New AM/IG Codex rumoured for release in February

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.

**RaptorHunter**

There has to be something wrong with the Emperor's Shield requirements, right? Three platoons with five squads each on top of the other restrictions seems vastly out of place in regular 40k. Taking the bare minimum I can only take the core of the formation with an artillery auxiliary not including any upgrades to really anything.

All the other decursion formations we have seen thus far have not been anywhere nearly as restrictive as a core of 175 models. It just seems so... wrong to me. As if there was a misprint in production.

I personally believe the infantry company should only require one shield platoon, maybe two, but three seems grossly unnecessary.

Guess we will see what else is in the book come Saturday, but as a newer player I am so very dissapointed to see that I am priced out by model count of just the core.

**Kanluwen**

RaptorHunter wrote:
There has to be something wrong with the Emperor's Shield requirements, right? Three platoons with five squads each on top of the other restrictions seems vastly out of place in regular 40k. Taking the bare minimum I can only take the core of the formation with an artillery auxiliary not including any upgrades to really anything.

All the other decursion formations we have seen thus far have not been anywhere nearly as restrictive as a core of 175 models. It just seems so... wrong to me. As if there was a misprint in production.

I personally believe the infantry company should only require one shield platoon, maybe two, but three seems grossly unnecessary.

Guess we will see what else is in the book come Saturday, but as a newer player I am so very dissapointed to see that I am priced out by model count of just the core.

Actually, what it looks like is that "infantry squad" does not refer to the specific unit but rather any unit with the "infantry" type.

Speaking as an older player who has 125 Guardsman? Even I couldn't meet that, except by cheesing a bit and pulling some bits from Heavy Weapon teams that I haven't built yet.

**Gamgee**

RaptorHunter wrote:
There has to be something wrong with the Emperor's Shield requirements, right? Three platoons with five squads each on top of the other restrictions seems vastly out of place in regular 40k. Taking the bare minimum I can only take the core of the formation with an artillery auxiliary not including any upgrades to really anything.

All the other decursion formations we have seen thus far have not been anywhere nearly as restrictive as a core of 175 models. It just seems so... wrong to me. As if there was a misprint in production.

I personally believe the infantry company should only require one shield platoon, maybe two, but three seems grossly unnecessary.

Guess we will see what else is in the book come Saturday, but as a newer player I am so very dissapointed to see that I am priced out by model count of just the core.

Well that's Imperial bureaucracy for you.

**generalchaos34**

Dramagod2 wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I don't think it will be the AM codex in the spring. I think I might know what it is, but I'd prefer to keep it in the family for now, lest my brothers turn to brooding.

As much as I really want the new codex in the spring, I agree that the inclusion of these detachments and formation don't seem to make it likely. The only way I could see them doing it was if they planned to release a ton of new infantry models of a different type than cadian. The interesting thing about this release is that it doesnt have any new models. Usually codex releases come with a good size model release as well.

They could be double dipping like with the tau book, release formations now, then in a month or two release them all in an actual book and "make" you buy it twice, maybe even have an entirely different decurion formation but with the same component formations

**Dramagod2**

generalchaos34 wrote:
Dramagod2 wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I don't think it will be the AM codex in the spring. I think I might know what it is, but I'd prefer to keep it in the family for now, lest my brothers turn to brooding.

As much as I really want the new codex in the spring, I agree that the inclusion of these detachments and formation don't seem to make it likely. The only way I could see them doing it was if they planned to release a ton of new infantry models of a different type than cadian. The interesting thing about this release is that it doesnt have any new models. Usually codex releases come with a good size model release as well.

They could be double dipping like with the tau book, release formations now, then in a month or two release them all in an actual book and "make" you buy it twice, maybe even have an entirely different decurion formation but with the same component formations

With that thought in mind Im really not sure if Im even going to buy this supplement. Im very wary about being burned by a soon to follow codex. Even if I weren't, my disappointment with the formations makes me want to skip it. It's not a cheap book after all

**JohnHwangDD**

diepotato47 wrote:
These formations are awesome! I just hope that it's not 50 guardsmen minimum per Emperor's Shield and that the actual codex included some formation that allows me to add Chimeras and Priests without having to explain to my opponent the difference between "unbound fun" and unbound cheese"

The Emperor's Shield formation is pretty bad.

