Riddle me this: Why does any company do anything, really, when you get right down to it?

:coins: The filthy lucre, mate. Simple as.

 

To make money of course.
New codex and new models means more sales.
I will be buying this new codex, so that is about €22.50 right there!

 

Our current codex is horrible in 5th. It is from the tail end of 3rd, it *needs* an upgrade.

 

Wow. Couldn't agree less - if anything, it needs to be toned down! A strong, well played guard army can massacre pretty much everything else out there at the moment.


I kinda agree with you, Ready4anything, I do believe that there are several other armies out there that need a new codex much more than IG.

On the other hand, I'm always a fan of new shiny things. And if IG get a new codex, it means they will also be getting lots of new shinyness! So in that frame of mind, I'm looking forward to it.

Only thing I'm not looking forward to? I think that there's a strong possibility that the large variation of army styles may fall by the wayside. Which would be a shame! I just hope I can still successfully run my Skitarii in a fanatical close assault army style.

 

When you have had a usable codex for 5 years I think it's time for an upgrade. There are many new things that we simply don't have access to. I don't see GW getting rid of things wholesale more adapting them to work in the new edition.

For example points cost changes are pretty much neither here nor there they are adapted to the usefulness in the new rules either making something more competitive or getting rid of some loophole.
Also the doctrines, there are loads which are so rarely used I mean I've lost track of the number of armies using mech, droptroops, iron discipline and COD. I think all of these will be in the new codex in some form or other either as character upgrades or differing platoons.

Just my take on things really.

A

 

Needs an upgrade? Yes I agree. With Marines getting cheap transports you are almost sure to see that, which will help mech lists. Really it'll be a blessing to have a new codex. But As with the marine codex the ability to retain a real personal and more unique touch to your army will disapear. I really enjoy the doctrines, but then again i'll pass my judgement on it come the release of the codex. Until then I'm going to take full advantage of what we have before they decide to make the guard a cookie cutter army too.

 

I can see the pros and cons to what GW is doing and the way they are doing it. From my point of view Guard, Daemonhunters and Necrons do need the update but in all honesty the codex that needs the update the most would be the Dark Eldar. Most of the other above mentioned codecies (Is that proper plural?) may not work great but they do still work in a much better form than DE. My personal view is that DE should be at the top of the list for 2009 for updates. I understand there are a smaller amount of DE players out there so it may not have priority at the same time a number of those DE playes have dropped the army because it is so out of date and inaccessible in relation to 5th Ed (and even the latter parts of 4th Ed)

As a Guard player I can see where the Doctrines can be a hindrance in some cases but they do add a uniqueness to an army that does make it your own. On the other hand the Doctrines can make things incredibly confusing at times when trying to sort out rules and variations of in relation to your Guard army. Streamlining the Guard is a good idea but at the same time I feel it has to be carefully done in order to allow players to still field unique forces that they will want to play.

 

why do you think GW would redo such an awesome codex instead of one that sorely needs it?

I suspect the order of Codex revision depends upon the popularity of the army as well as it datedness, not to mention some backroom politics. It'll be interesting to see the degree to which GW takes Codex Creep and template-style army choices, but I digress.

 

Personally I find Guard OK to play in 5th: they get access to lots of Troop choices, units can no longer consolidate into combat, Battlecannons are more powerful and more accurate, better cover saves help a lot.
On the other hand, you might as well shake your opponent's hand in a kill point game, as a small Guard army will probably be putting down double the kill points of it's opponent.

However, despite them being generally very playable, I do agree that they need to be bought in line with some of the trends of 5th edition.

Also as others have pointed out, the original book wasn't perfect, it's just that we have got so used to seeing the flaws that we forget they are there. Probably less than half of the doctrines and army list are ever picked, and when the more marginal parts are, it is generally in exactly the same way. Also, you are never encouraged in Guard to take more than 25 men in an infantry platoon, because the command squad is so good and versatile, I think this absolutley sucks. If the new codex makes it viable to take 50-man platoons then that will be a very good thing.

