I'm betting emperor's children won't release until the end of 10th, similar to how World Eaters were at the end of 8th and Votann were at the end of 9th. They seem to reserve brand new factions until the very end of an edition.
The "redacted" could be imperial agents or whatever the Inquisitor faction was called, that would fit as well.
Also didn't they already break from that image? We have Dark Angels and now Tau, but no sign of Orks/Custodes/CSM
Valkyrie wrote: I can't see Agents being an entire faction on their own.
They had a book in 6th?
Basically a collection of odds and ends units that didn’t fit into other codexs that you could ally in. Great place these days for all the KT stuff, plus inqusition, assassins, and other similar things.
More then enough units to fill a book, but would look very patchwork as an army.
Which is kind of on-brand for RTs and inquisitors…
Should have fleshed it out a bit; I mean I can't see them being an entire faction due to the overall mismash of units just chucked together. You have your Inquisitors, Assassins, Rogue Traders, Arbites, and other random individual figures chucked in from various boardgames they've released over the years. If they were to be a full faction IMO, there'll have to be quite a few new models to allow for a bit of consistency, such as a whole army of Arbites, or a unit of UR-025s, etc.
During the Necromunda Tauros drop, many speculated that the redacted dex was guard, and it was redacted because the cover gave away new model releases for guard- specifically, plastic Elysian that incorporate the plastic Tauros. I still believe that's possible.
However, I'm happy to see people suggest Agents. I've said several times that Agents are really easy to make more playable than they currently are. They're always going to be a -1 faction, but they could be made more functional with very little effort. The biggest issue with Agents right now is that the game design prevents them from having their own detachment rules, which means they can't use strats or enhancements, and the thing that they have as a detachment rule isn't a buff like all other detachment rules- it merely is the rule that allows them to be included in other armies.
If they added an Inquisition detachment (though I'd prefer one for each major Ordo), a Navy Detachment, an Arbites detachment and a Rogue Trader detachment, that goes a long way. All factions would need vehicles added to their lists, but that could be achieved with mostly existing vehicles.Malleus riding Land Raiders is iconic, but right now, that can only be done if the Inquisitor joins Marines, because there is no Inquisition list that includes land raiders.
Valkyries and Forgeworld aircraft can be added to both Navy and RT lists. Arbites and Navy need HQ units.
And then you need rules allowing these Agent detachments to ally with other detachments. And it wouldn't be any/ all. I see Hereticus detachments allying to Sister, Malleus to GK and Xenos to Deathwatch. I see Navy, RT and Arbites working with guard. Also, Inquisition detachments should be able to include any Agent... Meaning you could put RT's and Breachers into a Hereticus detachment if you wanted to, and that detachment could still ally with a Sister detachment.
They don't need a lot more models to be more useful- they just need rules that do more than allow them to exist as more than red-headed step children added to other armies as an afterthought. Both 8th and 9th allowed Inquisition detachments. The addition of Navy and Arbites went further by providing an viable troops choice for Inquisition, but GW effed up the key words.
In 10th, they fixed the keywords, but took away their ability to be detachments.
I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
Kanluwen wrote: I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
I still find this a bizarre take, given both the Imperial Navy armsmen and Arbites have fought as (40k-sized) forces in the lore since at least 3rd edition. Given the size of the Imperium, more Arbites are probably involved in frontline combat at a given time than Space Marines. Arbites had a 40k army list before Tau...
I accept the "anti-bloat" argument, but that doesn't preclude models per se, only bespoke rules. There was the option to "counts as" Arbites as Guard veterans or Witchunters Stormtroopers with shotguns for a long time.
Kanluwen wrote: I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
I still find this a bizarre take, given both the Imperial Navy armsmen and Arbites have fought as (40k-sized) forces in the lore since at least 3rd edition. Given the size of the Imperium, more Arbites are probably involved in frontline combat at a given time than Space Marines. Arbites had a 40k army list before Tau...
I accept the "anti-bloat" argument, but that doesn't preclude models per se, only bespoke rules. There was the option to "counts as" Arbites as Guard veterans or Witchunters Stormtroopers with shotguns for a long time.
Pretty much, it feels more likely that the Imperial navy and arbites might even team up sometimes to apprehend military trouble causers, investigate matters in the star port, or just be commandeered by a high up officer or inquisitor etc.
Most Cults, be it chaos or Gene in flavour are found by local authorities first and foremost and given the size of a game of 40k, is it possible a hive of billions of lives have an armed force of 40+ mounted police? Absolutely.
Kanluwen wrote: I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
Spoken like a person who still believes WH40k is always only 2k battles.
500 and 1k have always been more my style. They were more encouraged in 9th than they are in 10th because the Combat Patrol game mode is GW's replacement for the 500 point battle in 40k core rules. But it always was the small battles, and allied detachment system that made Agents work the best. Anytime I've ever played a 2k+ army, it's always been built as two smaller armies that have joined for a big fight, and 9th did that better than other edition.
People who make statements about what they think the game should be, based on only one narrowly focused way of playing it have no idea what GW is trying to do, and would collapse GW's market share in a year if anyone else took them seriously. It's a good thing no one does.
I wish everyone who posted a rules suggestion would just think for a second before they hit post:
"Okay, I've come up with a rule that works for the way I choose to play the game. Before I post it, how would it affect Crusade? How would it affect Combat Partol? How would it afffect 1k, 1500, 2k and 3k games? How can it support and be supported by other games that take place in its timeline."
Because while it's clear that very few people who post on Dakka ever do think about those things, it's equally clear that GW thought really hard about them in 8th/9th... And they're even continuing to think about those things in 10th. And that, my friends, is one of the reasons their market dominance has INCREASED since 8th.
Myopic suggestions don't work for games that value versatility.
Spoken like a person who still believes WH40k is always only 2k battles.
500 and 1k have always been more my style.
I don't actually disagree with this. I'm very fond of 1k and feel like 1500 gets a little too big for its britches, though the scenarios get more interesting.
That said, I think its important that factions make sense at 2000 because otherwise you end up with armies that don't get love for years until GW finds a way to remove them. I adore Harlequins, but they were kept alive almost purely due to being OP long enough to make spamming their limited model pool a viable option. Years of nothing put them further and futher on the backburner until they finally got absorbed back into Eldar as a weird psuedo sub faction.
There's been quite a few of these. Stormtroopers tried striking out away from the guard and we'll see if Deathwatch meets the same fate as their Death Masque companions soon. A faction needs a model line that supports 2000 point games even if its fine to play smaller. One cool unique and a couple characters do not survive long.
I like that you mentioned thinking about 3k points games. Weren't it for time constraints, that would be the lowest points I'd consider most of the times.
But I am also proud owner of 3 Voidsmen and 2 Arbites squads, and smaller points games can be fun, too.
I really hope the mystery release is Dark Mech with demonic sentient robots. The Negavolt cultists from Blackstone fortress were nice, too
Brickfix wrote: I like that you mentioned thinking about 3k points games. Weren't it for time constraints, that would be the lowest points I'd consider most of the times.
But I am also proud owner of 3 Voidsmen and 2 Arbites squads, and smaller points games can be fun, too.
I really hope the mystery release is Dark Mech with demonic sentient robots. The Negavolt cultists from Blackstone fortress were nice, too
Brickfix wrote: Isn't GW considering any release in February to be in winter still?
As Feb is smack in the middle of winter in the northern hemisphere, where they're based, you'd think so....
Well, end of winter. Spring starts in March, so they're running out of time on that front.
Winter is measured from the December Solstice (Dec 21/22) through the March Equinox (about March 20th) here in the Northern hemisphere. So no, Feb is not at the end of winter.
Kanluwen wrote: I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
Spoken like a person who still believes WH40k is always only 2k battles.
No, spoken like a person who still believes that WH40k is always about battles. By the time any of these games would come to pass, the agents are pulled out or dead.
500 and 1k have always been more my style. They were more encouraged in 9th than they are in 10th because the Combat Patrol game mode is GW's replacement for the 500 point battle in 40k core rules. But it always was the small battles, and allied detachment system that made Agents work the best. Anytime I've ever played a 2k+ army, it's always been built as two smaller armies that have joined for a big fight, and 9th did that better than other edition.
And that's because you're taking a more narrative bend, built around agents and your own headcanon. That's great. Really, it is.
But that doesn't require these units to have codices. If I can't have Secutarii in mainline 40k, why should you get Arbites? Throw that gak in Legends and be done with it.
People who make statements about what they think the game should be, based on only one narrowly focused way of playing it have no idea what GW is trying to do, and would collapse GW's market share in a year if anyone else took them seriously. It's a good thing no one does.
My dude, you could not be more wrong about how I play. But that's fine.
I wish everyone who posted a rules suggestion would just think for a second before they hit post:
"Okay, I've come up with a rule that works for the way I choose to play the game. Before I post it, how would it affect Crusade? How would it affect Combat Patrol? How would it afffect 1k, 1500, 2k and 3k games? How can it support and be supported by other games that take place in its timeline."
Because while it's clear that very few people who post on Dakka ever do think about those things, it's equally clear that GW thought really hard about them in 8th/9th... And they're even continuing to think about those things in 10th.
They really haven't. There's a ton of things that should have been fixed and immediately adjusted, yet still not a damn thing comes to pass. FFS, the easiest of things to errata still hasn't been done in four editions. Scions and Guard are the literal proof that NMNR isn't applied evenly across the game, and that they don't have a clue of what each team is doing separately.
And that, my friends, is one of the reasons their market dominance has INCREASED since 8th.
You sure about that? You sure it's not them being a highly visible option?
Myopic suggestions don't work for games that value versatility.
Games valuing versatility are great, games valuing reality are even better.
I hope that the secret army is indeed Emperor's Children. The way they are currently handled, a unit and character in the index, is kind of jank. Also They are my second favorite CSM legion after TS, so I would actually consider starting them, especially if the models are awesome.
Brickfix wrote: Isn't GW considering any release in February to be in winter still?
As Feb is smack in the middle of winter in the northern hemisphere, where they're based, you'd think so....
Well, end of winter. Spring starts in March, so they're running out of time on that front.
Winter is measured from the December Solstice (Dec 21/22) through the March Equinox (about March 20th) here in the Northern hemisphere. So no, Feb is not at the end of winter.
That may be technically the case but in the UK at least we commonly think winter as December, January, February.
I don’t think it will be kroots, they could have left the releases we have had for the full release.
I think EC is too soon after WE and as others have said EC more likely at the end of the edition. Most of the recent EC lore has been related to Bile and he doesn’t want to be part of the legion.
As it’s redacted I don’t think it’s one of the existing factions
So my money is on something related to vashtorr as he’s been a main protagonist in the recent lore. Maybe dark mechanicum or more cultists or a revamped demons army combining Knights, demons and demon engines
No, spoken like a person who still believes that WH40k is always about battles. By the time any of these games would come to pass, the agents are pulled out or dead.
Right. Except in 3rd when there were Hunter dexes (which continued to be used in 4th), 6th when there was an Agents dex, 8th and 9th when Inquisition detachments did exist. It seems like GW disagrees with you.
And that's because you're taking a more narrative bend, built around agents and your own headcanon. That's great. Really, it is.
Oh, so is this you denying that there were explicit rules for 500 point games and multi-detachment allied armies in 9th? Because I can get you the page numbers.
Combat Patrol Battles 500 points/ 25 PL, one detachment, 30" x 44" board.