Spoiler:

Emperor's Shield Infantry Company

Spoiler:

You take 3 Platoons to get extra FRFSRF? Not free weapons / Transports. Not free barricades / artillery. Just FRFSRF. It's kinda crappy, right? But maybe the Platoon rules make up for it?

Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon

Spoiler:

Minimum 5 Infantry Squads, so that's like this:
Platoon Command Squad (5)
+ Infantry Squad 1 (10)
+ Infantry Squad 2 (10)
+ Infantry Squad 3 (10)
+ Infantry Squad 4 (10)
+ Infantry Squad 5 (10)
= minimum 55 Guardsmen, not 50, in each platoon.

For this massive investment in crap models, the Guardsmen get a conditional Move Through Cover and ONE unit gets to move and shoot, if the order is successful. If the order fails, the unit may well be SOL. And NO Transports.

But wait, there's more. If you take 2 more of them (minimum 170 Guardsmen total), they all get FRFSRF with their lasguns against a single target.

Quite frankly, this is pure crap, and I won't bother with it. The Platoon should simply be a Platoon, with the bonus of give free defenses (barricades or minefields) to match the "Shield" name. Then the Company should have 4 Apocalypse Barrages waiting in Reserves, following the MOO rules.

So don't worry, nobody will call this "unbound cheese".

**generalchaos34**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
diepotato47 wrote:
These formations are awesome! I just hope that it's not 50 guardsmen minimum per Emperor's Shield and that the actual codex included some formation that allows me to add Chimeras and Priests without having to explain to my opponent the difference between "unbound fun" and unbound cheese"

The Emperor's Shield formation is pretty bad.

Spoiler:

Emperor's Shield Infantry Company

Spoiler:

You take 3 Platoons to get extra FRFSRF? Not free weapons / Transports. Not free barricades / artillery. Just FRFSRF. It's kinda crappy, right? But maybe the Platoon rules make up for it?

Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon

Spoiler:

Minimum 5 Infantry Squads, so that's like this:
Platoon Command Squad (5)
+ Infantry Squad 1 (10)
+ Infantry Squad 2 (10)
+ Infantry Squad 3 (10)
+ Infantry Squad 4 (10)
+ Infantry Squad 5 (10)
= minimum 55 Guardsmen, not 50, in each platoon.

For this massive investment in crap models, the Guardsmen get a conditional Move Through Cover and ONE unit gets to move and shoot, if the order is successful. If the order fails, the unit may well be SOL. And NO Transports.

But wait, there's more. If you take 2 more of them (minimum 170 Guardsmen total), they all get FRFSRF with their lasguns against a single target.

Quite frankly, this is pure crap, and I won't bother with it. The Platoon should simply be a Platoon, with the bonus of give free defenses (barricades or minefields) to match the "Shield" name. Then the Company should have 4 Apocalypse Barrages waiting in Reserves, following the MOO rules.

So don't worry, nobody will call this "unbound cheese".

I like the core concept of the formations but not the implementation. I think guardsman should be having orders all day and generally FRFSRF is the bread and butter of your standard blobs, at least this lets you use solid MSU. its just lacking some oomph to really make it successful, like if they got free HWT or free special weapons, or heck, free grenade launchers or commissars, or something!

**Kanluwen**

Okay, once again, we don't know for sure that it's five "Infantry Squads"(the unit type) but rather just "5 infantry squads".

They have not put up a Formation bundle yet that cannot actually build the Formation it's labeled as.

Additionally, the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon? It says "a minimum of 5 Infantry Squads".

There's no way, currently, to take more than that. So either it's meant to be "units with infantry type" or Cadians are going to be able to take MORE than 5 Infantry Squads per Platoon.

