponson heavy bolters on it, as well as a pintle heavy stubber for five points (if the rumors are accurate) and it costs the exact same as it did for just the turret and hull weapon in the previous I.G. codex. What once cost at least 200 points for just the tank and sponsons now only costs you 170 points with the sponsons and pintle stubber.

Buh. That's all I have to say. Buh.

I'm still miffed about not having the Artillery tanks in the codex (Griffon/Medusa/Colossus) but I can still use/run them with the I.A. rules/points costs and nobody in my gaming group will bat an eye at it, I've already asked.

We'll see what else shakes out. I'm looking forward to sitting down with the new codex and seeing what kind of lists I can build for my Vostroyan firstborn.

Take it easy for now guys.

-Red__Thirst-

Thanks! The 5 point increase for the demolisher seems strange, and I doubt I'll be taking any standard LRBTs at 150. Executioner and Punisher seem like great bargains though, especially if the rending rumors with Pask are true. That's a pretty hefty point decrease on the pair from the 5E if those prices are correct.

I find it really hard to believe the Demolisher went from 3rd most expensive to most expensive. The vanilla version staying the same while most of the other specialist versions got cheaper is also very odd.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
Double checking the translation :

Q :
Per quanto riguarda i costi dei leman?ci puoi chiarire la situazione?e poi c'è traccia di psikers cn divinazione nel codex? grazie e scusa se assillo.
A :
Per la prima sono cambiati i punti in ordine come sul vecchio codex 150 130 135 120 170 140 155 e si ci sono gli psikers con divinazione

Q :
Concerning Leman russ costs, can you clarify the situation ? And is there any trace of divination psykers in the codex ? Excuse if I bother you.
A :
For the first, the points are changed, in the order of the old codex : * list * , and yes there are divination psykers.

So taking my V5 codex, heavy support Leman Russ section, I can confirm the listing (Provided that the source has copied them right of course) :
LRBT : 150
exterminator : 130
vanquisher : 135
eradicator : 120
demolisher : 170
punisher : 140
executioner : 155

I would add that these prices seems coherent with my gaming impressions, except for the executioner, which deserves the ~170 point range pricing, more than the demolisher IMHO. In current rules, and at least in my metagame, he is just that good.

I think when he says the *list* he's referring to page numbers 48 and 49 in the I.G. codex, *NOT* Page 102 where the points costs are listed. It doesn't make sense for the Demolisher to cost 170 points when it should be around the 150 to 160 point range at absolute most.

I may very well be wrong, and am not saying you are wrong either Ravajaxe, just looking at it objectively. We'll see what's right soon hopefully.

Take 'er easy for now.

-Red__Thirst-

Edit: I no check good when sleep deprived. Please ignore the above post.

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
Double checking the translation :

Q :
Per quanto riguarda i costi dei leman?ci puoi chiarire la situazione?e poi c'è traccia di psikers cn divinazione nel codex? grazie e scusa se assillo.
A :
Per la prima sono cambiati i punti in ordine come sul vecchio codex 150 130 135 120 170 140 155 e si ci sono gli psikers con divinazione

Q :
Concerning Leman russ costs, can you clarify the situation ? And is there any trace of divination psykers in the codex ? Excuse if I bother you.
A :
For the first, the points are changed, in the order of the old codex : * list * , and yes there are divination psykers.

So taking my V5 codex, heavy support Leman Russ section, I can confirm the listing (Provided that the source has copied them right of course) :
LRBT : 150
exterminator : 130
vanquisher : 135
eradicator : 120
demolisher : 170
punisher : 140
executioner : 155

I would add that these prices seems coherent with my gaming impressions, except for the executioner, which deserves the ~170 point range pricing, more than the demolisher IMHO. In current rules, and at least in my metagame, he is just that good.

I think when he says the *list* he's referring to page numbers 48 and 49 in the I.G. codex, *NOT* Page 102 where the points costs are listed. It doesn't make sense for the Demolisher to cost 170 points when it should be around the 150 to 160 point range at absolute most.

I may very well be wrong, and am not saying you are wrong either Ravajaxe, just looking at it objectively. We'll see what's right soon hopefully.

Take 'er easy for now.

-Red__Thirst-

Kind of weird to not agree with a simple listing. Haha !
I checked my french codex (p.48-49 and p.102) : the list order is the same. Are they rearranged in english version ? This may not be the case in italian version he is referring to.

The list order is the same between 48-49 and page 102. I'm not sure what red is referring to

At least in english. Maybe different in Italian? If so, would be...odd

Be odd for the Exterminator to cost more than the Splat Cannon..

Posting right after waking up is not advised, especially when you just worked a 12 hour shift and have only gotten ~5 hours of sleep.

Herp-a-derp.

Disregard, I thought for some reason the listing on pages 48 and 49 was a little different from page 102. I'mma go get some coffee now.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Definitely gonna buy and use the new Hydra Kits, partially to steal the turrets to use for use as Hydra Platforms on occaison. (Seeing as they still have the Auto Targeter and sit at 50 points a piece). Although until I see the full codex in person I won't believe the loss of that auto-targeter on the Codex one.

Still excited for this codex as it largely buffs my guard ( 9+ Russes and plenty of Sentinels and Hellhound variants in my army ), and I also love autocannons everywhere on my vehicles (So both Taurox do benefit me). Gonna use the Taurox for all of my Veteran Squads as well

The italian guy (Enrico) explains that executioner low pricing is due to overheating (gets hot) though it is rolled only once (if he recalls correctly).