Incursion Battles 1k points / 50PL, up to two detachments, 30" x 44" board.
Strike Force 2k points/ 100PL, up to 3 detachments, 60" x 44" board.
Onslaught 3k points/ 150 PL, up to 4 detachments, 90" x 44" board.
Now if I didn't write those rules, how can using them be my head cannon? Read the rules for allied forces in the Hunter dexes, because I didn't make them up either.
But that doesn't require these units to have codices. If I can't have Secutarii in mainline 40k, why should you get Arbites? Throw that gak in Legends and be done with it.
The way to fix that problem is by giving you rules that allow you to play Secutarii in 40k, not leaving Arbites (which already do exist in 40k) in a weird limbo. feth, you act like there's only one way to solve problem.
My dude, you could not be more wrong about how I play.
Well if you do play 500 point games, start posting like it. The only rationale for "Small armies should only exist as add-ons to other more established armies" that I can think of is the difficulty of fielding 2k points without the army feeling samey.
They really haven't. There's a ton of things that should have been fixed and immediately adjusted, yet still not a damn thing comes to pass. FFS, the easiest of things to errata still hasn't been done in four editions. Scions and Guard are the literal proof that NMNR isn't applied evenly across the game, and that they don't have a clue of what each team is doing separately.
Considering that this is supposed to be a response to my point about GW thinking carefully about a) a narrative gaming mode b) games of different sizes and c) interactions between 40k, KT and BSF, you don't really seem to be talking a lot about those things in the response. The closest you come is talking about how dev teams don't have a clue what each team is doing separately.
And I guess you're right about that, because
Kill Team Eldar Corsairs clearly didn't become two units in 40k.
Chaos Legionnaires, Fellgors and Traitor Guard clearly weren't added to 40k Farstalker Kinbrands never became a 40k unit either.
Neither did those pesky SoB Novitiates.
And we certainly haven't seen BSF characters incorporated into 40k via modified equipment lists for existing units which would better allow them to be represented by BSF models, or the creation of new datacards for those BSF units.
Now look, you can isolate individual cases to suggest that GW could have taken this approach even further than they did. But that doesn't diminish the mountain of evidence that GW is trying to accommodate narrative gaming, cross-over between games and varying 40k game sizes.
You sure about that? You sure it's not them being a highly visible option?
You saw in the part you quoted where I said "ONE OF THE REASONS," right?
I mean, people thinking that any company does anything for JUST ONE reason is exactly the kind of myopic thinking that you demonstrated in the first post and continue demonstrate here. In real life, gak is always almost more complicated than it is on a forum.
OF COURSE high visibility is a factor. So were the quarantine measures. So is IP licensing for video games. So is BL. And yes, so are game crossovers, multiple game modes and multiple game sizes (ie. versatility). They are all factors.
Brickfix wrote: Isn't GW considering any release in February to be in winter still?
As Feb is smack in the middle of winter in the northern hemisphere, where they're based, you'd think so....
Well, end of winter. Spring starts in March, so they're running out of time on that front.
Winter is measured from the December Solstice (Dec 21/22) through the March Equinox (about March 20th) here in the Northern hemisphere. So no, Feb is not at the end of winter.
For those that are interested, in the UK, spring is generally reckoned to run 1st March - 31st May, this is also known as meteorological spring, (and each of the 4 seasons is similarly referred to as 3 month periods starting on the 1st of the month) despite the difference from the astronomical seasons of around 3 weeks. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/spring/when-does-spring-start
Kanluwen wrote: I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
By that logic we should also drop all the flavors of Marines, mash all of chaos and demons back together, drop the Custodes entirely, drop Knights of all kinds entirely, the Tau, the Votann, Genestealers Cults and the Admech. None of them belong in 40k.
Kanluwen wrote: I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Fluff-wise the Arbites are the last line of defense for a planet against rebellion or invasion. The Marines or the Guard ain't coming till the Arbites call for them. So an army of mobile, high-quality Arbites would make sense. Even if they were just a unit within Codex Inquisition or Imperial Agents.
I see the issue rules-wise, they're another human Imperial army, but that objection went out the window when Blue-Grey Space Marines got their own codex back in 1994. We now have what codexes for Blue, Black, Red, Green, Grey, Girl and Shiny marines, plus Black, Red, Green and Blue Chaos Marines. I think a few books of Humans would not be untoward.
Frankly, I don't think there is an issue with Arbites at 2000 or 3000pts either.
It was pretty easy to make a 2000pt mechanised Arbites force with their 3rd edition list and about 80 bodies in transports or on bikes. Overall essentially your classic carapace vet list, although a definite weakness against heavy armour with only combi-meltas, hunter killer missiles, and plasma pistols/combi-plasma going above S6.
The list had 5 units and 2 transports (3 with Forge World), and there are definitely more units mentioned in lore (cyber hounds, support weapon squads come to mind quickest, Leman Russ have also been in Arbites armouries). A full army is quite doable.
Kanluwen wrote: I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Fluff-wise the Arbites are the last line of defense for a planet against rebellion or invasion. The Marines or the Guard ain't coming till the Arbites call for them. So an army of mobile, high-quality Arbites would make sense. Even if they were just a unit within Codex Inquisition or Imperial Agents.
I see the issue rules-wise, they're another human Imperial army, but that objection went out the window when Blue-Grey Space Marines got their own codex back in 1994. We now have what codexes for Blue, Black, Red, Green, Grey, Girl and Shiny marines, plus Black, Red, Green and Blue Chaos Marines. I think a few books of Humans would not be untoward.
This army looks very cool! Unfortunately I can't see GW allowing an Arbites army using IG tanks, because cross games and cross faction compatible kits seem to be a big no no (my poor Horus heresy tanks, oh no servitors can be used in three factions in 40k alone let's not release a new kit and legend them instead)
About my comment on February still being considered winter by GW, I recall a lot of excitement over a release last year (or a year before?) and the following confusion because it was "two months late". People expected the release in March at the latest because "spring release" and it came at the end of May ...
This army looks very cool! Unfortunately I can't see GW allowing an Arbites army using IG tanks, because cross games and cross faction compatible kits seem to be a big no no (my poor Horus heresy tanks, oh no servitors can be used in three factions in 40k alone let's not release a new kit and legend them instead)
Yeah for the moment they all count as multiple different IG units. With the move to 10th a good chunk of that army is illegal just like my Tallarn Vet army, and my Cadian drop army
Whatever you guys are expecting, you're going to be let down. This is GW. Lets tamper the expectations. It's going to be new Space Marine Chapter, loyalist.
This army looks very cool! Unfortunately I can't see GW allowing an Arbites army using IG tanks, because cross games and cross faction compatible kits seem to be a big no no (my poor Horus heresy tanks, oh no servitors can be used in three factions in 40k alone let's not release a new kit and legend them instead)
Yeah for the moment they all count as multiple different IG units. With the move to 10th a good chunk of that army is illegal just like my Tallarn Vet army, and my Cadian drop army
Sadly GW do seem to be moving away from a more shared Imperial aesthetic with vehicles based on common STCs to bespoke vehicles for every faction.
It is weird to me, because surely they get more return on investment for a kit used in multiple armies, like priests, rhinos, or servitors. I don't think the "brands" of the factions are negatively "watered down" by this approach.
Kanluwen wrote: I never want to see Arbites as a playable faction. Ever.
You want to play RT? Arbites? Go play Necromunda or Kill Team. They're not an army and should not have ever been given rules for 40k proper. Their inclusion was nothing but yet more dilution of roles for the Guard to have. The same thing goes with the Navy Breachers.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Fluff-wise the Arbites are the last line of defense for a planet against rebellion or invasion. The Marines or the Guard ain't coming till the Arbites call for them. So an army of mobile, high-quality Arbites would make sense. Even if they were just a unit within Codex Inquisition or Imperial Agents.
I see the issue rules-wise, they're another human Imperial army, but that objection went out the window when Blue-Grey Space Marines got their own codex back in 1994. We now have what codexes for Blue, Black, Red, Green, Grey, Girl and Shiny marines, plus Black, Red, Green and Blue Chaos Marines. I think a few books of Humans would not be untoward.
This army looks very cool! Unfortunately I can't see GW allowing an Arbites army using IG tanks, because cross games and cross faction compatible kits seem to be a big no no (my poor Horus heresy tanks, oh no servitors can be used in three factions in 40k alone let's not release a new kit and legend them instead)
About my comment on February still being considered winter by GW, I recall a lot of excitement over a release last year (or a year before?) and the following confusion because it was "two months late". People expected the release in March at the latest because "spring release" and it came at the end of May ...
Its not unheard of. Custodes have Land Raiders and Rhinos. Sisters have Rhino Chassis variants. Grey Knights have the regular SM flyers and Land Raiders. With that said, I can totally see Arbites in Chimera, and Hellhounds. I'm not sure about Leman Russ/Rogal Dorn, and really not sure about the Super Heavies or "Artillery" like the Basilisks. I can see transport planes but not fighters and bombers.
Arbites have occasionally had access to small numbers of Leman Russ in the lore for when gak really hits the fan. Probably because you can leave a Leman Russ in storage for a few millennia and chances are it'll still turn on when you hit the rune of activation.
They are unlikely to have much if any artillery, although I could see them using Griffons for the smoke and ilum shells. Could also imagine an Arbites-specific tear gas shell that isn't very practical outside of riot control.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Whatever you guys are expecting, you're going to be let down. This is GW. Lets tamper the expectations. It's going to be new Space Marine Chapter, loyalist.
Before LoV I would have agreed but I think GW know there is a market for greater variety. Kroot are expanding, we’ve had Beastmen and traitor guard kill teams, new characters like vashtorr. I think it’s anyone’s guess.
Am not sure if the lore is sitll accurate, but in the Shira Calpurnia trilogy one of the three highest ranking officers of the arbites is responsible for stricktly mililtary scale operations. Stuff like ship boarding, siege craft of hive clusters and hive towers, he has access to fast moving in system ships which consist of engines, weapons pylons and space for boarding parties. A lot of the arbites or inquisitor stuff is hard to show in a large scale table top game though. The arbites have stuff like detectives, secret field operatives, their own branch of apothecaries/forensic team, who brench that is focused on laws and can arbitors can use them to go around or through red tape. etc
Custodes and GK are the same. On of the GK brotherhoods starts their interventions by teleporting 200 combat servitors high on frenzon in to combat, followed by mass terminator teleportation a few seconds later. No way to represent those in game. Custodes have "math" magicians and name an dream magic using "shamans", they have apothecaries and biologos, field agents consisting of both retired and not retired members of the brotherhood. And top of that if there is something that one could imagine that it existed in the times of retaking of Terra or even some golden age stuff, they probably have access to it. For example GK have their pokeball grenades, but those are designes given to them by Malcador and originaly used by the Custodes to capture really dangerous things.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Whatever you guys are expecting, you're going to be let down. This is GW. Lets tamper the expectations. It's going to be new Space Marine Chapter, loyalist.
Before LoV I would have agreed but I think GW know there is a market for greater variety. Kroot are expanding, we’ve had Beastmen and traitor guard kill teams, new characters like vashtorr. I think it’s anyone’s guess.
I wouldn't be suprised by Emperor's Children. Yeah they normally release the new Primarch during the summer campaign, but I wouldn't be surprised if COVID created a logjam, which delayed the Lion and Angron, and thus Russ and Fulgrim were ready last summer but still delayed for the next one I would also absolutely not be surpised to see it be the Imperial Agents supplement and some sort of April Fools Joke with the Inquisition Redacting their Release date in a gigantic GW Dad Joke. .