Also? If Heavy Weapons Squads count for Infantry Squads, then "Fire and Advance" is going to be amazing. Move your HWS around, Order them and they fire as though they didn't move.

**JohnHwangDD**

Looking at the last inventory I took, it appears my protest is moot - I couldn't field a legal ES Infantry Company as Core it even if I wanted to:

1x CCS (5)
2x PCS (5)
9x Infantry Squads (10)

That's a whopping 115 ordinary Guardsmen and I'm still short 1 PCS and 6 Infantry Squads.

The problem? I have too much sexy stuff:
3x Commissar
2x HWS (6)
4x SWS (6)
5x Stormtroopers (5)
25 Gangers & Chancers

I could cobble together a PCS and 2 or 3 squads out of this, but that still leaves me short by at least 3 Infantry Squads. And I'm leaving a huge number of Heavy & Special Weapons behind.

And points wise, it's coming in at something like 1,500+ points, so I might be able squeeze in a single IKT at 1850?

Yeah, this is GW giving the IG a huge "FETH YOU".

I'm not buying this either, still sticking with Codex: Imperial Guard (c)2009.

**Kirasu**

What a laughable detachment.. If new books are written by a group of authors, why is there such wild disparity in power levels?

How do you get Eldar one month, then Orks.. and then Space Marines with free everything and then IG with useless gak like this?

**Billagio**

Kirasu wrote:
What a laughable detachment.. If new books are written by a group of authors, why is there such wild disparity in power levels?

How do you get Eldar one month, then Orks.. and then Space Marines with free everything and then IG with useless gak like this?

To be fair these arnt formations from a codex, they are from the Mont'ka scenario thingy

**bogalubov**

Billagio wrote:
Kirasu wrote:
What a laughable detachment.. If new books are written by a group of authors, why is there such wild disparity in power levels?

How do you get Eldar one month, then Orks.. and then Space Marines with free everything and then IG with useless gak like this?

To be fair these arnt formations from a codex, they are from the Mont'ka scenario thingy

Players here is the scenario:

-Tau guy, your stuff is awesome and you get to kill everyone.

-IG guy, you are going to get a ton of useless troops and sentinels. Your guys are going to die horrible, horrible death. In order for you to do something other than set up and models and promptly remove them, we will lengthen your turns by you having to roll 450 lasgun shots that do absolutely nothing!

**Kirasu**

Billagio wrote:
Kirasu wrote:
What a laughable detachment.. If new books are written by a group of authors, why is there such wild disparity in power levels?

How do you get Eldar one month, then Orks.. and then Space Marines with free everything and then IG with useless gak like this?

To be fair these arnt formations from a codex, they are from the Mont'ka scenario thingy

Even so, it does not bode well for the actual codex release. Cadians *are* the Imperial Guard as far as GW thinks and this is what they believe IG should get? Looks even worse side by side with all the pretty cool things for Tau and Space Marines.

**Mallich**

Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon? It says "a minimum of 5 Infantry Squads".

There's no way, currently, to take more than that. So either it's meant to be "units with infantry type" or Cadians are going to be able to take MORE than 5 Infantry Squads per Platoon.

The number of Infantry Squads can't exceed 5, but you can have more than 5 infantry squads in your platoon. You could have 5 Infantry Squads plus a single Special Weapon Squad, or you could have 5 Infantry Squads plus three Heavy Weapon Squads, etc.

There are only two pieces of evidence for the idea that "Infantry Squad" must be a typo and should refer to squads of infantry.
Number 1: GW is claiming that their big box contains enough models for it. GW wouldn't mislead us.
Number 2: Not even GW could think that we have to buy 165 models for a single core formation.

Number 1 relies upon GW's integrity, while number 2 relies upon GW understanding concepts like "balance" and "reasonable pricing".

**the_Armyman**

Kanluwen wrote:
Okay, once again, we don't know for sure that it's five "Infantry Squads"(the unit type) but rather just "5 infantry squads".

They have not put up a Formation bundle yet that cannot actually build the Formation it's labeled as.

