Astra Militarum: To buy the new codex or to not buy the new codex

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.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Truth118 wrote:
The new IG codex is the worst thing GW has ever done and I'm quitting 40k forever.

I take it you either missed the Tyranid codex or are being pathetically sarcastic

**Omegus**

squidhills wrote:
UlrikDecado wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you dont use orders, old were good (who cares the new one are 200% better) and nobody wanted new units. And we all wanted this and that. Dude, I didnt want plastic Catachans, Mordians etc. Dont speak for me - and honestly, you are not speaking for any IG player I know But yeah, I agree, if you are very niche player who plays Penal Legions with Marbo and Mogul Kamir, have no interest in orgers ignoring cover or making whole unit Precision shots and really need plastic models that have already models...in that case, this codex is big disappointment. I just fear, you are not majority, so none "we all wanted THIS"...well, I wanted new order, I wanted more flexible PCS, I wanted more freedom in forming my HQ

I never said I don't use orders; I said i don't run armored companies (so Tank HQ does nothing for me). You may nothave wanted plastic catachans, but a lot of IG players (and others, too) have maintained that Catachans badly needed a re-sculpt. With the move away from metal minis, anyone who didn't want to play Cadians wanted to see plastic versions of the older IG armies (and plastic Krieg would be cheaper than FW, too so that got asked for a lot). I'm not pretending to speak for you, but I am speaking for every IG player that I personally know (except the guy who plays Tau Auxiliaries... he's just weird) and am echoing sentiments I've seen often enough on Dakka in the past. And it's great that you wanted new orders and more flexible PCS and freeform HQ, but I still haven't seen you say "I wanted a crappy transport and riot police Ogryns", which was my point. All of the focus on the new orders and priests and whatnot is great, but I don't see anybody who is really excited to see the new units (not new RULES) that we got. Remember the Valkyrie/Vendetta when it first landed? The response was "OMG we get a flyer and it is KEWL! The rules are great and it looks better than the flying land raider the SM got!" The Manticore? "Nine of these babies can table an opponent by turn 4!" The Executioner? "It's not FW anymore!!11!11!!"

This release? The response has been "Well, the Wyvern kills blobs super-dead, but don't we already have Manticores for that?" and "They nerfed the Chimera and made it cost more to sell a transport that is worse than a Chimera rules-wise and ugly, too" along with "Bullgryns? What?"

We not only weren't asking for these units, we aren't excited about them either (by and large... I have seen one or two people express an interest in Bullgryns, but nothing I would call real excitement for them).

I think you have some selective bias in what you think IG players want. Catachan resculpts? Plastic DKoK? Be realistic.

Yes, the new stuff is mostly terribad, yes most of the miscellaneous guard stuff still sucks, yes the removal of special characters is a blatant money grab.

The book overall though is extremely improved. Better orders, better HQ, better troops, better tanks.

**ClockworkZion**

Truth118 wrote:
The new IG codex is the worst thing GW has ever done and I'm quitting 40k forever.

Can I have your stuff?

Sorry, I had to ask.

I can't imagine that it's the WORST thing GW has EVER done. Maybe the worst thing GW has done this WEEK...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Just out of curiousity, when is the last time GW ever came out with something new and people said "that is exactly what we asked for?" Because as far as I can remember every release has had an undertone of having stuff no one asked for.

I asked for THIS and they gave it to me!!!

Let me clarify: When's the last time the main studio has released stuff and people felt like they got what they wanted?

**Truth118**

I was being sarcastic because I'm frankly somewhat annoyed by all the whining; it seems that the 6th edition IG codex will certainly be far less of a disappointment compared to the Nid one.

I have no IG models so I'm not particularly well versed in how IG play currently, but the new codex seems like an improvement.

People don't like change I guess, but it could've been much worse.

**Blacksails**

Truth118 wrote:
I was being sarcastic because I'm frankly somewhat annoyed by all the whining; it seems that the 6th edition IG codex will certainly be far less of a disappointment compared to the Nid one.

I have no IG models so I'm not particularly well versed in how IG play currently, but the new codex seems like an improvement.

People don't like change I guess, but it could've been much worse.

There are definitely positive aspects to the codex, but the negative aspects are still there (or not there, as it were) and people are rightfully annoyed.

Removal of most of the book's special characters was unwarranted, as was the culling of the arty section to make way for the Wyvern.

There are people on these boards who express their dissatisfaction in an irritating way, but that doesn't mean the negative criticism is whining.

Sure, the book could have been worse, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been better either. Removing several options from the book does not a happy player make.