If we assume the mystery faction is new(ish), I hope it's Emperor's Children. Getting all 4 of the god-specific Legions into their own books would probably help with balance in the CSM Codex as well as "completing" the various CSM armies. The various Inquisition Codices we've had in the past have always felt really undercooked and the sections of them that were more compelling as actual armies suitable for 40k games (Sisters, Grey Knights, Deathwatch) now have their own standalone Index armies. With how long it's going to take them to release all the 10th edition factions I think taking a break to release something completely new would be a bad move.
EC and Dark Mech do seem to be the two most likely candidates for an actually "new" force. EC because we know it really is only a matter of time for that to happen, and Dark Mech because the return of Vashtorr in the lore makes for a potentially perfect figurehead to do such a release around. There also is a chance that the "Redacted" codex will just be Imperial Agents though, especially with the recent rumors that they are getting a codex in the Summer.
I did wonder if adding more cultists to CSM and the Fellgor and traitor guard kill teams is a way of starting to fill out the codex ready for all 4 of the legions to leave it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But of course if the CSM codex comes out without noise marines in that gives the game away. So now I’m saying it’s not EC.
If the codex CSM doesn’t have noise marines then we are getting EC by the end of 10th but not the redacted one in the image.
So as it says redacted I’m going with codex inquisition
mrFickle wrote: I did wonder if adding more cultists to CSM and the Fellgor and traitor guard kill teams is a way of starting to fill out the codex ready for all 4 of the legions to leave it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But of course if the CSM codex comes out without noise marines in that gives the game away. So now I’m saying it’s not EC.
If the codex CSM doesn’t have noise marines then we are getting EC by the end of 10th but not the redacted one in the image.
So as it says redacted I’m going with codex inquisition
Plot-twist:
They put Rubric Marines, Plague Marines, and Khorne Berzerkers back into the main codex to throw everyone off.
mrFickle wrote: I did wonder if adding more cultists to CSM and the Fellgor and traitor guard kill teams is a way of starting to fill out the codex ready for all 4 of the legions to leave it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But of course if the CSM codex comes out without noise marines in that gives the game away. So now I’m saying it’s not EC.
If the codex CSM doesn’t have noise marines then we are getting EC by the end of 10th but not the redacted one in the image.
So as it says redacted I’m going with codex inquisition
Plot-twist:
They put Rubric Marines, Plague Marines, and Khorne Berzerkers back into the main codex to throw everyone off.
That would be cool, they are currently allowed as allies.
But now someone has said it I feel like the word redacted is a clue so it’s either a secret part of the imperium or something they want to keep secret.
I don't want to be a party pooper, but why is "redacted" necessarily a new faction? I remember 9th edition we had a similar roadmap and the "redacted" codex in the image back then was simply Dark Eldar.
I see no reason to get riled up about the "Redacted" part.
^That's from 2020.
^2021.
I'm sure they've done more, but searching for it easily involves having to use Google/Bing/whatever...and BoLS has basically drowned out everything relevant.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Whatever you guys are expecting, you're going to be let down. This is GW. Lets tamper the expectations. It's going to be new Space Marine Chapter, loyalist.
I feel like the model releases have branched out quite a bit more recently.
They have lots of models that exist in some of the suggested factions that would be ready to go. I don't think it will be anything new though. They just put redacted to give themselves wiggle room at the end of that release schedule.
Slipspace wrote: If we assume the mystery faction is new(ish), I hope it's Emperor's Children. Getting all 4 of the god-specific Legions into their own books would probably help with balance in the CSM Codex as well as "completing" the various CSM armies. The various Inquisition Codices we've had in the past have always felt really undercooked and the sections of them that were more compelling as actual armies suitable for 40k games (Sisters, Grey Knights, Deathwatch) now have their own standalone Index armies. With how long it's going to take them to release all the 10th edition factions I think taking a break to release something completely new would be a bad move.
The hard part about thinking its Emperor's Children is two fold. Bringing back another Primarch is a major event that can, will, and does sell an extra book. Which usually means Summer Campaign. Now April is probably close enough it could be that - with Emperor;s Children releasing and being the MacGuffin of the Summer Campaign which then puts the returning Loyalist Primarch (Probably Russ) in the Summer Campaign book to start - and its entirely posssible/plausible both release at once so EC players have an army to buy and everyone else has a Campaign book to buy. And I think its Russ because 40K is shaking up the traditional PREFERRED ENEMY results. Tyranids to Blood Angels instead of UM, WE/Khorne to Dark Angels, Magnus to Bobby G - so with the (assumed) Return of Russ they'll shake up those rivalries with the Brute Force of Russ with the Haughty Grace of Fulgrim.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The return of Russ would be good since then we'd have two loyal primarchs
I'm not sure how many they're going to bring back before chucking it all and Disappearing them all again, but this looks like their modus operandi going forward - release one of each at the same time to keep a relatively balanced primarch count. Hopefully they get them and/or "counts as" placeholders for the deaders back and keep them back. They're no brainers when it comes to Big Centerpiece Models.
Kanluwen wrote: I see no reason to get riled up about the "Redacted" part.
^That's from 2020.
^2021.
I'm sure they've done more, but searching for it easily involves having to use Google/Bing/whatever...and BoLS has basically drowned out everything relevant.
yeah, when i saw the current roadmap, my thought was "oh that's something to be revealed later", not "new faction being added". frankly, i think they would be doing more if there was a new faction on the horizon in just a few months. Votann were announced like six months before their release, and World Eaters were foreshadowed by being removed from the CSM codex. we're probably going to be getting such foreshadowing soon, when CSM get their 10e codex, but i don't think they would do that again so immediately
if the rumor is true, it's agents, and i think that's likely. otherwise, i'm not really sure, but my armies are already getting codexes before this, so agents is the one thing i still have stakes in (i like using allies for my custodes army)— that is to say, if it's not agents, i don't really care
I'm going to go ahead and jump on the "It's not a new faction" wagon. As mentioned by others it doesn't have to be a new faction just because it's "Redacted".
My guess is it's Imperial Agents. If they continue to be a bolt on for other Imperium factions and not a stand alone army I'm not particularly excited about the codex.
Kanluwen wrote: It's most likely going to be Guard, given that GSC are the ones right before it and there's a rumor of a GSC v Votann set, featuring Brood Brothers.
Gotta get those cross-faction dollars while the Guard aren't super-salty about having their arsenal torn out into another book after all!.
...is that a thing guard players get annoyed by? brood brothers has been a thing for as long as GSC have existed. i don't think a KT brood brothers kit would really demand a new guard release, either. GSC have existed for several editions now, and at no point has GW seemed to feel a need to tie the two factions together, beyond us needing to use guard's toys to fill out our heavy supports
...is that a thing guard players get annoyed by? brood brothers has been a thing for as long as GSC have existed.
I can't speak for anyone else, but yeah. I'm annoyed by it. Read how Brood Brothers works now and realize that they literally get to pull the prime units out of the Guard roster with no downside. They shouldn't get any of the "named" Regiment units(Kasrkin, Cadian Shock, Death Korps, Catachan Jungle, or Attillan Rough Riders).
I have zero issue with them getting access to Scions, Commissars, Ogryn, etc. But I draw the line at the "named" Regiments.
i don't think a KT brood brothers kit would really demand a new guard release, either.
It would be its own unit option, so yeah. It would. Because unless they're going to have only the Cadian Shock Troop options? There's something that's going to be missing, and that's still the basic Infantry Squad.
GSC have existed for several editions now, and at no point has GW seemed to feel a need to tie the two factions together, beyond us needing to use guard's toys to fill out our heavy supports
And your troops. Remember that there literally was a Brood Brothers kit that's a Cadian Shock Troop box + sprue
Kanluwen wrote: It's most likely going to be Guard, given that GSC are the ones right before it and there's a rumor of a GSC v Votann set, featuring Brood Brothers.
Gotta get those cross-faction dollars while the Guard aren't super-salty about having their arsenal torn out into another book after all!.
...is that a thing guard players get annoyed by? brood brothers has been a thing for as long as GSC have existed. i don't think a KT brood brothers kit would really demand a new guard release, either. GSC have existed for several editions now, and at no point has GW seemed to feel a need to tie the two factions together, beyond us needing to use guard's toys to fill out our heavy supports
For my part, I wouldn't say "annoyed" so much as "leery". You said it yourself, you (sometimes) need our toys. But...why? Why do you need our toys and why do you need our toys? Why can't GW give you toys of your own? Why can't you take extras from Tyranids? I'm fine with GSC retaining a few (limited and specific) Guard datasheets to futureproof against whatever Allies rules do or do not exist, but if access to the Guard goodies is so essential to your list why not do an allied Guard force from the Guard book instead? (Note: no idea what Allies rules look like for 10e, not sure if this is viable or not; also, wouldn't blame a GSC player for feeling a bit miffed at having to buy two codices to make their force. That said, if they wanted to lean in the other direction and do GSC+Tyranid force, that's already the boat they're in, so...)
I won't say that BB is inherently a threat to (the less copyrightable) Guard, but it does kinda feel like there's a certain baseline chance that GSC+BB will end up just being "Guard but better", and I don't trust GW to see that and react appropriately (or the players, for that matter - I'd rather not face the day where I gripe about the lack of options for a Guard raiding/fast-attack force and get told "Oh, you should pick up GSC! They've got all the Fast Attack options and rules that you need and will never get because GSC already have them!"). You're right, it is a paranoid fear, but we live in the dumb timeline and I'm too jaded to rule that possibility out.
PS - Yes, I was the oldest child in the family, how could you tell?
i don't think a KT brood brothers kit would really demand a new guard release, either.
It would be its own unit option, so yeah. It would. Because unless they're going to have only the Cadian Shock Troop options? There's something that's going to be missing, and that's still the basic Infantry Squad.
but it's a genestealers kill team. i imagine it's going to have genestealer-specific options, and even some specific mutations. why would that also be a guard release?
Kanluwen wrote: It's most likely going to be Guard, given that GSC are the ones right before it and there's a rumor of a GSC v Votann set, featuring Brood Brothers.
Gotta get those cross-faction dollars while the Guard aren't super-salty about having their arsenal torn out into another book after all!.
...is that a thing guard players get annoyed by? brood brothers has been a thing for as long as GSC have existed. i don't think a KT brood brothers kit would really demand a new guard release, either. GSC have existed for several editions now, and at no point has GW seemed to feel a need to tie the two factions together, beyond us needing to use guard's toys to fill out our heavy supports
For my part, I wouldn't say "annoyed" so much as "leery". You said it yourself, you (sometimes) need our toys. But...why? Why do you need our toys and why do you need our toys? Why can't GW give you toys of your own? Why can't you take extras from Tyranids? I'm fine with GSC retaining a few (limited and specific) Guard datasheets to futureproof against whatever Allies rules do or do not exist, but if access to the Guard goodies is so essential to your list why not do an allied Guard force from the Guard book instead? (Note: no idea what Allies rules look like for 10e, not sure if this is viable or not; also, wouldn't blame a GSC player for feeling a bit miffed at having to buy two codices to make their force. That said, if they wanted to lean in the other direction and do GSC+Tyranid force, that's already the boat they're in, so...)