Additionally, the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon? It says "a minimum of 5 Infantry Squads".

There's no way, currently, to take more than that. So either it's meant to be "units with infantry type" or Cadians are going to be able to take MORE than 5 Infantry Squads per Platoon.

Also? If Heavy Weapons Squads count for Infantry Squads, then "Fire and Advance" is going to be amazing. Move your HWS around, Order them and they fire as though they didn't move.

I'm not sure why you think "Infantry Squads" with capitalized "I" and "S" is anything other than the ones that come as part of the platoon. All of your theory hinges on the word "minimum". Face it, GW writers don't know that platoons can only have five squads! It's no different than why Ravenwing players can only run Sammael in their formation, even though GW generously put in 3 HQ slots.

**JohnHwangDD**

What is an Infantry Platoon?

1 Platoon Command Squad (5)
2-5 Infantry Squads (10)
0-5 Heavy Weapons Squads (6)
0-3 Special Weapons Squads (6)
0-1 Conscripts (20-50)

When the Formation requires a "minimum of 5 Infantry Squads," the obvious reading is that 5 basic "Infantry Squads" are required, and that one cannot use HWS / SWS / Conscripts to fulfill that requirement.

The "minimum" wording is correct, as one can add +5 HWS, +3 SWS and Conscripts to the Platoon after the minimum 5 Infantry Squads are taken.

Had it been written as "squads of type infantry", that would make no sense, as *all* of the squads are infantry - there are no squads of Swarms, Cavalry or Monstrous Creatures available in the Infantry Platoon. So the "infantry" qualifier is redundant, and it would have just said "minimum of 5 squads".

I don't know why anyone is arguing the point. The RAW is very clear, as is the Intent. The only issue being that the web store is selling a slightly different package, but that's GW for you.

**Kanluwen**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What is an Infantry Platoon?

That's an Infantry Platoon as described by Codex: Astra Militarum.

Which is an auxiliary choice in the Cadian Detachment.

I don't know why anyone is arguing the point. The RAW is very clear, as is the Intent. The only issue being that the web store is selling a slightly different package, but that's GW for you.

Have you paid ANY attention to the past year or two of releases?

They have not once done that with any "bundled" formations which specifically state that "This builds the formation". People point at the Wind Riders Battlehost box, but guess what?

That doesn't say at all that it can form the Wind Rider formation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_Armyman wrote:

I'm not sure why you think "Infantry Squads" with capitalized "I" and "S" is anything other than the ones that come as part of the platoon. All of your theory hinges on the word "minimum". Face it, GW writers don't know that platoons can only have five squads!

Yeeeah...except in any other instance where they refer to the "maximum" allowable stuff? They actually say "You must take X" and refer to the maximum.

It's no different than why Ravenwing players can only run Sammael in their formation, even though GW generously put in 3 HQ slots.

We all know that's because they didn't make bikes confer the "Ravenwing" tag.

**Vaktathi**

Zewrath wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not terribly impressed by the new formations, They're a whole lot more conditional and situational than the Necron/SM/Eldar ones, and a lot of them are reliant on getting Orders off (usually on Ld8) for anything to work, something other formations from earlier 2015 armies don't have to deal with for equivalent bonuses.

I'm still far more interested in points costs and rules changes than the formations however, as I just fundamentally have problems with the inherent concept as GW has done them.
If Tau is any indication they won't be getting any. GW's new MO seems to be to just offer up new formations while leaving the points costs and individual units' rules as-is.
That's what I'm worried about, because formations are not going to fix IG

If these formations are all they can offer, then I'm done with IG.

Yeah, I've reached the same conclusion.

Me as well most probably. If they're just going to recycle a phoned-in book with some formations sprinkled on top, and address none of the underlying functionality issues, which, at least from the look of the formations, appears to likely be the case, then I don't see why I'd bother to continue with anything....

**hotsauceman1**

I dont know what people are complaining about, there are some legitamatly good parts of this book for IG, yeah, the decurion is GREAT, but the formations are indeed bonkers.

