Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2008 10:38:36 GMT -5
way to nail it praetorean
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Jul 2, 2008 10:44:23 GMT -5
I still say wait for the codex before anyone decides to jump ship. If you do decide to jump ship just remember that we are not due to dry dock for another 30 Light years and the airlocks are unlocked if you want to try to make it there on your own. As the Imperial Guard Infantryman's primer says. When in a vacuum take a deep breath and move your arms in a swimming motion.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Jul 2, 2008 11:37:24 GMT -5
I do not believe that more armor options will make footslogging lists completely obsolete, it just gives us more choices as guard players and that can't be a bad thing, I think massed infantry supported by mighty armor will still be the standard procedure for the new codex.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2008 11:51:32 GMT -5
not really. Even now, non-conscript troops units are horrible. most IG armies play a small platoon then conscripts then load out spec/hvy weapons squads and veterans/stormies. normal infantry squads aren't generally used in hardcore competitive tourneys(read:what balance is all about).But now with 5th that we will be forced to use our crappy troops choices(easilly the worst troop choices in the game for their points)we have a problem.PLUS the killpoints scenario problem in infantry armies.PLUS that i see no bonus to infantry from current rumours(platoon drill is worthless).
I want to use commissars and/or priests/psykers, and have a reason to use them in a powergaming environment.Just a reason, they don't have to rule.but why pay for a commissar and 2 priests when i can get a leman russ with the rumoured help to mech list??
now, i won't sell my army due to weird allegiance, but i don't think i will ever go to tourneys using IG anymore(wtf am i forced to play mech and most importantly not use advisors). I REALLY hoped the new dex would give me reason to use advisors and exotic units again...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2008 7:32:30 GMT -5
damn i cant wait for this new codex
|
|
|
Post by Mabus on Jul 3, 2008 8:33:53 GMT -5
Tough cheese. Your gonna have to!
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 3, 2008 8:55:18 GMT -5
3rd ed had more tanks but it was still an infantry based army. I think GW want to put more tanks in the codex so that more people will buy more tanks.
|
|
|
Post by chromepip on Jul 3, 2008 22:47:19 GMT -5
ever the cynic Woz.
What's the difference between a pessimist and a cynic? a pessimist thinks, without cause, something bad is going to happen. a cynic knows something bad is going to happen.
You are probably right, but at least the imperial guard will be the true tread-head army.
|
|
|
Post by majorjav on Jul 4, 2008 8:09:02 GMT -5
The IG has always been a tread head army mate!! You have AC, mechanised inf, full infantry, conscripts, heavy weapons...tread heads!!!
I can't wait to see all these new rules for the IG codex to come...I want carapace as an option!!!!
Drop trooper all the way!!!I'm a drop trooper tread head....
|
|
|
Post by Mabus on Jul 4, 2008 12:09:37 GMT -5
Your part of a dying breed majorjav.
Yeah, I'll agree that the IG are a very customisable and flexible force. Probably the most customisable in the game actually. There are loads of options available to us, but with the removal of Doctrines and skills and Drills, I'm not sure if we will still be able to customise our armies as easily with the advent of the new codex.
|
|
|
Post by The Refined Gentleman (M.I.A) on Jul 4, 2008 14:03:32 GMT -5
they're the only 40k army where no 2 armies are the same, in shape and colour.
|
|
|
Post by newcomer on Jul 4, 2008 14:32:46 GMT -5
they're the only 40k army where no 2 armies are the same, in shape and colour.
as quoted from pvtpuffy's post (i dont know how to use the quote function) Amen to that
|
|
|
Post by Woz on Jul 4, 2008 15:03:47 GMT -5
IG worked well before we had Doc's so I don't see a problem if they get dropped. From what I've read there going to be other ways of customising your army.
|
|
|
Post by The Refined Gentleman (M.I.A) on Jul 5, 2008 0:37:07 GMT -5
Yeah, i suppose you're right.
|
|
|
Post by Mabus on Jul 7, 2008 3:16:43 GMT -5
I disagree. I thought the doctrine system was a nice ad easy way to customise an army withought too much trouble. Besides, you didn't have to use doctrines if you didn't want to. I'll be sad to see them go. Why are they even dropping doctrines in the first place?!