I won't say that BB is inherently a threat to (the less copyrightable) Guard, but it does kinda feel like there's a certain baseline chance that GSC+BB will end up just being "Guard but better", and I don't trust GW to see that and react appropriately (or the players, for that matter - I'd rather not face the day where I gripe about the lack of options for a Guard raiding/fast-attack force and get told "Oh, you should pick up GSC! They've got all the Fast Attack options and rules that you need and will never get because GSC already have them!"). You're right, it is a paranoid fear, but we live in the dumb timeline and I'm too jaded to rule that possibility out.
PS - Yes, I was the oldest child in the family, how could you tell?
(Note: no idea what Allies rules look like for 10e, not sure if this is viable or not
genestealers get 500 points maximum of guard, and a list of keywords we can't take. that's not a lot, two or three takes, and these days we don't want to take brood brothers infantry since it doesn't benefit from our army rules, so it really is just about the tanks. there's no overarching rules for allies, so unless you have something like that, you don't get to take allies at all
i would love if we could also take tyranids as allies! it's really annoying that we can't! but i don't think it's a zero sum game, and with genestealers being as small as we are (the army is mostly characters), we could definitely use more options
i don't think getting rid of brood brothers should even be considered. it's been part of the army's identity since Rogue Trader— genestealers have been taking leman russes since before my parents met. it's as core a part of the army as magi or hybrids
Kanluwen wrote: It's most likely going to be Guard, given that GSC are the ones right before it and there's a rumor of a GSC v Votann set, featuring Brood Brothers.
Gotta get those cross-faction dollars while the Guard aren't super-salty about having their arsenal torn out into another book after all!.
...is that a thing guard players get annoyed by? brood brothers has been a thing for as long as GSC have existed. i don't think a KT brood brothers kit would really demand a new guard release, either. GSC have existed for several editions now, and at no point has GW seemed to feel a need to tie the two factions together, beyond us needing to use guard's toys to fill out our heavy supports
For my part, I wouldn't say "annoyed" so much as "leery". You said it yourself, you (sometimes) need our toys. But...why? Why do you need our toys and why do you need our toys? Why can't GW give you toys of your own? Why can't you take extras from Tyranids? I'm fine with GSC retaining a few (limited and specific) Guard datasheets to futureproof against whatever Allies rules do or do not exist, but if access to the Guard goodies is so essential to your list why not do an allied Guard force from the Guard book instead? (Note: no idea what Allies rules look like for 10e, not sure if this is viable or not; also, wouldn't blame a GSC player for feeling a bit miffed at having to buy two codices to make their force. That said, if they wanted to lean in the other direction and do GSC+Tyranid force, that's already the boat they're in, so...)
I won't say that BB is inherently a threat to (the less copyrightable) Guard, but it does kinda feel like there's a certain baseline chance that GSC+BB will end up just being "Guard but better", and I don't trust GW to see that and react appropriately (or the players, for that matter - I'd rather not face the day where I gripe about the lack of options for a Guard raiding/fast-attack force and get told "Oh, you should pick up GSC! They've got all the Fast Attack options and rules that you need and will never get because GSC already have them!"). You're right, it is a paranoid fear, but we live in the dumb timeline and I'm too jaded to rule that possibility out.
PS - Yes, I was the oldest child in the family, how could you tell?
(Note: no idea what Allies rules look like for 10e, not sure if this is viable or not
genestealers get 500 points maximum of guard, and a list of keywords we can't take. that's not a lot, two or three takes, and these days we don't want to take brood brothers infantry since it doesn't benefit from our army rules, so it really is just about the tanks. there's no overarching rules for allies, so unless you have something like that, you don't get to take allies at all
i would love if we could also take tyranids as allies! it's really annoying that we can't! but i don't think it's a zero sum game, and with genestealers being as small as we are (the army is mostly characters), we could definitely use more options
i don't think getting rid of brood brothers should even be considered. it's been part of the army's identity since Rogue Trader— genestealers have been taking leman russes since before my parents met. it's as core a part of the army as magi or hybrids
youngest of three, btw. can you tell?
OK, that sounds pretty fair for limitations. I might like it a bit more if you had to buy a squad or two of BB Infantry to unlock a tank (I won't say "its impossible that a cult could have snuck a tank out by itself without subverting guards as well". That's absurd given that Orks canonically snuck off with multiple Deathstrikes, no subversion necessary), but it sounds fine.
Honestly, I agree with you - it shouldn't be zero-sum, you guys should have (similarly limited) access to Tyranids, and I don't think Brood Brothers should go away at all. Like I said, my main worry is that GSC end up just being "Guard but better", so as long as there are limitations enough to prevent that (and play-style differences enough that GSC and Guard can be their own thing without stepping on each other's toes too much) I'm fine with it.
Kanluwen wrote: It's most likely going to be Guard, given that GSC are the ones right before it and there's a rumor of a GSC v Votann set, featuring Brood Brothers.
Gotta get those cross-faction dollars while the Guard aren't super-salty about having their arsenal torn out into another book after all!.
...is that a thing guard players get annoyed by? brood brothers has been a thing for as long as GSC have existed. i don't think a KT brood brothers kit would really demand a new guard release, either. GSC have existed for several editions now, and at no point has GW seemed to feel a need to tie the two factions together, beyond us needing to use guard's toys to fill out our heavy supports
For my part, I wouldn't say "annoyed" so much as "leery". You said it yourself, you (sometimes) need our toys. But...why? Why do you need our toys and why do you need our toys? Why can't GW give you toys of your own? Why can't you take extras from Tyranids? I'm fine with GSC retaining a few (limited and specific) Guard datasheets to futureproof against whatever Allies rules do or do not exist, but if access to the Guard goodies is so essential to your list why not do an allied Guard force from the Guard book instead? (Note: no idea what Allies rules look like for 10e, not sure if this is viable or not; also, wouldn't blame a GSC player for feeling a bit miffed at having to buy two codices to make their force. That said, if they wanted to lean in the other direction and do GSC+Tyranid force, that's already the boat they're in, so...)
I won't say that BB is inherently a threat to (the less copyrightable) Guard, but it does kinda feel like there's a certain baseline chance that GSC+BB will end up just being "Guard but better", and I don't trust GW to see that and react appropriately (or the players, for that matter - I'd rather not face the day where I gripe about the lack of options for a Guard raiding/fast-attack force and get told "Oh, you should pick up GSC! They've got all the Fast Attack options and rules that you need and will never get because GSC already have them!"). You're right, it is a paranoid fear, but we live in the dumb timeline and I'm too jaded to rule that possibility out.
PS - Yes, I was the oldest child in the family, how could you tell?
(Note: no idea what Allies rules look like for 10e, not sure if this is viable or not
genestealers get 500 points maximum of guard, and a list of keywords we can't take. that's not a lot, two or three takes, and these days we don't want to take brood brothers infantry since it doesn't benefit from our army rules, so it really is just about the tanks. there's no overarching rules for allies, so unless you have something like that, you don't get to take allies at all
i would love if we could also take tyranids as allies! it's really annoying that we can't! but i don't think it's a zero sum game, and with genestealers being as small as we are (the army is mostly characters), we could definitely use more options
i don't think getting rid of brood brothers should even be considered. it's been part of the army's identity since Rogue Trader— genestealers have been taking leman russes since before my parents met. it's as core a part of the army as magi or hybrids
youngest of three, btw. can you tell?
OK, that sounds pretty fair for limitations. I might like it a bit more if you had to buy a squad or two of BB Infantry to unlock a tank (I won't say "its impossible that a cult could have snuck a tank out by itself without subverting guards as well". That's absurd given that Orks canonically snuck off with multiple Deathstrikes, no subversion necessary), but it sounds fine.
Honestly, I agree with you - it shouldn't be zero-sum, you guys should have (similarly limited) access to Tyranids, and I don't think Brood Brothers should go away at all. Like I said, my main worry is that GSC end up just being "Guard but better", so as long as there are limitations enough to prevent that (and play-style differences enough that GSC and Guard can be their own thing without stepping on each other's toes too much) I'm fine with it.
the limitations are definitely there. the difference between orders and the respawning mechanic are pretty huge, which encourages using GSC units and not brood brothers infantry. and re:needing brood brothers infantry to take tanks, i think the idea is supposed to be that we didn't steal it, but that we've taken over enough of the planet's regional guard that they've just given it to us (and any relevant guardsmen involved in bringing the tank to the cult forces are probably inside it)
I can't speak for anyone else, but yeah. I'm annoyed by it. Read how Brood Brothers works now and realize that they literally get to pull the prime units out of the Guard roster with no downside. They shouldn't get any of the "named" Regiment units(Kasrkin, Cadian Shock, Death Korps, Catachan Jungle, or Attillan Rough Riders).
I have zero issue with them getting access to Scions, Commissars, Ogryn, etc. But I draw the line at the "named" Regiments.
I don't necessarily disagree- I wouldn't care so much if they were restricted to generic Platoon Command Squads and Infantry Squads. It wouldn't prevent me from using Krieg Models to represent my BB, as long as they were equipped as Platoon Command Squads and Infantry Squads. It would be a "count as" arrangement- they still take the appropriate datacard ability.
I also don't disagree that we might see a generic Platoon Command Squad, and a generic infantry squad as a Guard release, with GSC upgrade sprues for their release, and then an explicit change to reflect that those two units are meant to represent the Brood Brothers. And if the kit is cool enough, I wouldn't mind using it
But I do have to point out that the "with no downside" part of your post isn't exactly accurate: Brood Brothers can only be 25% of the total points of the GSC army, can't include Epic Heroes, Abhumans, Commissars, Scions, Preachers, Enginseers, Servitors or Aircraft. They can't be warlords or have Enhancements, and because they don't actually gain GSC keywords, they can't use any of their strats and aren't subject to their detachment and army rules.
Now it does seem like they can still use Orders- just like nothing grants them the GSC keyword, nothing removes the Astra Militarum keyword. That's pretty cool, but I'm not sure it compensates for the loss of greater synergy with the larger GSC army.
Personally, if I was running a narrative campaign that included both GSC players and IG players, I'd say the force available to GSC as Brood Brothers would be the same force the IG player was using. Cults are opportunists who recruit from the pool of potential hosts available, and if a cult is up against a particular regiment, that regiment is fair game for conversion.
i don't think a KT brood brothers kit would really demand a new guard release, either.
It would be its own unit option, so yeah. It would. Because unless they're going to have only the Cadian Shock Troop options? There's something that's going to be missing, and that's still the basic Infantry Squad.
but it's a genestealers kill team. i imagine it's going to have genestealer-specific options, and even some specific mutations. why would that also be a guard release?
The rumored Brood Brothers Kill Team is an upgrade frame to the new Cadian Shock Troops.
That's a Guard kit. Your upgrade frame means nothing.
genestealers get 500 points maximum of guard
They get a max of 750, per the app. You get 250 at Incursion, 500 for Strike Force, 750 for Onslaught.
and a list of keywords we can't take. that's not a lot, two or three takes, and these days we don't want to take brood brothers infantry since it doesn't benefit from our army rules, so it really is just about the tanks.
there's no overarching rules for allies, so unless you have something like that, you don't get to take allies at all
So basically, you get to be special when very few armies do.
i would love if we could also take tyranids as allies! it's really annoying that we can't!
