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.

I just got the new IG dex and their is a lot I don't enjoy such as most special characters gone (Marbo, Rahem, Chenkov, Kamir, and Bastonne), units gone(colossus, griffon, penal legion), most units that needed a boost go unchanged or worse (sentinels, rough riders, hydra, and ogryns), opponent chooses who commissar kills one-third of the time, ogryns and bullgyns are so expensive (price and point wise), and the mentally ill looking taurox. Its not all bad of course but the regiment barrier is gone, so is, the variety, and no more different play styles. Of course there will be variety in models and paint but they now count as the same as any other regiment, no more regimental doctrines. Do you agree?

Ogryns actually do better due to Divination and Priests being attachable to them.

No, I don't agree.

The change to summary execution, while I find it much less fluffy, was overall for the better. It now works with the regimental standard, it's now voluntary, and is no longer guaranteed to shoot one of the most important members of the squad (that only happens sometimes now).

Meanwhile, to say that most things got unduly worse is risible. Hydras and PBSs are the clear exceptions to this. Lots of things went unchanged because they should have stayed the same. Meanwhile, LOTS of stuff got better. Scout sentinels, armored sentinels, techpriests, regular priests, every russ, stormtroopers (depending on opinion), ratlings, primaris psykers, commissars, conscripts, SWSs, CCSs, PCSs, veterans, and deathstrikes all got better. The only "why didn't they make them better?" is rough riders, whose problems are with 6th ed rules much more than their codex rules (and they did get better relative to their last FAQ version).

We lost some stuff that was chaff (mogul and penal legionnaires won't be missed that much), but we also got new stuff.

The only loss of playstyle was that we can no longer do a mass outflanking list, and that's a sad loss, true. But not enough to spoil the entire codex over.

Plus, who knows what we'll get with dataslates.

I really like it.

I feel like most of the significant playstyles remain, and between Forge World and the AM codex, I think ALL of them remain with the possible exception of outflanking platoons.

In exchange for losing the outflanking blobs playstyle, we gained the ability to field one of the rare Stormtrooper Companies again (lost in the change from 4th to 5th codex) from a supplement, and gained a re-invigoration of the massive foot list with much better orders and therefore dramatically increased firepower. And psykers.

I dont think a huge amount changed from the brief read through I gave it.
Sure some things are gone, others are new and some got minor buffs/nerfs but it hasnt been any sort of major sea change and I think most builds will still be viable whether thats heavy mech, blobs, Valks, deepstrikes etc.

What I like are that the playstyles I have played in the past are still viable, if not more. The Russ price drops were good, and the HQ units (commissars, priests, psykers, orders) all helped foot playstyles.

What I don't like was that the units that needed help, largely didn't get it and didn't really open up any options that were unusable before.

There's good and there's bad, but I don't think the book really opened up too much.

I mourn the loss of the fluff for other regiments though.

*Edit* Also, stormtroopers got platoons...why not rough riders? Would be so awesome.

The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

 Blacksails wrote:

*Edit* Also, stormtroopers got platoons...why not rough riders? Would be so awesome.

Stormtroopers also got their 3rd new mini since the last RR mini was released back in 2d ed.

While I like the book in general, what I would have rather seen was an artillery model that could be built as a Griffon/Medusa/Colossus/Basilisk instead of/in addition to the Hydra/Wyvern model obviously keeping those units in the codex. And i really wanted a new Rough Rider kit even if the rules aren't great.

We can hope for a "Special Regiments" supplement I guess to include the Rough Rider company, Steel Legion, Tank Company, etc...

You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

0-1 Command Squadron, 1-6 Squadrons

Why they called Death Riders squads "squadrons" is beyond me.

 Happyjew wrote:
You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

0-1 Command Squadron, 1-6 Squadrons

Why they called Death Riders squads "squadrons" is beyond me.

Because that's what you call groups of cavalry?