That being said, I'm still moving on and adapting my army. Doesn't mean I'm also thrilled by the decision the design team with the book as a whole.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Truth118 wrote:

People don't like change I guess, but it could've been much worse.

People don't like having units removed.

**Talizvar**

I think the troop and tank options and various supports are there and have some interesting things going on.

My only real beef is the "artillery".
What happened to it all?

It seems like the focus is to have the tanks do most of the shelling, artillery is a place to go if you have spare points.

I WILL gripe that my Medusa has been removed, you know how hard it is to make a conversion that looks good?

**Bishop F Gantry**

Some Quick questions on the Ogryns, rough cost aproximation, equal to a termie per model or similar, are they elite or Heavy support?

Size of squad,main diffrences with bullygryns? For transports what size do they use 2 models or 3 models for transporting purpouses?

General impressions?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Some Quick questions on the Ogryns, rough cost aproximation, equal to a termie per model or similar, are they elite or Heavy support?

Size of squad,main diffrences with bullygryns? For transports what size do they use 2 models or 3 models for transporting purpouses?

General impressions?

Ogryn

Equal cost to termy ppm

Min size 3 (2 normals, 1 bone ead)

Very Bulky

5+ save (flak armor)

T5 3W each model

Elite

---------------------

Bullgryns

5 points more than a termy

Same stat line as ogryn, except with a 4+ save (carapace armor)

comes with a 12" range blast only grenade launcher

has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield, and grants +1 to cover saves of any unit behind it.

Elite

**Sir Arun**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Same stat line as ogryn, except with a 4+ save

has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield, and grants +1 to cover saves of any unit behind it.

wait so do bullgryns come with 4+ saves by default, being able to increase it to 3+ due to the shield rule, or are they default 5+ save but increase to 4+ because of the shield rule?

**AllSeeingSkink**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield, and grants +1 to cover saves of any unit behind it.

And in front of it

IMO that's why Bullgryns aren't really that great. They increase the cover save of you unit, but they also end up increasing the cover save of everyone your unit tries to fire at, and given guard tend to favour shooting over CC, it's not really a great boost. Unless you can position them to grant cover against one unit while another unit is free to shoot at, but that's easier said than done with anything other than a 1 man unit.

**Sir Arun**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield, and grants +1 to cover saves of any unit behind it.
And in front of it IMO that's why Bullgryns aren't really that great. They increase the cover save of you unit, but they also end up increasing the cover save of everyone your unit tries to fire at, and given guard tend to favour shooting over CC, it's not really a great boost. Unless you can position them to grant cover against one unit while another unit is free to shoot at, but that's easier said than done with anything other than a 1 man unit.

Or if the stuff you are shooting with doesnt have a great AP value in the first place. Like Manticores or even better, Wyverns that have the additional benefit of ignoring cover.

**CthuluIsSpy**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield, and grants +1 to cover saves of any unit behind it.
And in front of it IMO that's why Bullgryns aren't really that great. They increase the cover save of you unit, but they also end up increasing the cover save of everyone your unit tries to fire at, and given guard tend to favour shooting over CC, it's not really a great boost. Unless you can position them to grant cover against one unit while another unit is free to shoot at, but that's easier said than done with anything other than a 1 man unit.

Well...I guess you can do Tau-like movement shenanigans.

Like, movement phase you move the Bullgryns out of the way to give the units behind them a clear shot, and then run them back in front after everyone has shot.
A bit risky though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Arun wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Same stat line as ogryn, except with a 4+ save

has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield, and grants +1 to cover saves of any unit behind it.

wait so do bullgryns come with 4+ saves by default, being able to increase it to 3+ due to the shield rule, or are they default 5+ save but increase to 4+ because of the shield rule?

4+ save default, gets buffed to 3+ as long as there is another shield in the unit.

**AllSeeingSkink**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield, and grants +1 to cover saves of any unit behind it.
And in front of it IMO that's why Bullgryns aren't really that great. They increase the cover save of you unit, but they also end up increasing the cover save of everyone your unit tries to fire at, and given guard tend to favour shooting over CC, it's not really a great boost. Unless you can position them to grant cover against one unit while another unit is free to shoot at, but that's easier said than done with anything other than a 1 man unit.

Well...I guess you can do Tau-like movement shenanigans.

Good point, I forgot about that order when judging the Bullgryns.

I also guess they could be good for keeping PCS/CCS alive for longer. Though it's a lot of points to pay for a babysitting unit, for the same price as 3 Bullgryns you could get a whole extra Infantry Platoon with PCS and 2 squads, so an extra 25 wounds, a couple more scoring units and access to another Commissar.