It's contrary to their lore. GSC pave the way, and then members flee or get devoured.
but i don't think it's a zero sum game, and with genestealers being as small as we are (the army is mostly characters), we could definitely use more options
You have more options than some armies do, not counting the Brood Brothers pool.
i don't think getting rid of brood brothers should even be considered. it's been part of the army's identity since Rogue Trader— genestealers have been taking leman russes since before my parents met. it's as core a part of the army as magi or hybrids
Don't invent an argument. Nobody has said to get rid of Brood Brothers. It's weird that you don't ever mention the fact that literally GSC, when brought back, had certain items actually in their codex.
Brood brothers exists purely because GW doesn't want to reproduce the unit entries across 2 books, which is exactly what they should be doing tbh. That way they can have faction related rules and synergies at appropriate points costs.
The only argument for not doing that is as the guard range evolves it means they don't need to faq/errata more stuff to be covered by it.
I tried to collect and play gsc but it wasn't for me, nevertheless the fact gw keep pumping out random character models instead of giving them vehicles/something heavy, is the sole reason people turn to brood brothers in the first place.
I would say that anyone salty about it better be salty that rhinos, predators etc. Exist in multiple armies too.
Now it does seem like they can still use Orders- just like nothing grants them the GSC keyword, nothing removes the Astra Militarum keyword. That's pretty cool, but I'm not sure it compensates for the loss of greater synergy with the larger GSC army.
orders in 10th are part of guard's army rule, so unless you're playing a guard army, you don't get access to them. there's no compensation for the loss of synergy, like i've said, so you have no reason to take battleline infantry over neophytes
I tried to collect and play gsc but it wasn't for me, nevertheless the fact gw keep pumping out random character models instead of giving them vehicles/something heavy, is the sole reason people turn to brood brothers in the first place.
again, brood brothers is baked into the heart of the army. it's one of the original ideas behind the army back in 1st and 2nd edition, so when GW brought the army back, it was front and center for the army. we don't turn to brood brothers because we don't have other options, we have other options because this army is designed with brood brothers in mind. it's like trying to talk about custodians strictly as being their plastic range because you don't like resin— sure, you might not use that stuff, but it's a clear part of the army, and is a part of the consideration in balancing the army and designing it
Dudeface wrote: Brood brothers exists purely because GW doesn't want to reproduce the unit entries across 2 books, which is exactly what they should be doing tbh. That way they can have faction related rules and synergies at appropriate points costs.
The only argument for not doing that is as the guard range evolves it means they don't need to faq/errata more stuff to be covered by it.
I tried to collect and play gsc but it wasn't for me, nevertheless the fact gw keep pumping out random character models instead of giving them vehicles/something heavy, is the sole reason people turn to brood brothers in the first place.
Arguably the characters added more to the faction than just vehicles would have...and ironically, a few of them would have been more at home as Guard characters than GSC. Looking at you Jackal Alphus and Nexos.
I would say that anyone salty about it better be salty that rhinos, predators etc. Exist in multiple armies too.
Not the same thing. Rhinos and Predators are the "basic" chassis. Not everyone gets Immolators, Exorcists, Castigators, Baal Predators, or Razorbacks.
There's a precedent for "similar but not the same". GSC breaks it with their current Brood Brothers rules, which are just an excuse for people to cherrypick "the best". There is no reason for DKoK, Kasrkin, Cadian Shock, etc to ever make an appearance.
Now it does seem like they can still use Orders- just like nothing grants them the GSC keyword, nothing removes the Astra Militarum keyword. That's pretty cool, but I'm not sure it compensates for the loss of greater synergy with the larger GSC army.
orders in 10th are part of guard's army rule, so unless you're playing a guard army, you don't get access to them. there's no compensation for the loss of synergy, like i've said, so you have no reason to take battleline infantry over neophytes
That makes sense- So to Kan's point, guard in GSC armies are super disadvantaged- having no army rule, or detachment rule, or enhancements or strats at all that they can use.
Before I'm done with Brood Brothers and GSC, I want to check my headcannon against the rest of Dakka. When GW released the first BB upgrade sprue, it bothered me because some of the heads looked more GSC than human. It was always my understanding that Brood Bothers did not have any physical signs of infection. The looked human, but their minds worked differently- they were susceptible to the psychic suggestions of Patriarch and Magus; they have a distain of mere humans and a reverence for the purestrain form.
Their offspring are the ones who a afflicted with physical signs of genetic corruption, not the Brood Brothers themselves.
The first generation born to brood brothers are Acolytes. Acolytes breed a generation of Neophytes that are still discernably alien, though they are two limbed and can pass from a distance. This generation of Neophytes breed one more- the one that is almost human. This is the generation to which the Magus belongs.
And the following generation is purestrains, beginning the cycle anew.
Is that consistent with what everyone else remembers about the GSC lifecycle?
I tried to collect and play gsc but it wasn't for me, nevertheless the fact gw keep pumping out random character models instead of giving them vehicles/something heavy, is the sole reason people turn to brood brothers in the first place.
again, brood brothers is baked into the heart of the army. it's one of the original ideas behind the army back in 1st and 2nd edition, so when GW brought the army back, it was front and center for the army. we don't turn to brood brothers because we don't have other options, we have other options because this army is designed with brood brothers in mind. it's like trying to talk about custodians strictly as being their plastic range because you don't like resin— sure, you might not use that stuff, but it's a clear part of the army, and is a part of the consideration in balancing the army and designing it
I don't think the guard vehicles points cost is considered when looking at GSC or vice versa, it's an afterthought.
Conversely, I'm saying the russes etc should be in the gsc book, have their own entry with jury-rigged ammo and whatever other random rules they can think up to make them work for gsc.
Kanluwen wrote:
Dudeface wrote: Brood brothers exists purely because GW doesn't want to reproduce the unit entries across 2 books, which is exactly what they should be doing tbh. That way they can have faction related rules and synergies at appropriate points costs.
The only argument for not doing that is as the guard range evolves it means they don't need to faq/errata more stuff to be covered by it.
I tried to collect and play gsc but it wasn't for me, nevertheless the fact gw keep pumping out random character models instead of giving them vehicles/something heavy, is the sole reason people turn to brood brothers in the first place.
Arguably the characters added more to the faction than just vehicles would have...and ironically, a few of them would have been more at home as Guard characters than GSC. Looking at you Jackal Alphus and Nexos.
They add more character to the force and some minor ways to interact with the existing kits, but they have plenty now, they need some genuine fire support etc in their own codex.
I would say that anyone salty about it better be salty that rhinos, predators etc. Exist in multiple armies too.
Not the same thing. Rhinos and Predators are the "basic" chassis. Not everyone gets Immolators, Exorcists, Castigators, Baal Predators, or Razorbacks.
There's a precedent for "similar but not the same". GSC breaks it with their current Brood Brothers rules, which are just an excuse for people to cherrypick "the best". There is no reason for DKoK, Kasrkin, Cadian Shock, etc to ever make an appearance.
Can't argue with that, but it's the same reason gsc should have a lot of the units with minor tweaks in their codex rather than having to frankenstein guard in.
Kanluwen wrote: There is no reason for DKoK, Kasrkin, Cadian Shock, etc to ever make an appearance.
I maintain that the actual mistake is having specific units linked to specific regimental origins when they should be archetypes.
There shouldn't be a Cadian unit entry, there should be a Shock trooper entry. There shouldn't be a Kasrkin entry, there should be a Grenadier entry. There should be a Catachans entry, it should be Jungle Fighters etc. They seem to have gone down this route to match the units to the box descriptions, but I think it stifles the creativity of the Guard in which similar uniforms are used by many different worlds. They shouldn't have made 3 slight variants of infantry squad to begin with. Infantry squad is fine.
GSC having brood brothers drawn from the Grenadiers of their world is much more reasonable than it being specifically Kasrkin.
Kanluwen wrote: There is no reason for DKoK, Kasrkin, Cadian Shock, etc to ever make an appearance.
I maintain that the actual mistake is having specific units linked to specific regimental origins when they should be archetypes.
And you'd be mistaken in that argument. If Guard were to be given supplemental books? It would be more acceptable. But they aren't, so this is fine.
There shouldn't be a Cadian unit entry, there should be a Shock trooper entry. There shouldn't be a Kasrkin entry, there should be a Grenadier entry. There should be a Catachans entry, it should be Jungle Fighters etc.
Cool, so there shouldn't be multiple variations of anything you like either.
It has taken FIVE EDITIONS to finally get back the bare minimum of what we had in the doctrines book. FIVE EDITIONS.
They seem to have gone down this route to match the units to the box descriptions, but I think it stifles the creativity of the Guard in which similar uniforms are used by many different worlds. They shouldn't have made 3 slight variants of infantry squad to begin with. Infantry squad is fine.
If they had gone this route to match the units to the box description, we would have gotten an Infantry Squad box by now. Because like I have been saying since the Guard codex dropped in 9E, no single box builds the Infantry Squad entry. And that's not even taking into account the lack of a Heavy Weapons Team.
If they truly had gone this route? We would have lasgun options for Cadian Shock Troop Sergeants(the upgrade sprue released alongside of them features at least one lasgun that can be matched to the pointing sergeant arm) and Hellguns for the Kasrkin Sergeants(it's literally an option for Kill Team AND a build in the instructions). We would have vox-caster options for Cadian Heavy Weapon Squads.
It's easy, as I've said, to continue blathering about "they made it match the boxes"...but it isn't the case for Guard.
GSC having brood brothers drawn from the Grenadiers of their world is much more reasonable than it being specifically Kasrkin.
Which is why I've said, multiple times, that a generic option should be there.
JNAProductions wrote: So, why do you need all Shock Troops to be Cadian?
Does no other world have Shock Troops?
Same with Grenadiers.
Jungle Fighters feels a little more Catachan-specific, but surely Catachan isn't the only jungle world.
Counterpoint:
Where's the harm in having the capability to field these unique "race specifics"?
We have how many different flavors of Marines, Loyalist and Traitor? We have entire codices devoted to single Chaos Gods. Yet somehow it's a bridge too far for Cadians, Death Korps, Catachans, and Attilans(because reminder: the Rough Riders in the index currently are keyworded to Attila) to each have a unique unit?
As an additional point, not every world has a heavy armored infantry type. Catachans don't, Tanith don't, Tallarn don't, Mordians don't.
Nor does every world have recon infantry types, mechanized, etc.
Every world, however, does have the basic infantry squad...yet somehow we Guard players are supposed to be okay with the literal inability to build it out of any of our currently available plastic kits?! We're supposed to be okay with the fact that we're SUPPOSED to be forced to buy three kits to build a single battleline unit with its options? We're supposed to be okay with the fact that we're SUPPOSED to have to go and hunt secondhand for certain special weapon options for that unit?
The differences between the named unit types and the infantry squads aren't "just" the doctrinal shift--it's that of the "racial subtypes".
Cadians RIGHT NOW have a significant amount of stuff because they got a range refresh. DKoK have just as much stuff, but it's sadly mixed between Legends and the Imperial Armour Index.
JNAProductions wrote: So, why do you need all Shock Troops to be Cadian?
Does no other world have Shock Troops?
Same with Grenadiers.
Jungle Fighters feels a little more Catachan-specific, but surely Catachan isn't the only jungle world.
Counterpoint:
Where's the harm in having the capability to field these unique "race specifics"?
We have how many different flavors of Marines, Loyalist and Traitor? We have entire codices devoted to single Chaos Gods. Yet somehow it's a bridge too far for Cadians, Death Korps, Catachans, and Attilans(because reminder: the Rough Riders in the index currently are keyworded to Attila) to each have a unique unit?