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jul 7, 2008 4:07:15 GMT -5
I haven't the foggiest. Maybe there's a secret club of pure Chaos wargamers who suddenly envy us for being more flexible than they are. And are trying to make the IG an even more painfully tricky army.
But if GW drops: Carapace Drop troops The Griffon (completely) Demo charge-armed special weapons teams Veterans (or downgrades them)
Then I drop GW.
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Jul 7, 2008 9:15:44 GMT -5
From what I am reading the Doctrines are NOT being dropped. Mearly being reformatted into unit upgrades. The Armory is being dropped as well to be added into the unit lists as unit upgrades. This is being done to give the codex the look and feel of current codex (e.g. Orks, Chaos, Demons). So, don't worry about the doctrine.
Just imagine the basic entry to look something like the Ork Codex.
Hope we get as many IC as they got.
|
|
|
Post by Mabus on Jul 7, 2008 10:45:13 GMT -5
I doubt we will. Besides, I am not kean on the idea of having lots of IC, I like having command squads and retinues.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jul 7, 2008 11:06:42 GMT -5
So I will still be able to take deepstriking hardened veterans with Carapace armour?
Another question: Can Vets have WS4 as well as BS4? Its sort of counterfluffy that a bunch of macho numbskulls (stormtroopers) have it but men who've spent most of their adult lives fighting and dying don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2008 14:57:05 GMT -5
My opinion(s):
1) Doctrines: goodbye. They complicate the options for opponents in a tournament environment. Your regular foes know how you customize your army and how the options that you choose work.
I've never settled on doctrines for my army, instead choosing based on how I wanted to construct a list. I will be happy to have a basic list to choose for a tourney.
2) Sniper rules: fine, I've never realy used them before.
3) Plastic Valkrie: cool, a new model to add to my established army. If it works as a skimmer, perfect. It helps give the guard a faster transport so they can contest all objectives. (I spent money on a Forge World model several years ago with the door gunners. It will be great to be able to use it on a regular basis)
4) Tank Squadrons: O.K. It brings the armored company back as a standard list. I won't run it. but I won't knock it either.
5) Plastic Stormtroopers: I hope so. I am planning on adding stormtroopers in to what I have already. Plastics will be nice.
Things i want to see: 1) A commisar that I WANT to take (model more than stats)
2) Plastic command: give me more choices in plastic. (Melta, plasma, master vox, medic, standard, officer)
3) I want my Griffon back. I'll use it as a Basilisk if I have too, but I want rules for my model
4) Better Rough Riders (models)
5) Plastic Salamander: a better command unit for mechanized armies
6) Keep the Cadians, but release upgrade sprues to create alternate regiments (heads, arms, other)
|
|
|
Post by The Refined Gentleman (M.I.A) on Jul 9, 2008 23:59:12 GMT -5
They could release the other regiments in form of bitz kits, like they did bitz boxes to make ork boyz into stormboyz, stikkbommas, ect.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jul 10, 2008 3:06:04 GMT -5
'Complicates the options for opponents in Tourneys'
A somewhat piece of specious logic, I must declare. (NOTE: This is an ideas disagreement, not a personal disagreement- don't get offended). By that argument, Tyranid Monstrous creatures, space marine veterans, and virtually every other form, shape or manner of variation in a list complicates lists for oppnents. Hell, at least guard ususally only try and slug it out in assault- most armies can do both! The removal of doctrines is another clear indication of GW's guard hate (we only want them for the fluff.), although, if Staff is correct, I might not be completely enraged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 16:48:10 GMT -5
The way that codexes are laid out now, reduces the BIG options (doctines, traits) to nothing. It shows a trend towards simplification.
The rumors about the new Marine codex indicate this trend.
Personally, I don't use the doctrines. (I'm not offended. You didn't call me a butt-head)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2008 2:02:47 GMT -5
I hate the lay out of the new chaos/ork codexs, but i guess ill have to just get used to it, as the new IG codex will most definately be done in the same layout. Oh well, could be worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2008 7:17:01 GMT -5
The only reason their panning doctrines is because they are trying to ping the Max-minmax armies out the window and make REAL troop options a reality. Hence why the new ones are going to be Platoon orientated.
I like the idea. I always felt it was a lost opportunity that we are FORCED to take platoons. It should be a pleasure and the core of every army.
|
|