**Sir Arun**

Oh wow at +5 points they are a steal, then. I dont care if I lose the ripper gun for the launcher; bullgryns are much better value per points.

Still not gonna buy the new models though - even though the riot shields look cool, the bane masks on them (and the moustache guy) look stupid.

I have the old (not old old) ogryns and I'll just proxy them as bullgryns attributing the 3+ saves to their muscles lol. besides the ripper gun does look like an AA12 grenade launcher.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Still need those shields though; it's a piece of standard wargear, and it's what truly separates the Ogryns from the Bulls.

**ClockworkZion**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield, and grants +1 to cover saves of any unit behind it.
And in front of it IMO that's why Bullgryns aren't really that great. They increase the cover save of you unit, but they also end up increasing the cover save of everyone your unit tries to fire at, and given guard tend to favour shooting over CC, it's not really a great boost. Unless you can position them to grant cover against one unit while another unit is free to shoot at, but that's easier said than done with anything other than a 1 man unit.

Well...I guess you can do Tau-like movement shenanigans.
Good point, I forgot about that order when judging the Bullgryns.

I also guess they could be good for keeping PCS/CCS alive for longer. Though it's a lot of points to pay for a babysitting unit, for the same price as 3 Bullgryns you could get a whole extra Infantry Platoon with PCS and 2 squads, so an extra 25 wounds, a couple more scoring units and access to another Commissar.

Order the Bullgryn to Move, Move, Move! sounds like a good way to do those movement shenanigans.

**Omegus**

Sucks for you if you miss one of those orders and your whole little juggling act falls to the ground.

**ClockworkZion**

Omegus wrote:
Sucks for you if you miss one of those orders and your whole little juggling act falls to the ground.

You can still run if you fail, you're just not rolling 3d6 and taking the highest making it less effective.

**CthuluIsSpy**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Omegus wrote:
Sucks for you if you miss one of those orders and your whole little juggling act falls to the ground.

You can still run if you fail, you're just not rolling 3d6 and taking the highest making it less effective.

Yeah. As I said, it's risky but possible.

**ClockworkZion**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Omegus wrote:
Sucks for you if you miss one of those orders and your whole little juggling act falls to the ground.

You can still run if you fail, you're just not rolling 3d6 and taking the highest making it less effective.

Yeah. As I said, it's risky but possible.

Oh definitely, but it's one of those things that can pay out well when/while it works.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly I'd just put some Russes (or Bassies) behind the Bullgryns instead as they're all enough to draw LOS without losing the bonus.

**squidhills**

Omegus wrote:
I think you have some selective bias in what you think IG players want. Catachan resculpts? Plastic DKoK? Be realistic.

Yes, the new stuff is mostly terribad, yes most of the miscellaneous guard stuff still sucks, yes the removal of special characters is a blatant money grab.

The book overall though is extremely improved. Better orders, better HQ, better troops, better tanks.

I'm not saying the codex AM is bad. Heck, as long as you run blob infantry or a tank-heavy formation, you can do a ton of damage with it. The new *rules* make the codex a pretty good one... for some people. I'm not one of those people, as I now have to: a) rebuild my army from the ground up, completely changing the theme and play style I was using, or b) keep using the 5th ed codex and not change a thing, or c) stop playing IG until the units I have are back in the codex (HA!). This is the second time I have had to rebuild an entire (or most of an entire) IG army because of codex alterations. The previous time was when we lost doctrines. I've had a SM army since 2nd edition. Do you know how many times I've had to change that army over the last 5 codexes?

Not once. Heck, I've never even had to drop a single unit. I may have had to add units (either to fill points or because something new was too useful to pass up) but I've never had to re-design an entire SM army.

When you consider how many models can go into re-building an IG force, and how much $$ that will cost, you can't blame me for being utterly disappointed in the new codex.

**Trickstick**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
...has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield...

It is much worse than that, and is actually a bit limiting. You need to be in base contact with another slab shield to get the bonus, This means that you either have to have the models lined up in base contact, or separate them out into pairs boosting each other. The first makes them easy pickings for blast weapons, the second means that after killing one model with shooting, the next few shots are against 4+.

I can see resolving wounds against a unit of these being slow, as you have to worry about at which point saves change.

**ClockworkZion**

Trickstick wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
...has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield...

It is much worse than that, and is actually a bit limiting. You need to be in base contact with another slab shield to get the bonus, This means that you either have to have the models lined up in base contact, or separate them out into pairs boosting each other. The first makes them easy pickings for blast weapons, the second means that after killing one model with shooting, the next few shots are against 4+.