As an additional point, not every world has a heavy armored infantry type. Catachans don't, Tanith don't, Tallarn don't, Mordians don't.
Nor does every world have recon infantry types, mechanized, etc.
Every world, however, does have the basic infantry squad...yet somehow we Guard players are supposed to be okay with the literal inability to build it out of any of our currently available plastic kits?! We're supposed to be okay with the fact that we're SUPPOSED to be forced to buy three kits to build a single battleline unit with its options? We're supposed to be okay with the fact that we're SUPPOSED to have to go and hunt secondhand for certain special weapon options for that unit?
The differences between the named unit types and the infantry squads aren't "just" the doctrinal shift--it's that of the "racial subtypes".
Cadians RIGHT NOW have a significant amount of stuff because they got a range refresh. DKoK have just as much stuff, but it's sadly mixed between Legends and the Imperial Armour Index.
You should be able to have a basic infantry kit with everything you need. That's not something I've ever argued against.
And I don't think any of the Loyalist Angels or Wolves need their own 'Dex. Hell, Thunderwolf Cavalry shouldn't even be unique to the Space Wolves-there should be a generic animal mounted Marine option.
I do believe that different factions should be treated more equally-either EVERYONE should have supplements and different 'Decs for all their minor variations, or NO ONE should. And I err more on the side of no one gets that much, because it flanderizes minor differnces between subfactions.
For Chaos specifically, I'd like to have it one of two ways:
1) Renegades and Heretics, CSM (including DG, TS, WE, and EC), and Dark Mech.
or
2) One big book for each god and Undivided, including R&H, CSM, and Dark Mech of that specific god.
I think 1 is the better choice, but both are workable.
Because here, I'm with Kanluwen- guard are just as desrving of subfactions as any other faction. As y'all know, I'm a big fan of subfaction identities, especially since we're long past the point when subfactions are going back into the box for Marines and God-Aligned CSM. If two factions are classified as important enough to have defined subfactions, then every faction should have them.
But I also see the other side, and certainly other regiments DO have Grenadiers, Shock Troopers, Jungle Fighters etc.
So the compromise is "counts-as" right? Want to play jungle fighters that aren't Catachan? No problem: paint or convert to make the models look like your dudes, come up with your regiment's name and history. Use the rules for Catachans, but everything else is your dudes. This way, you have your cake, but you get to eat it too.
Right now, subfaction doesn't confer rules beyond those included on the datasheets of bespoke models, so it doesn't matter as much now as it once did. The new Codex and accompanying models could significantly modify the pool of available options. Personally, I'd like to see new Catachans, including a both a generic Company level HQ , a Platoon Command Squad unit, and a Heavy Weapons team. I'd like to see those in plastic for Krieg as well. I think that's a reasonable ask.
Beyond that, there had been talk about Elysians, but I'm not sure whether that was a rumour from a credible source or just wishful thinking brought on by the Plastic Necromunda Tauros. And if so, they need the same kind of HQ representation. I also loved Tallarn desert raiders, and I really miss them. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect that much.
As always, GW will want at least one thing from the new release to be unexpected and new, and one to be named.
Nobody has made mention of detachments as far as I've seen. I'm talking about the literal models.
Though I will say this: Having a detachment basically "creating" Infantry Squads that get the perks of each of the major worlds, slightly watered down, isn't a bad idea. It's not like the injured or lone surviving members of DKoK, Catachan, or Cadian regiments aren't shipped around the galaxy to function as advisors and training instructors.
And what's the difference between a Cadian force, a Krieg force, and an Armageddon force?
What kind of Cadian force? What kind of Krieg force? What kind of Armageddon force?
Because an Armageddon Ork Hunters force that's built to be lore-accurate is going to look and play far, far more similarly to a Catachan Jungle Fighter force than a Steel Legion built to be lore accurate.
A Cadian Kasrkin Regiment would be something that would be visually similar but mechanically distinct to a DKoK Grenadiers force.
I could go on, but the thing to understand is: Each of the "Major Planets" weren't just one specific thing. They have at least one to two iconic styles of warfare tied to them--and that even includes the Catachans!
Kanluwen wrote: What kind of Cadian force? What kind of Krieg force? What kind of Armageddon force?
Because an Armageddon Ork Hunters force that's built to be lore-accurate is going to look and play far, far more similarly to a Catachan Jungle Fighter force than a Steel Legion built to be lore accurate.
Because here, I'm with Kanluwen- guard are just as desrving of subfactions as any other faction. As y'all know, I'm a big fan of subfaction identities, especially since we're long past the point when subfactions are going back into the box for Marines and God-Aligned CSM. If two factions are classified as important enough to have defined subfactions, then every faction should have them.
But I also see the other side, and certainly other regiments DO have Grenadiers, Shock Troopers, Jungle Fighters etc.
So the compromise is "counts-as" right? Want to play jungle fighters that aren't Catachan? No problem: paint or convert to make the models look like your dudes, come up with your regiment's name and history. Use the rules for Catachans, but everything else is your dudes. This way, you have your cake, but you get to eat it too.
Right now, subfaction doesn't confer rules beyond those included on the datasheets of bespoke models, so it doesn't matter as much now as it once did. The new Codex and accompanying models could significantly modify the pool of available options. Personally, I'd like to see new Catachans, including a both a generic Company level HQ , a Platoon Command Squad unit, and a Heavy Weapons team. I'd like to see those in plastic for Krieg as well. I think that's a reasonable ask.
Beyond that, there had been talk about Elysians, but I'm not sure whether that was a rumour from a credible source or just wishful thinking brought on by the Plastic Necromunda Tauros. And if so, they need the same kind of HQ representation. I also loved Tallarn desert raiders, and I really miss them. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect that much.
As always, GW will want at least one thing from the new release to be unexpected and new, and one to be named.
I'll agree that Counts-As is a decent middle ground, but it still feels weird to take units that are explicitly named after a world in a force from the other side of the galaxy. Also, I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that we could recover a lot of the missing kits with simple upgrade sprues or multikits (ie. one "tunic Guard" kit that covers Mordians, (old) Cadians, Tallarn, etc). I'd love it if GW did a Victoria Minis/Mad Robot deal and had build-a-squad setups with individual arms, torsos, legs, heads, and so on, but that's not the only way to get back to what we lost.
Racerguy180 wrote: Just say you don't like (insert thing here)...rather than using a derogatory term for the people who happen to live in Flanders!
Kanluwen wrote: What kind of Cadian force? What kind of Krieg force? What kind of Armageddon force?
Because an Armageddon Ork Hunters force that's built to be lore-accurate is going to look and play far, far more similarly to a Catachan Jungle Fighter force than a Steel Legion built to be lore accurate.
Yes. That is my point.
You had one?
Because really, it just looks like you wanted to play "gotcha!" with the selective editing. Armageddon is arguably one of the most boring worlds to discuss, because their whole schtick is "they fought Orks and had a geriatric commissar in charge of their world's defenses". The only thing really specific to them was their clothing style. The Ork Hunters themselves originated as the remnants of offworld regiments, reassembled as an ad hoc jungle fighting force with Catachans "ordered" by Yarrick to be in charge.
On the other side of things though, Krieg and Cadia both had genuinely unique formations in the form of the Siege Regiments(mixed artillery, grenadiers, and infantry for DKoK) and the Kasrkin Regiments(entirely heavy infantry, right down to heavy weapon crews).
I think that they're saying that a Cadian Armoured Regiment is going to fight more like an Armoured Regiment from another world than it would a Cadian Light Infantry Regiment.
What I believe JNA is saying is that it's not the homeworld that matters, it's the type of regiment that matters, when it comes to how the detachment fights. As you yourself just said, Armageddon Ork Hunters fight more like Catachans, despite being from Armageddon.
So, to get the "accurate" flavour, surely they should use the datasheet of the Catachan Jungle Fighters - except, you didn't like that, because apparently Catachans are unique and no other regiment should be able to fight like them? Am I understanding that correctly?
Also, again, are you suggesting that no other world other than Krieg has Siege Regiments, with mixed artillery, grenadiers and infantry? Or that no other world has regiments entirely of heavy infantry?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that they're saying that a Cadian Armoured Regiment is going to fight more like an Armoured Regiment from another world than it would a Cadian Light Infantry Regiment.
Then maybe they should say that.
What I believe JNA is saying is that it's not the homeworld that matters, it's the type of regiment that matters, when it comes to how the detachment fights. As you yourself just said, Armageddon Ork Hunters fight more like Catachans, despite being from Armageddon.
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TRAINED BY THE STEEL LEGION OF ARMAGEDDON. They're trained by and alongside of Catachans and are the remnants of off-world regiments, leftover from the 2nd War for Armageddon.
Literally the only thing "Armageddon" about them is that they just happen to be there.
That's the bloody joke. That's the whole reason I even mentioned them, because any twerp can say "WELL WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN...".
So, to get the "accurate" flavour, surely they should use the datasheet of the Catachan Jungle Fighters - except, you didn't like that, because apparently Catachans are unique and no other regiment should be able to fight like them? Am I understanding that correctly?
Also, again, are you suggesting that no other world other than Krieg has Siege Regiments, with mixed artillery, grenadiers and infantry? Or that no other world has regiments entirely of heavy infantry?
Must be hard building all these strawmen to argue against.
Nowhere have I said that there shouldn't be units that mimic them. I've simply said that there should be the named units.
I get that it's hard to keep things straight, but you've argued against me suggesting time and time again EXACTLY what you're proposing here.
I even wrote up setups for the three basic "bodies" that should be the core of the Guard: Medium, Light, and Heavy Infantry. Each with their own set of weapons, upgrades, etc.
But given we have a limited number of datasheets in a Codex, I'd rather get units that represent an archetype rather than a specific famous version that then needs to be counts-as for other regiments.
Especially as, given Guard lore, essentially no Guard formation is actually unique, and almost any world can field almost any type of regiment occasionally. Catachan produces armoured and super heavy regiments. Cadia has drop troops. Armageddon has heavy infantry formations. The DKoK has none-siege units.
Meanwhile, other worlds can produce forces that match the famous specialties of the big worlds. Savlar has rough riders, Cadia has mechanised companies (even had a mechanised special character), Baran siegemasters have siege companies, etc. etc...
Guard are very different to Space Marines, where there are 18 origin points (19 maybe with Grey Knights), and most forces follow some traits from their origin or else a balanced force. Most Dark Angels successors have a Deathwing. Meanwhile, a world colonised by Cadians 8000 years ago through Right of Settlement probably doesn't have Kasrkin units.
This isn't anything on subfactions btw, I think those rules should be extra on top of units.
Also,at Kanluwen specifically, I was talking about box descriptions, not contents (i.e GW sells a "Catachan Jungle Fighters" box so added a "Catachan Jungle Fighters" unit to the codex). Argue about NMNR with people actually mentioning that. I agree with the point you made elsewhere that infantry squads are a legacy unit and will probably disappear if no kit comes out. I think that is the wrong direction of travel but here we are. Not having all options in the box was also less of an issue when those options cost points- not using them was not an immediate handicap on the unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Regarding the Armageddon Ork Hunters:
In the years following the defeat of the Ork Warlord Ghazghkull Thraka, the world of Armageddon began the long process of rebuilding its shattered hives and defences. The Ork army had been destroyed, but due to the unique spore-based reproductive system of the Ork race, infestations of Greenskins continued to plague Imperial forces.In response to this, the head of the ruling military council of Armageddon, General Kurov, conducted several xenocidal campaigns to destroy such infestations throughout the equatorial jungles of Armageddon and the ice world of Chosin. The forces involved in these battles suffered extremely high losses and many units were reduced to below a tenth of their operational strength. Rather than disperse these soldiers to other regiments, General Kurov decided to harness the valuable experience the survivors had gained and formed them into a number of specialised Ork hunting regiments. Soldiers from dozens of different planets and with almost no common culture were now merged into specialised extermination regiments.