**Miguelsan**

It makes me sad that I do have enough miniatures to field an Emperor Shield company, just not painted and I'm such a slow painter :(

M.

**JohnHwangDD**

Vaktathi wrote:
Zewrath wrote:
vipoid wrote:
If these formations are all they can offer, then I'm done with IG.

Yeah, I've reached the same conclusion.
Me as well most probably. If they're just going to recycle a phoned-in book with some formations sprinkled on top, and address none of the underlying functionality issues, which, at least from the look of the formations, appears to likely be the case, then I don't see why I'd bother to continue with anything....

The general malaise and sense of neglect is largely why I've been struggling to keep interest in finishing my Shadowsword conversion.

Of course, with the infantry 90% assembled & basecoated, it's not like it makes sense to sell it off. But the small amount of stuff that's still unbuilt? Yeah, I could probably do without most of it.

But then, once I sell it, it'll probably be good, and then I'd want to buy it back...

**Vankraken**

Kirasu wrote:
What a laughable detachment.. If new books are written by a group of authors, why is there such wild disparity in power levels?

How do you get Eldar one month, then Orks.. and then Space Marines with free everything and then IG with useless gak like this?

I feel like its different authors have different ideas on "balance" and it results in certain factions being bonkers OP while others are designed to be moderate or weak in areas. Either that or a select few factions have some major fanboys in charge who are too short sighted to understand that good rules are far better than OP gak that strokes their fanboy ego. The most telling thing is the lack of oversight to keep things relatively consistent and within perspective of the game at whole.

the_Armyman wrote:
Face it, GW writers don't know that platoons can only have five squads! It's no different than why Ravenwing players can only run Sammael in their formation, even though GW generously put in 3 HQ slots.

Its kinda like the "Command Override" for the Skyray formation saying a Skyray near the command devilfish can fire any number of its remaining seeker missiles. In 7th edition I know of no limit on how many weapons a vehicle can fire which makes the rule useless.

**Eldarain**

They are writing it from the perspective of the background not a set of gaming rules. They probably use the same weak justifications faction fanboys use "In the fluff..."

**Vaktathi**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont know what people are complaining about, there are some legitamatly good parts of this book for IG, yeah, the decurion is GREAT, but the formations are indeed bonkers.

Mainly because the formations seem far more conditional and situational than many of their counterparts, particularly in say, Codex SM, Necrons & Eldar, or generally just less useful.

"gee, forcing a morale test on 4d6 is cool..." until you realize that you need to fire the main guns of three superheavy tanks at a target to force it (and, ideally, if you've put *that* much firepower into something, it hopefully won't have anything meaningful left), and that half the units in the game are going to ignore it either way

The artillery one is another great example. Yay they get a formation benefit...except it's just allowing a CCS to issue an order to them...on Ld8, instead of just getting the benefit like everyone else's tank formations.

More to the point however, it doesn't look like there's much or any indication of changes to any of the units where they really need it. If things like Hellhounds are still on par with Leman Russ tanks and Fire Prisms for cost, and HWS's are still T3 W2 Ld7 units for 15ppm per team before any guns are added, then they're still going to be crap.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

The general malaise and sense of neglect is largely why I've been struggling to keep interest in finishing my Shadowsword conversion.

Aye, it's kept me from going out and finishing the rest of my Russ company.

**hotsauceman1**

Vaktathi wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont know what people are complaining about, there are some legitamatly good parts of this book for IG, yeah, the decurion is GREAT, but the formations are indeed bonkers.
Mainly because the formations seem far more conditional and situational than many of their counterparts, particularly in say, Codex SM, Necrons & Eldar, or generally just less useful.

"gee, forcing a morale test on 4d6 is cool..." until you realize that you need to fire the main guns of three superheavy tanks at a target to force it (and, ideally, if you've put *that* much firepower into something, it hopefully won't have anything meaningful left), and that half the units in the game are going to ignore it either way

The artillery one is another great example. Yay they get a formation benefit...except it's just allowing a CCS to issue an order to them...on Ld8, instead of just getting the benefit like everyone else's tank formations.

you do realize that the new special Cane allows orders to be passed on anything but a double 6 right?