I can see resolving wounds against a unit of these being slow, as you have to worry about at which point saves change.

So basically the same problem with Bullgryns with Slabshields is the same problem that Deathwing Knights have?

**Vaktathi**

Trickstick wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
...has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield...

It is much worse than that, and is actually a bit limiting. You need to be in base contact with another slab shield to get the bonus, This means that you either have to have the models lined up in base contact, or separate them out into pairs boosting each other. The first makes them easy pickings for blast weapons, the second means that after killing one model with shooting, the next few shots are against 4+.

I can see resolving wounds against a unit of these being slow, as you have to worry about at which point saves change.

As shooting from a unit is assumed to be simultaneous, it would only matter once you moved to the next unit's shooting I would imagine, unless I'm missing something.

**ClockworkZion**

Vaktathi wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
...has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield...

It is much worse than that, and is actually a bit limiting. You need to be in base contact with another slab shield to get the bonus, This means that you either have to have the models lined up in base contact, or separate them out into pairs boosting each other. The first makes them easy pickings for blast weapons, the second means that after killing one model with shooting, the next few shots are against 4+.

I can see resolving wounds against a unit of these being slow, as you have to worry about at which point saves change.
As shooting from a unit is assumed to be simultaneous, it would only matter once you moved to the next unit's shooting I would imagine, unless I'm missing something.

It could matter if you have some AP4 weapons in there, but since wounds are separated into pools based on AP types they opponent could just make you roll the AP4 last to get the most utility out of it.

**Vaktathi**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
...has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield...

It is much worse than that, and is actually a bit limiting. You need to be in base contact with another slab shield to get the bonus, This means that you either have to have the models lined up in base contact, or separate them out into pairs boosting each other. The first makes them easy pickings for blast weapons, the second means that after killing one model with shooting, the next few shots are against 4+.

I can see resolving wounds against a unit of these being slow, as you have to worry about at which point saves change.
As shooting from a unit is assumed to be simultaneous, it would only matter once you moved to the next unit's shooting I would imagine, unless I'm missing something.

It could matter if you have some AP4 weapons in there, but since wounds are separated into pools based on AP types they opponent could just make you roll the AP4 last to get the most utility out of it.

AFAIK even then, if it's all from the same unit, it's still assumed to be simultaneous so the 3+ would stand until the next unit shot at them.

Just like say, if you had a unit of 5 dudes, 3 in cover, 2 out. if you took 5 wounds from an enemy unit, 3 AP2 and 2 AP5, if they have you take the AP5 first and you fail both saves, the rest of the unit doesn't lose its cover save against the AP2 shooting just because now a majority of the unit is no longer in cover, only a subsequent unit shooting at the unit would benefit from that.

**ClockworkZion**

Cover is done on a model by model bases (hence why you can focus fire) so yeah, the models out of cover wouldn't get a save.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To further muddy the waters: Shadowfields are a 2++ save that once you fail it you lose it. I see that as being a pretty good precedence of something like this as the save becomes downgraded because of a failed save.

So basically, yes, failing saves can result in having a worse armour save from the same shooting attack as far as I see it.

**Accolade**

I think the new codex is worth buying (and have since, purchased it).

I'd rate its release as "good." There has been a nice re-balancing of models and the non-viable units are less numerous than before (a LOT of IG stuff was non-viable before).

I'd have gone with "great" had they not cut out the characters and tanks, etc. etc.

Still, it is a marked improvement in 6th edition codices IMO

**Vaktathi**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Cover is done on a model by model bases (hence why you can focus fire) so yeah, the models out of cover wouldn't get a save.

I don't have my rulebook on me, so I freely admit I could be wrong, but, unless I'm mistaken and everyone I've played with is too, the unit as a whole gets the cover save until it gets shot at again, as it had a majority of models in cover when shot at (unless they specifically focus fired, and otherwise the Focus Fire rule would have little point). Casualty removal is not broken up into initiative style phases, the shooting is supposed to be simultaneous, and thus even if the AP5 hits kill off enough such that a majority of the unit is not in cover, it's assumed the AP2 shots are hitting at the same time and so the unit still gets the cover save if not focus firing.

I may have to start a YMDC thread on that, but I believe if this principle is followed, then the downgrading of the save would only apply to the next unit to shoot at the Bullgryns.

To further muddy the waters: Shadowfields are a 2++ save that once you fail it you lose it. I see that as being a pretty good precedence of something like this as the save becomes downgraded because of a failed save.

It specifically says you lose the save however as soon as its failed, and applies only to a single model.