The main area of operations for these units would be in the depths of Armageddon's jungles where Orks continued to proliferate despite regular purges. These feral Orks proved to be extremely adept at fighting within the jungle environment and frustratingly difficult to engage in a decisive battle. The Ork Hunter regiments therefore built Cerbera base in the middle of the jungle, providing them with a forward staging area and extensive training facilities. The sweltering heat and brutal training regime soon earned the base the nickname of Hell Town.
The Ork Hunters training included a broad array of new techniques to learn and master such as demolition, escape and evasion, survival and intelligence work. The trainee soldiers of the Ork Hunters were expected to become experts in all the weapons and tactics used in the hunting of Orks and jungle warfare. Guardsmen who survived the training were rewarded with the badge of the Ork Hunters, a small metal pin with an Ork skull emblem. This became the regimental symbol and the source of their unofficial name, the Skull-Takers.
There is nothing that says they are all off-worlders, and logically the majority of the initial regiments that formed the Ork hunters were from Armageddon itself given the population differences (and were lead by an Armageddon commander). Secondly, the regiments have existed for decades by the 3rd war and are undoubtedly Armageddon regiments trained on Armageddon- they will have been recruiting local people until the 3rd war commenced. They are not Mechanised Steel Legion, but that doesn't stop them being Armageddon soldiers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the special feature of the Steel Legion is their unusually high number of mechanised infantry regiments, to the point Armageddon rarely raised non-mechanised infantry. That experience made them some of the finest mechanised infantry in the Imperium. Not the only source of mechanised infantry, but a very notable one. That is their "shtick" far more than fighting Orks.
I have no idea why your heckles are so far up Kan, JNA made perfect sense I thought and Smudge isn't straw manning to get at you.
I'm not sure where the comments about fishing the 2nd hand market for weapons has come from, why it's relevant or how it impacts the army personally.
The point stands that the famous regiments historically play to a trope/stereotype, that same trope or stereotype is used by other regiments. Hence its better to have generic units that the regiment models can represent.
This is then compounded by the fact that fluff wise, those regiments also contain elements represented by other regiments ironically.
This started because you were unhappy with GSC having access to cadians and catachans etc.
But it's just as, if not more weird, that someone's force would conveniently have catachans, cadians, kriegers and attilans all at the same place and time with regularity.
So oddly making those generic fixes the issue with brood brothers as well as the weird hyper specific representation in guard units. Yet you're being combative about the concept.
Haighus wrote: But given we have a limited number of datasheets in a Codex, I'd rather get units that represent an archetype rather than a specific famous version that then needs to be counts-as for other regiments.
And I'd rather get dedicated subfaction rules(with dedicated drawbacks & benefits! EX: did you know Cadia doesn't have a fondness for abhumans? It's why they had Special Weapon Squads, for dedicated sniper teams) that let me play my preferred world's forces, but tough gak to me right?
You would have a point if there were <Insert World Name Here> versions of everything as datasheets. There hasn't been. We've seen Cadian HQs, Kasrkin, and Shock Troops. Shock Troops can pull double duty(albeit not well) for Infantry Squads(aka: generic Guardsmen).
A trio of HQs(named solo character, unnamed solo character, and command squad), a basic unit, and a named unit isn't going to break the book.
Especially as, given Guard lore, essentially no Guard formation is actually unique, and almost any world can field almost any type of regiment occasionally. Catachan produces armoured and super heavy regiments. Cadia has drop troops. Armageddon has heavy infantry formations. The DKoK has none-siege units.
Catachan produces armoured regiments that are based mostly around fire support rather than fielded as their own thing and as far as I'm aware they don't have superheavy regiments, Cadia produced airborne(not drop: there's a distinctive difference there) regiments, Armageddon had a stormtrooper regiment(which was broken into divisions--and I'm 100% on board with seeing as a unit whenever they do Armageddon stuff), and not sure why you're conflating DKoK's regiments with their units.
Meanwhile, other worlds can produce forces that match the famous specialties of the big worlds. Savlar has rough riders,
Savlar had Rough Riders as a pick for the doctrines book. We haven't actually heard much about their Rough Riders, as far as I'm aware.
Cadia has mechanised companies (even had a mechanised special character)
Stranski , yes. I'm aware.
Baran siegemasters have siege companies, etc. etc...
Pft, I bet you haven't even heard of the Prosan.
Guard are very different to Space Marines, where there are 18 origin points (19 maybe with Grey Knights), and most forces follow some traits from their origin or else a balanced force. Most Dark Angels successors have a Deathwing.
Dark Angels is a terrible example. Their Successor Chapters were essentially expanded companies for the main Chapter.
Meanwhile, a world colonised by Cadians 8000 years ago through Right of Settlement probably doesn't have Kasrkin units.
They may not be called Kasrkin still, but if the world was founded by Cadians directly from Cadia itself and in a similar "gateworld" situation? They probably have a similar concept of heavily armoured infantry.
This isn't anything on subfactions btw, I think those rules should be extra on top of units.
And how do you propose doing that WELL? Because short of making actual restrictions, there isn't much of a reason to return subfaction rules--like we've seen with the "stealth Guilliman & Calgar" garbage.
Also,at Kanluwen specifically, I was talking about box descriptions, not contents (i.e GW sells a "Catachan Jungle Fighters" box so added a "Catachan Jungle Fighters" unit to the codex). Argue about NMNR with people actually mentioning that. I agree with the point you made elsewhere that infantry squads are a legacy unit and will probably disappear if no kit comes out. I think that is the wrong direction of travel but here we are.
I've said that infantry squads are a LAZY legacy unit. I've never said they'll probably disappear.
Not having all options in the box was also less of an issue when those options cost points- not using them was not an immediate handicap on the unit.
lol, sure sure. Now it's POINTS that's the problem?
Also, right there in the bit you quoted:
Soldiers from dozens of different planets and with almost no common culture were now merged into specialised extermination regiments.
So...yeah. Armageddon Ork Hunters weren't native to Armageddon.
Kan, I don’t think you’ll find anyone in this thread saying “IG should have to buy three separate kits for one normal unit.”
I’m pretty sure that you’d find, if you asked and listened, that that’s considered a jerk move on GW’s part, and they should make a good, generic kit for IG.
But your posts really seem to scream “I want what I want, and feth whatever anyone else wants!”
Dudeface wrote: I have no idea why your heckles are so far up Kan,
Because I'm sick and tired of my armies and ideas being dumped on one day, then having those same people parrot them almost word for word years later as some kind of stroke of brilliance.
JNA made perfect sense I thought and Smudge isn't straw manning to get at you.
Both have been involved in discussions about this exact concept for years. They continually crapped all over my ideas of "generic" archetypes for Guard Infantry Squads, yet conveniently now it's THE BEST OPTION EVER!
I'm not sure where the comments about fishing the 2nd hand market for weapons has come from, why it's relevant or how it impacts the army personally.
Try to get a Cadian Sniper model for an infantry squad or a platoon command squad. There are a bunch of options for the various regiments that either are not sold anymore or constantly out of stock.
The point stands that the famous regiments historically play to a trope/stereotype, that same trope or stereotype is used by other regiments. Hence its better to have generic units that the regiment models can represent.
The point also stands that the famous regiments historically play to a trope/stereotype, and as such they should have the OPTION to be represented as a unit type.
This is then compounded by the fact that fluff wise, those regiments also contain elements represented by other regiments ironically.
But they don't...? The Armageddon Ork Hunters are a separate regiment to the Steel Legion. Elements of the Ork Hunters might show up alongside of a Steel Legion force but guess what...it's not the whole army!
This is the part that is so daft. People want to blather on about the lore while the getting key elements wrong.
This started because you were unhappy with GSC having access to cadians and catachans etc.
I'm unhappy because for whatever pants on head reason, GW and players see it as "fair" to restrict the "garbage" units while keeping everything else as doable.
Never mind that, lorewise, Commissars are a common vector for Genestealer and Chaos subversion.
Never mind that, lorewise, Schola Progeniums have been tainted by GSC due to their closed natures.
But it's just as, if not more weird, that someone's force would conveniently have catachans, cadians, kriegers and attilans all at the same place and time with regularity.
It's far less weird for those regiments to show up at the same place and time than it is for them to be able to be taken in a GSC force.
So oddly making those generic fixes the issue with brood brothers as well as the weird hyper specific representation in guard units. Yet you're being combative about the concept.
How does adding MORE GENERICS "fix the issue with Brood Brothers"?
Did I miss any of them suggesting "BUT NO GRENADIERS OR JUNGLE FIGHTERS FOR GSC!"?
Has there been any signs, rumours or hints as to what the Redacted faction will be?
At the risk of pulling this thread back on subject, looks like GW is attacking their Spring scheduled with gusto starting with Codex Supplement Dark Angels releasing on March 2 (6 weeks after Deathwing Assault). That's the first release weekend of UK's meteorological Spring. That gives them 12 release weekends to release:
Codex Orks
Codex Adeptus Custodes
Codex T'au Empire
Kroot Hunting Pack army set
Codex Chaos Space Marines
Looks to me like we should be seeing the Kroot Hunting Pack and one of the codexes (Codex Orks?) in March.
As for the mystery codex in Summer? I said it is either the currently rumored Codex Imperial Agents (doubt it) or another Space Marines codex supplement. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to put 2 codex supplements on the roadmap if I was GW.
Haighus wrote: But given we have a limited number of datasheets in a Codex, I'd rather get units that represent an archetype rather than a specific famous version that then needs to be counts-as for other regiments.
And I'd rather get dedicated subfaction rules(with dedicated drawbacks & benefits! EX: did you know Cadia doesn't have a fondness for abhumans? It's why they had Special Weapon Squads, for dedicated sniper teams) that let me play my preferred world's forces, but tough gak to me right?
You would have a point if there were <Insert World Name Here> versions of everything as datasheets. There hasn't been. We've seen Cadian HQs, Kasrkin, and Shock Troops. Shock Troops can pull double duty(albeit not well) for Infantry Squads(aka: generic Guardsmen).
A trio of HQs(named solo character, unnamed solo character, and command squad), a basic unit, and a named unit isn't going to break the book.
Just seems like a lot of extra datasheets for units with small varaitions on the tabletop. I'd rather roll them all back in to generic versions personally.
Especially as, given Guard lore, essentially no Guard formation is actually unique, and almost any world can field almost any type of regiment occasionally. Catachan produces armoured and super heavy regiments. Cadia has drop troops. Armageddon has heavy infantry formations. The DKoK has none-siege units.
Catachan produces armoured regiments that are based mostly around fire support rather than fielded as their own thing and as far as I'm aware they don't have superheavy regiments, Cadia produced airborne(not drop: there's a distinctive difference there) regiments, Armageddon had a stormtrooper regiment(which was broken into divisions--and I'm 100% on board with seeing as a unit whenever they do Armageddon stuff), and not sure why you're conflating DKoK's regiments with their units.