**the_Armyman**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont know what people are complaining about, there are some legitamatly good parts of this book for IG, yeah, the decurion is GREAT, but the formations are indeed bonkers.
Mainly because the formations seem far more conditional and situational than many of their counterparts, particularly in say, Codex SM, Necrons & Eldar, or generally just less useful.

"gee, forcing a morale test on 4d6 is cool..." until you realize that you need to fire the main guns of three superheavy tanks at a target to force it (and, ideally, if you've put *that* much firepower into something, it hopefully won't have anything meaningful left), and that half the units in the game are going to ignore it either way

The artillery one is another great example. Yay they get a formation benefit...except it's just allowing a CCS to issue an order to them...on Ld8, instead of just getting the benefit like everyone else's tank formations.

you do realize that the new special Cane allows orders to be passed on anything but a double 6 right?

See that, Vaktathi? The new special Cane is the key to these formations. Ugh, you're so dumb, V

hotsauceman1, you have fun playing your formation that requires 185 infantry models and 3 sentinels that costs something in the neighborhood of 1000 points before you make a single weapon or wargear purchase. All to get access to a larger command bubble and some extra orders on all those lasguns.

Most of us aren't looking for game-breaking changes, just a few that make sense and allow us to play a relatively normal game with our existing models. These formations fall short of those modest expectations, so some of us are disappointed.

Edited for spelling derps.

**hotsauceman1**

you do realize you dont have to take the emporers sheild right? you could, IDK, take the Armoured company one?
Man, some people are pessimists

**the_Armyman**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
you do realize you dont have to take the emporers sheild right? you could, IDK, take the Armoured company one?
Man, some people are pessimists

Because I don't have a desire to take a minimum of 5 tanks plus 120 points of Enginseers in one of my lists. That's the sort of thing that irritates IG players when we see these rules. They require us to jump through hoops and BAI MOAR NAO!! for formation benefits that other armies get handed out for free by building desirable units and/or combinations of units. THREE tank squadrons? Really? Enginseers? Really? Just by sheer coincidence, we have this new plastic Enginseer and tank bundle on our online store...

It just gets tiresome after awhile. It's so hamfisted and sloppy, and it speaks volumes about the level of talent they have in Nottingham these days.

**ultimentra**

I would piss and moan some more about this release and how it bodes extremely badly for the IG looking ahead, but everyone else has already done it quite well for me. Jolly good.

I almost just want to pull my 5th ed codex back out.

Man, I started in fifth ed, and in 6th edition the 5th ed book was pretty good for awhile. When the 6th ed book came out right before 7th edition it wasn't bad either, new toys, pask buffs, and then 7th ed happened... And everyone else besides us, Orks, Deldar, and Chaos started getting these pristine codexes with awesome formations... made me really jealous. Then this happens.

Is this what it felt like to be a Dark Angels player back in the day? I heard they had it pretty rough before 7th ed.

**Grimskul**

ultimentra wrote:
I would piss and moan some more about this release and how it bodes extremely badly for the IG looking ahead, but everyone else has already done it quite well for me. Jolly good.

I almost just want to pull my 5th ed codex back out.

Man, I started in fifth ed, and in 6th edition the 5th ed book was pretty good for awhile. When the 6th ed book came out right before 7th edition it wasn't bad either, new toys, pask buffs, and then 7th ed happened... And everyone else besides us, Orks, Deldar, and Chaos started getting these pristine codexes with awesome formations... made me really jealous. Then this happens.

Is this what it felt like to be a Dark Angels player back in the day? I heard they had it pretty rough before 7th ed.

Such is the wheel of fortune in GW, it's fracking frustrating to see them constantly change their design paradigms halfway through constantly rather than sticking to one for everyone for a single edition. The only thing I like about AoS is that they actually have everyone's rules out at the same time and short of some outliers, they all have roughly the same design basis.