I think the fact that we are getting a new codex, with new artwork, fluff units and an updated model range to go with it is a very very good thing. And there are certain trends in 5th edition that I think will suit guard hugley, like the emphisis being moved more towards numbers of basic guys being your killing power, rather than just being wounds for a static heavy weapon.

Also if the rumours about new guard infantry are true I think in 6 months time we will be looking back and laughing about the time when guardsmen were a joke!

 

I find with guard it's really easy to win objective games, get a big platoon for lots of scoring units and have at it. Plus I find that running a squad up with just a special weapon, getting some rapid fire in, and assaulting, will do more damage than a heavy weapon with wounds, and it's considered less of a threat by an opponent.

I would never worry about my kill points count in a guard army, thats so far gone that I might as well take tonnes, and just try to kill every enemy for the massacre. In a little while I'll post my 1700 point and my 2000 point army lists. There is a lot of killing power, and if I didn't have to worry about objectives I would say it's a pretty even chance or losing kill points, or killing the whole enemy army, in my experience at least. I mourn the death of VP games.

 

Sadly, 5th did indeed hurt us badly in 1/3 of the scenarions. Kill Points are pretty close to an autoloss if you can't table your enemy. I can't really fathom how they will fix this without making a major rules exception built into the Codex, which would be very un-GWlike.

Also, Orks are currently better at being Guard than Guard are. Shoota Boyz, Battlewagons, Shokk Attack Gunz... and their basic trrops cost the same. If I was starting a Guard army now (and new a new Codex wasn't coming out in 2009) I'd play Catachan models for a Feral World army and use the Ork Codex for the rules.

So, for once I'd like to see a Guard Codex that is written to actually match the power of the metagame. There, I said it. Sadly, I suspect we will end up with something closer to Dark Angels...

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA.../MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180152_Imperial_Guard_FAQ_2004-08_5th_Edition.pdf

The only FAQ they have for guard that I could find on the new clusterfeth of a webpage, it's even for 5th edition... and nowhere does it mention the officer is a independent character with a retinue... it talks about "victory points" not kill points, it even goes as far to say you get half points for wounding him and to count the cost of the squad towards his total points etc etc but says nothing about kill points.
Now, the 5th ed rulebook doesn't even HAVE victory points so you ether have to accept what they've written at face value and play it as a squad, since it's truly a squad and not an independent character or liberally assume they meant kill points and just wrote all that extra stuff on there about victory points to confuse you for their twisted amusement.

Me personally, I'm going to go by what it says and not by what can be interpreted... since opinions, like arseholes, vary from person to person. Until it says kill points, I can't see how it would apply, unless you start giving me half a kill point for taking down half your squads/characters then maybe I'll consider it.

EDIT
On further examination, victory points DO exist... on page 300 of the rulebook as an optional rule I guess? So, seems to me they refer to victory points.. not kill points.

 

Unfortunatley it isn't my opinion.

Look at page 91 of your rulebook, the box containing the Annihilation mission, third paragraph (second after the subheading). I won't copy it out because GW don't like us to post rules.

As for the FAQ, sorry my bad - it was in the rulebook FAQ, not the Imperial Guard FAQ. Check out the first question in the 'Army Specific Questions' here.

 

Well then there you go, that's pretty effin stupid if you ask me, but I guess it's probably a precursor to what they're going to with the new codex.

 

Yeah I agree with that, none of the books that have been released with 5th edition in mind (Eldar/Chaos/DA/Orks/SM) even contain retinues. It seems like retinues might be being phased out of the game and that those rules exist for compatibility.

Whether this means the officer will become a normal upgrade character or will be seperated from the squad, who knows, but my guess would be the former. After all, the only diference between an IC with a retinue and a normal upgrade character now is that the second kill point is awarded (plus the Ork phycic power that picks out characters with the IC special rule). I don't think it has any other effect in game any more.

It would also be interesting to know how kill points will be awarded for a platoon if it is true that we are getting cheaper guardsmen (as low as 4 pts basic!), I can't see a KP being awarded for every 40pts squad you kill potentially.
It makes you wonder if Platoon Drill will include some combat-squad-like ability which makes a Platoon worth a single kill point as long as the "chain of command" they have talked about is maintained.

