Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I started this thread after reading something in this (Unconventional 1500 pt Guard Task Force) thread.
So, does anyone know anything about a new updated Codex: Imperial Guard? Is this for real? And, most importantly, are there rule changes that will be published, or will I have to go pay another 20 bucks for a slightly different rulebook?!
I asked about the same post too. Ithink the guy must of misread it, or is there new info on a upgrde for the guard? I am so confused.
It's likely a new print of the old codex where they have corrected some errors. They could update the FAQ at the same time you'd think... (I checked just to be sure)
I think that he is confused about the Engiseers doctrine. I got my 'dex 2 wks ago, and there is not such rule about Cyborg heavy weapons squads. N-o-w-a-y.
Guard got there 'dex about 2 yrs ago, so an update soon will happen, but not really soon. We don't need much of a one anyways.
Um, it doesn't say "Cyborg Heavy Weapon" squads in the Codex, it say's 'Techpriest Enginseers', i just called it that (in my army list) because i'm doing a themed mercenary list and fluff wise, they have no love for the Imperial Cult and nothing to do with the Adeptus Mechanicus.
As for me 'misreading it', hardy har har. Check out this thread:
[Link removed cos it's broken, reposted a working link in my reply below]
And 'misread' it for yourself!
Last edited by Eek; September 29th, 2005 at 20:51.
This entry is the same in my codex.
Imperial Gaurd FAQ V4.1 says: "The Full Cost of the Enginseer's servitors counts against the costs of his wargear."
Sorry matte, but what exactly IS the new thing that you have found?
It doesn't say that in my Codex. That's weird, you'd think they wouldn't print a different entry in the more recently printed Codices, but they must not have thought it would be that big of a deal. I bought mine around January of this year, so I guess it has been a while.
We'll show these filthy aliens what Imperial Guard are made of!
That is the new thing. On the two largest 40k forums in the known universe, you're the only person besides me (so far) who has a Codex that says that.
Also a little common sense is (sadly) needed here.
If that entry had been there all along, there would be no FAQ reference to it at all. Just as theres no,
Q: What do guardsmen carry when not armed with a special or heavy weapon?
People started FREQUENTLY asking because without that entry, servitors seem like 'standard' wargear as that is the only place they appear in the Codex. Thus, some faceless GW servitors put up the (silly) view in the FAQ. However, the Codex these days says what i've been talking about which is NEWS to 99% of the guard players here.
Besides, i've just been back from Games Workshop today (Tea Tree Plaza SA) and ran it past the staff there. They agreed that servitors don't count as wargear (ah la the pos-FAQ Codex) and then boasted about a well liked regular player that frequents their Wednesday night Veteran Games who uses converted 'robo dog' quadrapedal Heavy Bolter servitors for his Techpriest: 3 of them. When i mentioned the ruckus caused here and at 40k online, he winced and said "that's online for ya".
So, have a wonderful time not using a unit you bemoan as 'broken' because of this controversy yet at the same time when perfectly legal rules make them suddenly feasible go scuttling back to your OLD codex and a FAQ online to justify your years long sulk.
Or, smile and know that someone, somewhere at GW responded to an obvious lack of sales and piss takes in regard to the Enginseer, and corrected an obvious oversight.
Sometimes, i think you guys are more immersed in the Imperial Cult than your guardsmen are. . .
Last edited by Eek; September 30th, 2005 at 05:35.