Jump to content

New IG Codex. How are you going to cope?


Marek Grimfang

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the wise words. And your opinion.

 

I think C:SM is a bad product.

 

I didn't say that C:IG was a bad product. I think it's a great product. Lots of great new toys (lacking in C:SM) and great Indy Characters.

 

Indy Characters in C:SM: you can only have two indy character (Telion and the Tanker guy are upgrades so I don't count them) choices and you can only take one special rule for your army - I think that's a bad design.

 

Ironclads - Melta fodder

LS Storm - not too impressed, but haven't played/tested much admittedly.

Thunderfire cannon - how many have you actually seen played - new model not making much money as the rules are weak.

 

I like C:IG alot, I amazed at the low cost of some of the characters and the fact that they're more powerful than space marines and pretty comparable to space marine heroes too boot. Perhaps I came across and crying cheese in my last post, that wasn't my intent.

 

I just wished they'd made C:SM live up to their (GW's) hype prior to its release.

 

Having said all that, the Son's of Russ will own...as usual.

I have been playing 13th Co against the new IG and have lost one and drew one.

 

The loss was because I bypassed two squads that I should have wiped out and gotten the kill points for. I ended up losing by 1 KP. The IG player was using 3 Valks, which he was using to deliver vets. He had a master of ordinance that was pretty much ineffective with his scatters all game. They were not OP.

 

The draw was versus a mechanized IG. I popped and/or immobilized a good amount of his army but lost my HQ/retinue while trying to contest his objective while holding my own. He had a master of fleet which only messed up my reserve rolls just a bit. They were not OP.

 

This is while not having a single bit of armor in my entire army. IG are the new FOTM, but not the overpowered bit that people want to worry about so much. A regular SW army with the bonus armor and mobility should have no problems with an IG army.

Thanks for the wise words. And your opinion.

 

I think C:SM is a bad product.

 

I didn't say that C:IG was a bad product. I think it's a great product. Lots of great new toys (lacking in C:SM) and great Indy Characters.

 

Indy Characters in C:SM: you can only have two indy character (Telion and the Tanker guy are upgrades so I don't count them) choices and you can only take one special rule for your army - I think that's a bad design.

 

Ironclads - Melta fodder

LS Storm - not too impressed, but haven't played/tested much admittedly.

Thunderfire cannon - how many have you actually seen played - new model not making much money as the rules are weak.

 

I like C:IG alot, I amazed at the low cost of some of the characters and the fact that they're more powerful than space marines and pretty comparable to space marine heroes too boot. Perhaps I came across and crying cheese in my last post, that wasn't my intent.

 

I just wished they'd made C:SM live up to their (GW's) hype prior to its release.

 

Having said all that, the Son's of Russ will own...as usual.

 

I see. With a new understanding of your point of view, I'd like to offer my counter view again.

 

Remember that the C:SM is designed to represent Codex Chapters of marines, thus they ought to be light on special rules For those chapters with minor divergence, special characters are offered to better emphasize specific combat doctrines. A player looking for ZOMG SPECIAL RULEZ! will be sorely disappointed, but those looking for a codex that will fairly decently represent their codex or minor divergent chapter will appreciate it more.

 

In reference to the specific units you "called out," All vehicles (and dreadnoughts in particular) are melta fodder. It's what the weapon does. That said, the Ironclad carries smoke launchers (which'll give you a cover save) and has the option of taking a Drop Pod. Drop, Smoke, then charge next turn.

 

The Thunderfire is a more difficult proposition. I think most SM players are more interested in Sternguard, Vanguard, and other toys over the Thunderfire. Ofc, a single artillery piece isn't exactly thrilling either, but a single perfunctory codex option does not a bad product make, otherwise one must accept that ALL codexes are poor.

 

All that said, you are entitled to your opinion. I merely disagree.

*switches Jonny's keg with Tyranid bioacid milked from the Kraken*

Yer on!

 

*chokes on his own ale keg as he giggles maniacally*

 

If i remember right you don't want to mess with jonny's ale..... you wont like it when jonny doesn't get his ale....

*Easily drinks Ryzouken's supposedly poisoned ale. Burps. And loudly proclaims that someone has watered down the ale again*

 

Sorry Ryzouken, I'm afraid I'll have to report you to the Brew Lord for such heretical acts! :P

 

Break,

 

 

Sorry Max, didn't mean to hijack the post. I'll stop.

HEEEEEEEEERRRESSS JOHNY!