From wikipedia:

A squadron was historically a cavalry sub unit. The term is still used to refer to modern cavalry units but can also be used as a designation for other arms and services. It should not be confused with squad.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

0-1 Command Squadron, 1-6 Squadrons

Why they called Death Riders squads "squadrons" is beyond me.

Because that's what you call groups of cavalry?

From wikipedia:

A squadron was historically a cavalry sub unit. The term is still used to refer to modern cavalry units but can also be used as a designation for other arms and services. It should not be confused with squad.

Well...uh...Derp.

 Ailaros wrote:
The change to summary execution, while I find it much less fluffy, was overall for the better. It now works with the regimental standard, it's now voluntary, and is no longer guaranteed to shoot one of the most important members of the squad (that only happens sometimes now).

Before it would kill the guy with the highest leadership which, if a Commissar was in the squad, wasn't usually terribly important.

The IG book is great!

Tank companies are viable, both in casual and competitive play.

The blob is still awesome.

Artillery is still awesome, and you can still get the ditched units via FW.

Psykers with divination means you don't need allies.

Priests are cheap ways to get your blobs fearless.

Bullgryns definitely have potential, either from screening tanks, or scouting with an Inquisitor to put pressure on the opponent, or both. And with buffs provided from in-codex units, you don't need to rely on allies to get the most out of them.

Thing is all my lists are dead now.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
Thing is all my lists are dead now.

Then make a new one.
No list survives a codex remake unscathed.

True but I will miss them greatly.

 Happyjew wrote:
You want Rough Rider platoons, play a DKoK Assault Brigade (IA12).

If there were a US source for the FW books that might be a consideration but paying shipping from the UK with the postal rate and variable exchange rate has pretty well ruled that out for me. Not to mention the piecemeal arrangement of the rules within the FW books making it so you need half a dozen books to get all the rules you need for a single army. The price of the models I can mostly stomach but needing an $85 (current exchange rate plus shipping) book to field a single model that I want to use is beyond what I can accept.

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You cannot to to ground with a priest.
Priests are great until they fail that leadership check btw.....then its just a guard blob with fearless.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
True but I will miss them greatly.

what lists did you run that are completly impossiable with the new 'dex? you'll need to make changes sure but by and large you should be ok.


well unless you where running a list that was all about veterns in vendettas. can't say I've too much sympathy for vendetta spammers

There's definitely some good stuff in the new book, but also a lot of really unnecessary nerfs and removals that make it difficult to be as excited about the good stuff. Mechanized IG got *really* hammered, in an edition that already went out of its way to hammer them. I expect most of the lists people will generally be seeing will be significantly more infantry oriented.

Seeing my last no-FW-included-list go from a 2000pt list to a 2250pt list, and notably less effective overall, it can be hard to see the brighter side of things when having to build what amounts to a completely new playstyle.

 sfshilo wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You cannot to to ground with a priest.
Priests are great until they fail that leadership check btw.....then its just a guard blob with fearless.

Going to ground is not that huge a lose. The benefit of priests is the 2+ los and the 4++, it makes them so much harder to precision shot/strike to death. Also, you can put a primaris in the unit to get the priest's abilities on LD9.

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You mean the 4th edition book. And yes, all deep strike and infiltrate (along with small units of Last Chancers) rocked.

5th edition book was good in a different way.

I miss HQ sentinel squadrons. I really think 4 units of sents is the best way they work.

 Trickstick wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You cannot to to ground with a priest.
Priests are great until they fail that leadership check btw.....then its just a guard blob with fearless.

Going to ground is not that huge a lose. The benefit of priests is the 2+ los and the 4++, it makes them so much harder to precision shot/strike to death. Also, you can put a primaris in the unit to get the priest's abilities on LD9.

Because "just a guard blob with fearless" is somehow a BAD thing!?


Honestly, I put "unsure" in the poll, because I dislike it, as an OPPONENT. the new AM is superior to the old IG in almost every way, with the exception of nerf to the OP unit.

General Hobbs wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The things we lost from the 3.5ed book to the 5th were much greater, and people call the 5th book one of the best ever. All deep strike and all infiltrate were really fun play styles.