 

What I don't understand is how that would even be a FAQ? It's a squad... it even freakin says so in the codex "Command SQUAD" not commander and his retinue of yes men.

It probably won't matter with the new codex because everyone will have a special character leading their armies, might as well start converting your own guard version of juan valdez or whatever that space marine guy's name is.

EDIT
Oh yeah, and while we're at it lets get rid of that god awful immobilized vehicles ina squadron are considered destroyed rule, since we have enginseers that can roam around..

 

The only real difference between IG Command squad and a SM Command Squad (with a Captain) is that the SM Captain can leave his Command Squad, while the IG Officer is stuck. Both are worth 2 KP.

The suck comes from the fact that a SM command squad is a hard unit to kill, while the IG command squad (eg. platoon level) is just 5 T3 wounds



I would not be surprised if they kept IG command squads counting as retinues simply to keep officers from hiding in line squads. This would not bother me *if* they fix the way IG gives up KP.


1. An easy fix would be to make IG infantry squads award 1/2 a KP. So you kill 4 squads, you only get 2 KP instead of 4. Would not apply to non "Guard Infantry", so Stormies would award 1 KP (but vets would only be 1/2 )

2. All of the KP of a platoon are kept in the Officer. So a platoon with 4 squads would be worth a total of 6 KP. 4 from the squads, 1 from command squad and 1 from Officer, but the enemy only got the KP by killing the officer. Now this would be interesting, it would greatly promote the need for survivability in the officers. You may even see certain wargear being added that you normally would not use.

3. Platoons = 1 KP. I am not a fan of this option, I feel it is too powerful. I heard that 'Ard Boyz used this rule and IG did very well. This is not surprising, you could take large platoons, sacrifise all the squads save one and not loose any KP. While you could do this with the #2 rule above, i feel the risk involved in that rule balances it out.

 

1. An easy fix would be to make IG infantry squads award 1/2 a KP. So you kill 4 squads, you only get 2 KP instead of 4. Would not apply to non "Guard Infantry", so Stormies would award 1 KP (but vets would only be 1/2 )

I like your idea here, as platoons stand now I think 2 KPs is about how much they are worth, but it all depends what platoons are like in the next codex, somehow I doubt platoons will exist in the form we have them today, it dosen't seem to be a very 5th edition way to structure them.

I suppose it's even possible we might see infantry platoons become a single large unit, with squads more of a formality such as in Conscript Platoons. This may make them inflexible, but perhaps that is the price you pay for such a large block of infantry being worth a single KP. If this were to happen I could see detachments remaining seperate entities for KPs.

I don't think it would be too overpowered to get 200-300 points of infantry under a single KP, after all, that is quite comperable to a tactical squad. However, I agree that if squads were to stay independant as they are now, it would be a bad idea to have them worth a single KP.

I also think they will somehow give us more tank options to get us to buy new tanks. All changes I will be happy with.

There is talk on the wind of a much more flexible set of Leman Russ variants, I forget exactly how many variants Robin Cruddace mentioned, but it was a lot!

Also, perhaps more excitingly, Leman Russ squadrons are a pretty likley to make an appearence in the next codex! So you will be able to take 9 Leman Russes as your heavy support (by some accounts there will be an Armoured Company character which will allow you to take them as Elites too).

Also, Robin talked early on about the possibility of attaching a single Russ to each platoon as a detachment without using a force organisation slot (though I am sure they will be a seperate kill point!).

 

I like BoXANT's idea for the kill points to even it out between Guard and other armies. At this point though I don't see that happening, I don't feel there's going to be an erratta type change coming in the new Guard Dex that will put us even with everyone else. I also don't see an erratta coming regarding the way KP's are counted toward guard for the 5th Ed RB.

So I'll just keep showing up, working toward the Massacre and let my Enemy eat me up in KP's

 

Tithes quotas have not been meet, Inquisitor X will be investigating the situation.

Translation

The goal of any release is to make money, with the marines techmarines, elites, and land raiders all got beefed up. The techmarine got the new gun thing, land raider is cheaper (crusader) and can fire another weapon with the machine spirit, and the various elite options. If i was running games workshop I would want each player of the given codex to spend around $150 with a new release(20 coming from the codex).