 

Anyways, I agree that the valkyrie and the gunboats arent overcosted or unbalanced... it just makes me madder that waveserpents cost so much for so little.

 

I think it has to do with the Eldar codex being released during a time when the SMF rule was open to abuse. Remember that those serpents were capable of moving 12, firing its main weapon, and automatically downgrading all pens to glances. Fairly imbalanced... unless you paid an arm and a leg to do it. Also remember that Serpents have that neato shield system that effectively gives you damage statistic values akin to AV 14 vehicles (staring down railguns no less!). Str 8 on arm 12 is 4's to glance, 5's to pen. Str 10 on Arm 14 is, you guessed it, 4's to glance, 5's to pen.

 

So for around 110 points we get a fast skimmer with armour akin to AV 14 with transport capacity and some fairly decent guns. Guard Valks are actually about the same cost, with AV 12, and some fairly average guns (Vendettas not withstanding, but they cost a bit more and it's important to note they cannot spread their fire around.)

 

I'm not so sure that serpents are actually as bad as they're made out to be (I also used to play Eldar, hehe)

*blink* Wavesperpent with brightlances and spirit stones- 145pts. AV 12. Cant outflank. Cant deep-strike troops. Their energy field helps against shooting attacks only, and sure against a railcannon theyre AV 14 equivilant but against a missilelauncher theyre just like anything else AV 12. Its notwhere near as good as AV 14, Its not even quite as good as AV 13 IMHO, unless you can get people to agree that it also works against D strength weapons.

 

Why Brightlances? Because you cant compare the missiles and rockets they can throw on valyries, or even that come standard, with a shuriken cannon. Theres no comparison at all. How about a Vendettas three twin linked lascannons? On a Fast AV 12 skimmer is 130pts, .... and how much is a tri-las predator... 165pts base? Cant move and shoot, nada.

 

Sorry, complete bunk there. Waveserpents already needed a 20-40pts drop. This just makes it so much worse.

Whoa, hey, don't get me wrong, I agree it would be nice if they had a points reduction. I see a trend of lowered transport costs sweeping across the dexes. However, I do see a few things where the Eldar vehicles MAY deserve their points.

 

Regarding the energy field, it basically means that if the enemy bothered to pay points to upgrade weapons to stronger than missiles, they've wasted points (in that match up). That's fairly powerful. It's like forcing your opponent to play with 30-100 less points (depending on how glutted they are on anti tank, but I digress).

 

Regarding weapons loadouts, I think we're confusing one problem for another. Perhaps it is the weapon options point costs that need changing, not the chassis.

 

Regarding tri las predator: Av 13, BS 3, turret mount and sponson mounts. Smaller target.

Then too, SM heavy weapons in any kind of quantity are expensive. +60 points to pick up two lascannons on a single chassis? I think initially GW was trying to buff vehicles by limiting access to hvy weapons. I think they changed their stance on it with the IG dex. I could be mistaken, time will tell.

 

I think Eldar are still paying for a SMF rule they no longer have.

 

 

Sides, Valks are too cool for school :P

My 2 armies are the Tau and Space wolves, when I first looked at the new Space Marine codex my thinking was that my would still be able to beat them. It might be a little harder now, but I can still beat them. Also how cool the new Space Wolves codex is going to be.

 

But when I look at the new Imp. Guard codex, I think that my tau are going to be dead. Its not the tank squads that scare me, its how much better the tanks are now. The basic squads aren't much different, but the elites and hqs are now super strong. I'm starting to think that one night while writing the new guard codex the writers got plastered and just started making things up. Space Marines are going to have to rely on close combat and lots of bolters and melta guns to take on the new guard.

Well another draw against IG today against a different set-up then my previous two engagements. Once again just a couple of tactical mistakes that might have led me to a win versus a draw.

 

Point being, is that as soon as I can get a little more time against them, I don't see a problem dealing with them at all. 13th Co btw.

I just had my first game against guard last night. I dropped 2 pods of BCs and 1 small pod of BCs that came in on turn 3. In my initial drop i managed to pop a valk. The other hid behind the drop pod right next to the ruins, a large... huge unit was in. Aside from being a bit lucky that squad of BCs kept that squad in combat for about 5 turns. I'm a fairly new player to the game but love the wolves and have a whole new respect for scouts. Against guard I put flamer in them and I wana say they almost paid for themselves every turn after the second. Also first rank second rank order will destroy squads, I found this out the hard way. I only need to be shown once tho!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.