Personally, I think that the new book has potential. I have only played one game so far, and am trying to figure out how I want to run things. I do know that commissars are eclipsed by priests now, which is a shame. I'm trying to do something other than gunline, with advancing infantry and russes.

You mean the 4th edition book. And yes, all deep strike and infiltrate (along with small units of Last Chancers) rocked.

5th edition book was good in a different way.

I miss HQ sentinel squadrons. I really think 4 units of sents is the best way they work.

No, he's right. IG didn't have a 4th ed book; they had a 3.5 book.

This is the cover to 3.5



Here's a lexi link on it

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Imperial_Guard_(3rd_Edition,_2nd_Codex)

Note that it's successor is the 5th ed book.

I'm on the fence.

It's not terrible like the nid codex, that's obvious to all, it's got teeth.



My issue is that in the past I had always played guard without blobs and this codex is basically hitting you over the head with incentives for running them. I also hate allies and this army is a slut, it will be passed around a lot and that kinda kills it for me.

Vendetta got nerfed, how can one not like this?

 Ailaros wrote:
No, I don't agree.

The change to summary execution, while I find it much less fluffy, was overall for the better. It now works with the regimental standard, it's now voluntary, and is no longer guaranteed to shoot one of the most important members of the squad (that only happens sometimes now).

Meanwhile, to say that most things got unduly worse is risible. Hydras and PBSs are the clear exceptions to this. Lots of things went unchanged because they should have stayed the same. Meanwhile, LOTS of stuff got better. Scout sentinels, armored sentinels, techpriests, regular priests, every russ, stormtroopers (depending on opinion), ratlings, primaris psykers, commissars, conscripts, SWSs, CCSs, PCSs, veterans, and deathstrikes all got better. The only "why didn't they make them better?" is rough riders, whose problems are with 6th ed rules much more than their codex rules (and they did get better relative to their last FAQ version).

We lost some stuff that was chaff (mogul and penal legionnaires won't be missed that much), but we also got new stuff.

The only loss of playstyle was that we can no longer do a mass outflanking list, and that's a sad loss, true. But not enough to spoil the entire codex over.

Plus, who knows what we'll get with dataslates.

I absolutely agree with Ailaros, with the exception of Penal Legionnaires. (I'll miss them! They were the cheapest ante unit to get a Russ squadron in my Space Marine lists.)

I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities.

I have the 2nd edition guard codex, the 5th edition, and now the 6th. I've just never gotten around to building up my guard army as I hate playing with unpainted models. I hope to get my army on the table before 30th edition. We'll see. For some reason I just like the idea of having a Hydra/Wyvern option for ordnance. One option for anti-air or anti-infantry without having 40000 possible combinations of tanks to pick from that you can't even buy from GW anyway.

I also like the way the HQ is laid out in the new book. It just seems a lot more streamlined. I have 2 solid lists of IG to work on now, one at 1000 pts and another just under 1500. With the old codex I must have had a dozen different lists I was competely unsure of. Now I feel as though my work is cut out for me and I can build this force with some confidence. Not sure if anyone else feels that way, but as a relative newcomer to guard I think this is great for recruiting new IG players.
.

VanHallan wrote:
I really, really like the new codex. I say this having never played a game with IG but hear me out..... I've been building my army for about a year or two.

If I was a more experienced player, and i owned some of the removed units, I can understand being upset. But for me, I think this codex is just MUCH simpler. Again, this is a benefit to a newbie like me, but understandably unpopular for people who had a good handle on the options and possibilities. .

Simpler how?

It just seems a lot more streamlined.

In general I find the book less streamlined. You have to flick back and forth through the Codex more now than you did before.

I'm just excited to see multiple blobs run around being fearless for 25 points a piece. Tank Commanders are a bonus to me... rending Punisher, yes please. Everything else is just there.

But I am kinda bummed at the loss of the Medusa. I kinda really wanted those made into plastic kits. Oh well, I guess spamming melta is still good LoW defense.