With us however we will have rule changes and cheaper cost which will hopefully make us spend more money buying more of the same. The advisors cost should be cut in half I mean an elite inquisitor cost less than a commissar. I also think they will somehow give us more tank options to get us to buy new tanks. All changes I will be happy with.

 

Landing site is secure and one full regiment has created a defensive perimeter

Translation

9+ Leman russ tanks thats crazy, you could use a sling shot tactic, 4 battle cannons firing a turn while still advancing with four other tanks.

 

The 1 KP per unit situation is broken on both extreme ends of the spectrum, IG bleed points profusely, as well as Orkz (new Orkz tend to fare a lot better though) and Plague Marine Chaos will rarely concede more then 2 VP's

They just need to revert back to using tournament style VP's for Ahnilliation games, ex, your victory points are equal to the point cost of the model destroyed.

Example, you wipe out a standard guard squad as Raven Guard, (which is hilariously easy to do, especially with Shrike and his claws of awesomeness), you get whatever that unit is worth, if they had a plasma gunner, and camoline, then you get about 80 points or so. I find this as a better respective way to account for whats actually going on on the table.

 

One option I suspect is at least being kicked around over at GW is to make Platoons 1 VP, but have squadsin each platoon maintain 6" coherancy, kinda like Apocalypse formations.

The excuse would be that platoons would always want to operate near their commander, so this would also eliminate the suicide platoon HQs... Personally, I'd hate it, since it would be like a Boyz Mob, but who knows with GW. SOMETHING has to fix the KP issue.

 

Yeah, I agree RecklessFable. If the Platoon were to be worth a single KP as long as it stayed within range of the command squad, you would be left with a combat squad like unit which could detach squads to claim objectives at the risk of giving away a kill point (and having the unit easily killed). That way also they could focus on making the command platoon actually taking command oriented upgrades.

They just need to revert back to using tournament style VP's for Ahnilliation games, ex, your victory points are equal to the point cost of the model destroyed.

Couldn't agree with you more. What was ever wrong with VPs in the first place?
I am starting to get a little used to KPs now. I suppose the idea was to stop people going mad with army lists, i.e when you have 2 light vehicles the standard choice used to be to take them separatly, now you would rather squad them, but to have to do this for the sake of 1/3 missions is plain annoying - particularly when certain armies can do it 10x better than you for no apparent reason.

Hopefully this will begin to change with the new mission book (at least in friendly play). Jervis says he has just finished writing a supplement which will contain a totally separate and unique table of missions for each race, and that you and your opponent will be playing for your own separate objectives! This sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Obviously the old missions will still be played in the GTs, but you can't win them all.

Landing site is secure and one full regiment has created a defensive perimeter

Translation

9+ Leman russ tanks thats crazy, you could use a sling shot tactic, 4 battle cannons firing a turn while still advancing with four other tanks.

Hehe! Yeah this looks like an exciting Codex for the treadhead. Back that up with some mech platoons for your troops (asuming the new mech Platoons they are talking about are troop choices) and you are done.

 

bleh, edited post

 

new codex??? i want some new models like cadian roughriders, priest and vets dont even have models.... and mabee officalizing the imperial armer by adding it to the codex

 

Rough riders would be a good choice, priests already have models and vets are never getting models, something which was said in the last codex. The whole point was they could be converted. However, we might see an upgrade pack at some point by the looks of the new website.

A

 

Rough riders would be a good choice, priests already have models and vets are never getting models, something which was said in the last codex. The whole point was they could be converted. However, we might see an upgrade pack at some point by the looks of the new website.

A

priests have a model what does it look like i cant find it?

 

It would be nice to see some type of upgrade packs for Vets, I'd always assumed that including vets in your army was a nice excuse to get creative with modeling and see what you could turn out with a regular guardsman, or even include a decomissioned regiment (like Mordian) which have to be speically ordered.

I would like to see some new RR models, I don't like the current ones (I like the Arabian theme to them but I'm not a fan of the actual models themselves) they really need to be updated. I've heard mention of converting scout bikes to fit in with a Mech Army and so on, personally a new line of RR modesl would be fine by me.