Hahahaha, man, you have GOT to love the constant regression of technology in 40K. In the course of 5th to 6th edition, the imperium of man has not only forgotten how to add coolant systems to their vehicles, but now every Executioner tank ever built is suddenly defective. Amazing. I applaud you gee dub.

Are you being sarcastic? It makes perfect sense in the setting.

For interested parties, looks like IG has shipped early. I got my tracking number today.

It would make perfect sense in the setting if each edition is a leap forward in time, but they aren't. Everything is always stuck at 2 minutes to midnight. It comes off as the regression of technology because reasons.

 Bull0 wrote:
Are you being sarcastic? It makes perfect sense in the setting.

Yeah, balance wise it makes sense as well. Lobbing 5 plasma blasts a turn without penalty is kinda nuts.

Even the tide suffers GH.

Ergh gets hot on the executioner hurts

 Bull0 wrote:
Are you being sarcastic? It makes perfect sense in the setting.

Irrc, the fluff for the old Executioner Cannon was that they had extremely advanced cooling systems that countered the heat from the plasma. Between 5th and 6th, they forgot how the coolant system works.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It would make perfect sense in the setting if each edition is a leap forward in time, but they aren't. Everything is always stuck at 2 minutes to midnight. It comes off as the regression of technology because reasons.

GW: "Hmm, let's adjust that unit, and hey, we can do it in a fluffy, in-universe thematically consistent way!"

Creeping-Deth87: "You idiots!" *flips table*

 Thatguyoverthere wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Are you being sarcastic? It makes perfect sense in the setting.

Irrc, the fluff for the old Executioner Cannon was that they had extremely advanced cooling systems that countered the heat from the plasma. Between 5th and 6th, they forgot how the coolant system works.

Now, that's a retcon. GW is infamous for those.

I miss my pariahs and melta-proof monoliths.

 Thatguyoverthere wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Are you being sarcastic? It makes perfect sense in the setting.

Irrc, the fluff for the old Executioner Cannon was that they had extremely advanced cooling systems that countered the heat from the plasma. Between 5th and 6th, they forgot how the coolant system works.

That's what it said in that book, and this is what it says in this book. Does that totally rock your world? Like you've never heard of a minor retcon before?

 Thatguyoverthere wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Are you being sarcastic? It makes perfect sense in the setting.

Irrc, the fluff for the old Executioner Cannon was that they had extremely advanced cooling systems that countered the heat from the plasma. Between 5th and 6th, they forgot how the coolant system works.

Could it be that sneaky grotz defecated all over the original STC at Forgeworld Ryza when WAAAGH! Grax returned and they were only able to salvage parts of it?

 Bull0 wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It would make perfect sense in the setting if each edition is a leap forward in time, but they aren't. Everything is always stuck at 2 minutes to midnight. It comes off as the regression of technology because reasons.

GW: "Hmm, let's adjust that unit, and hey, we can do it in a fluffy, in-universe thematically consistent way!"

Creeping-Deth87: "You idiots!" *flips table*

...wow, was that really necessary? Do you normally do this when people disagree with you on the internet? I don't understand how anyone can think of an arbitrary change as consistent. There is nothing consistent about retconning the Executioner's coolant away, just like there was nothing consistent about adding gets hot to 6th edition when the whole basis for not having it in 5th was the totally logical assumption that vehicles had coolant.

...Yes. Executioners main gun now being subject to gets hot is pretty darn rageworthy. It was bad enough I stopped taking the pure plasma bus because the sponsons weren't worth the risk, but now the main gun can do it too? Screw that noise.

Thanks GW, for taking my favorite MC hunte/Terminator Hunter, and turnign it to gak.

On the plus side, I now have a replacement in pask/punisher. Its a shame that he lost the Monstrous Creature part of crack shot though (crack shot game +1 to armor pen, not rerolls, and rerolls to wound on MCs)

Bull0 wrote:

 Thatguyoverthere wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Are you being sarcastic? It makes perfect sense in the setting.

Irrc, the fluff for the old Executioner Cannon was that they had extremely advanced cooling systems that countered the heat from the plasma. Between 5th and 6th, they forgot how the coolant system works.

That's what it said in that book, and this is what it says in this book. Does that totally rock your world? Like you've never heard of a minor retcon before?

Grimskul wrote:
Could it be that sneaky grotz defecated all over the original STC at Forgeworld Ryza when WAAAGH! Grax returned and they were only able to salvage parts of it?

I'd be alright with it, if they bring it up in the fluff. Otherwise it's just an annoying inconsistency.


I'm pro the Guard getting Nerfed. I miss playing the underdog.

 kir44n wrote:
...Yes. Executioners main gun now being subject to gets hot is pretty darn rageworthy. It was bad enough I stopped taking the pure plasma bus because the sponsons weren't worth the risk, but now the main gun can do it too? Screw that noise.

Thanks GW, for taking my favorite MC hunte/Terminator Hunter, and turnign it to gak.

On the plus side, I now have a replacement in pask/punisher. Its a shame that he lost the Monstrous Creature part of crack shot though (crack shot game +1 to armor pen, not rerolls, and rerolls to wound on MCs)

To be fair, it's still only on a roll of a one, and the vehicle ignores the glance on a 4+.
It's not as if they didn't reduce the price either; apparently the tanks are now less to compensate for this added risk.

Anybody who really cares about retcons (as opposed to actually being upset because the functionality of a unit they are already using has changed) should only be using stuff that appears in the very first Guard Codex....


anything added after that is a retcon (to introduce tech or units that were not present before) since the settings timeline has not changed