I meant unit in the general sense, not as in a specific 40k unit. Krieg fields armoured regiments and infantry regiments etc. not just siege regiments.
Cadian drop troops exist- for example the Cadian 7th drop fought in the Kieldar Offensive in 956.M41.
Catachan definitely produces armoured regiments (although probably equipped by the Departmento Munitorum). Most armoured regiments are broken up to support infantry in use, that doesn't mean they aren't regiments. I should have said super heavy companies instead of regiments but GW has provided examples of Catachan super heavies. They are rare but occasionally pop up.
The point is that worlds are exceptionally rarely held to a specif regiment type, and the Departmento Munitorum will sometimes equip them as it sees fit to meet its needs.
Meanwhile, other worlds can produce forces that match the famous specialties of the big worlds. Savlar has rough riders,
Savlar had Rough Riders as a pick for the doctrines book. We haven't actually heard much about their Rough Riders, as far as I'm aware.
We have. They are called chem-riders, and got bespoke rules, lore and modelling advice through Chapter Approved. That isn't the point though, it could be Tallarn rough riders or Krum rough riders etc. The point is that many worlds have competent rough riders.
Cadia has mechanised companies (even had a mechanised special character)
Stranski , yes. I'm aware.
Baran siegemasters have siege companies, etc. etc...
Pft, I bet you haven't even heard of the Prosan.
Catachan/Elysian regiment merger, airmobile jungle regiment. First appeared in the 6th edition codex.
Guard are very different to Space Marines, where there are 18 origin points (19 maybe with Grey Knights), and most forces follow some traits from their origin or else a balanced force. Most Dark Angels successors have a Deathwing.
Dark Angels is a terrible example. Their Successor Chapters were essentially expanded companies for the main Chapter.
It applies to Blood Angels reasonably well too for Death Company and Sanguinary Guard. Space Wolves don't have successors and we didn't have unique units for most other Chapters except Black Templars (applies nicely to all crusade-fanatic Chapters) and a couple of Ultramarines units of which one (honour guard) did get parcelled out as a generic unit.
Meanwhile, a world colonised by Cadians 8000 years ago through Right of Settlement probably doesn't have Kasrkin units.
They may not be called Kasrkin still, but if the world was founded by Cadians directly from Cadia itself and in a similar "gateworld" situation? They probably have a similar concept of heavily armoured infantry.
Sure. But "a similar concept of heavy infantry" applies to Krieg, Terrax, and even Armageddon. That is my point re. archetypes vs specific units.
This isn't anything on subfactions btw, I think those rules should be extra on top of units.
And how do you propose doing that WELL? Because short of making actual restrictions, there isn't much of a reason to return subfaction rules--like we've seen with the "stealth Guilliman & Calgar" garbage.
I don't expect it to be done well, but I think the locked squads is odd for Guard.
Also,at Kanluwen specifically, I was talking about box descriptions, not contents (i.e GW sells a "Catachan Jungle Fighters" box so added a "Catachan Jungle Fighters" unit to the codex). Argue about NMNR with people actually mentioning that. I agree with the point you made elsewhere that infantry squads are a legacy unit and will probably disappear if no kit comes out. I think that is the wrong direction of travel but here we are.
I've said that infantry squads are a LAZY legacy unit. I've never said they'll probably disappear.
Not having all options in the box was also less of an issue when those options cost points- not using them was not an immediate handicap on the unit.
lol, sure sure. Now it's POINTS that's the problem?
It has always been annoying. I remember trying to figure out my first Guard list from a battleforce back in the day and realising my box of 20 infantry and 3 heavy weapons teams didn't even make a single troops choice without an officer. But at least if I built my squads in a particular way I wasn't penalised for it. Now an infantry squad without a heavy weapon is straight worse so the problem is exacerbated.
I'd be surprised if infantry squads survive much longer myself, unless they get a new kit.
Also, right there in the bit you quoted:
Soldiers from dozens of different planets and with almost no common culture were now merged into specialised extermination regiments.
So...yeah. Armageddon Ork Hunters weren't native to Armageddon.
Some almost certainly were. Or are you saying that out of those dozens of different planets, Armageddon was not one of them? Nowhere does it exclude Armageddon as one of the sources. Given Armageddon is the world with the biggest regional population and it had recently been recruiting as many regiments as the next two worlds combined, obviously at least some and probably most of the regiments fighting these campaigns were from Armageddon itself, but they were merged with survivors from dozens of regiments of different origins.
Further to that, they will have been constantly recruiting over the nearly 6 decades between the wars, and that will primarily be from Armageddon stock.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that they're saying that a Cadian Armoured Regiment is going to fight more like an Armoured Regiment from another world than it would a Cadian Light Infantry Regiment.
Then maybe they should say that.
I think they were. At least, it seems that myself and most other users picked up on that.
Genuinely no shade meant, but that was a pretty unwarranted hostility to me there.
What I believe JNA is saying is that it's not the homeworld that matters, it's the type of regiment that matters, when it comes to how the detachment fights. As you yourself just said, Armageddon Ork Hunters fight more like Catachans, despite being from Armageddon.
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TRAINED BY THE STEEL LEGION OF ARMAGEDDON. They're trained by and alongside of Catachans and are the remnants of off-world regiments, leftover from the 2nd War for Armageddon.
Literally the only thing "Armageddon" about them is that they just happen to be there.
That's the bloody joke. That's the whole reason I even mentioned them, because any twerp can say "WELL WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN...".
Right - but you realise that you're kinda proving the point? That it's not so much "where" they're from, but "what" they do.
Any guardsman could fight in a certain way, if they happened to be trained like that. They don't *need* to be from those planets, they just need a training doctrine that encourages them to fight a certain way.
By doubling down on "THE ORK HUNTERS FIGHT MORE LIKE CATACHANS", you're proving that point - you don't need "Catachan Jungle Fighters", you need "Guerrilla Fighters".
Again, this is what your own posts are implying.
So, to get the "accurate" flavour, surely they should use the datasheet of the Catachan Jungle Fighters - except, you didn't like that, because apparently Catachans are unique and no other regiment should be able to fight like them? Am I understanding that correctly?
Also, again, are you suggesting that no other world other than Krieg has Siege Regiments, with mixed artillery, grenadiers and infantry? Or that no other world has regiments entirely of heavy infantry?
Must be hard building all these strawmen to argue against.
I'm asking, because those are the points you've been making. It's not a strawman, I'm asking you a question. Politely, calm down, I'm asking *genuine questions*, not sarcastic rebuttals. I want to know what your stance is, because you're claiming one thing, and then providing evidence that supports the opposite.
Nowhere have I said that there shouldn't be units that mimic them. I've simply said that there should be the named units.
Why shouldn't they be given generic names?
I get that it's hard to keep things straight, but you've argued against me suggesting time and time again EXACTLY what you're proposing here.
I even wrote up setups for the three basic "bodies" that should be the core of the Guard: Medium, Light, and Heavy Infantry. Each with their own set of weapons, upgrades, etc.
Politely, I really haven't, or at the very least, YEARS ago. I'd appreciate if you dialed back that hostility, explained your points and why the options presented don't work for you, without getting into ad-hom slinging, which you are certainly doing here in the bolded section.
Explain it to me. I genuinely don't recall strongly opposing this stance, but the way you're blasting everyone over it? It certainly makes me want to.
Kanluwen wrote:
Haighus wrote: But given we have a limited number of datasheets in a Codex, I'd rather get units that represent an archetype rather than a specific famous version that then needs to be counts-as for other regiments.
And I'd rather get dedicated subfaction rules(with dedicated drawbacks & benefits! EX: did you know Cadia doesn't have a fondness for abhumans? It's why they had Special Weapon Squads, for dedicated sniper teams) that let me play my preferred world's forces, but tough gak to me right?
So, uh, don't take abhumans? You don't need some rules to tell you that you can't take them.
My Dark Eldar don't trust Haemonculi enough to take them into battle with them. So I just don't field Haemoculi. I don't need a rule to tell me that.
Especially as, given Guard lore, essentially no Guard formation is actually unique, and almost any world can field almost any type of regiment occasionally. Catachan produces armoured and super heavy regiments. Cadia has drop troops. Armageddon has heavy infantry formations. The DKoK has none-siege units.
Catachan produces armoured regiments that are based mostly around fire support rather than fielded as their own thing and as far as I'm aware they don't have superheavy regiments, Cadia produced airborne(not drop: there's a distinctive difference there) regiments, Armageddon had a stormtrooper regiment(which was broken into divisions--and I'm 100% on board with seeing as a unit whenever they do Armageddon stuff), and not sure why you're conflating DKoK's regiments with their units.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree regarding execution one some of these.
In the terms of a game of 40k, ALL Armoured Regiments are deployed as fire support. The distinction of how Catachan tanks might fight is irrelevant on tabletop. I'm also 90% sure that Catachan would have superheavy regiments, or, at the very least, superheavy vehicles, which can still be deployed on tabletop.
Could I have your source that Cadia is incapable of raising drop (not airborne) regiments? Beyond "I've never seen one".
Pft, I bet you haven't even heard of the Prosan.
Yes, the Catachan/Elysian hybrid regiment. Which, if anything, proves that *training and regiment doctrine* are more integral to the nature of a regiment than its homeworld.
Meanwhile, a world colonised by Cadians 8000 years ago through Right of Settlement probably doesn't have Kasrkin units.
They may not be called Kasrkin still, but if the world was founded by Cadians directly from Cadia itself and in a similar "gateworld" situation? They probably have a similar concept of heavily armoured infantry.
And then plenty of regiments that have never seen or interacted directly with a Cadian *also* have those same units.
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but why do Kasrkin need to be called Kasrkin, and not "Grenadiers"? Why do Catachan Jungle Fighters need to be called that, and not "Guerrilla Fighters"?
This isn't anything on subfactions btw, I think those rules should be extra on top of units.
And how do you propose doing that WELL? Because short of making actual restrictions, there isn't much of a reason to return subfaction rules--like we've seen with the "stealth Guilliman & Calgar" garbage.
My take is that it *should* be done like how the SMs do it - but obviously closing the loopholes like that. Create detachments that lean towards regiment types and give out Battleline to the units that predominantly make up those regiments, with stratagems and abilities that augment the desired units of that regiment (and nothing else!)
Kanluwen wrote:
Dudeface wrote: I have no idea why your heckles are so far up Kan,
Because I'm sick and tired of my armies and ideas being dumped on one day, then having those same people parrot them almost word for word years later as some kind of stroke of brilliance.
JNA made perfect sense I thought and Smudge isn't straw manning to get at you.
Both have been involved in discussions about this exact concept for years. They continually crapped all over my ideas of "generic" archetypes for Guard Infantry Squads, yet conveniently now it's THE BEST OPTION EVER!
Uh, I really think you've got me confused for someone else, because I don't think I've ever made such a point with the vigour you describe.
Politely, prove it, or calm down and treat this with respect. I don't care who you are, or if we've had this conversation before. I certainly don't remember it. What I *am* thinking of is how you're being incredibly antagonistic, and making it very hard to hear your point over your overreactions.
The point stands that the famous regiments historically play to a trope/stereotype, that same trope or stereotype is used by other regiments. Hence its better to have generic units that the regiment models can represent.
The point also stands that the famous regiments historically play to a trope/stereotype, and as such they should have the OPTION to be represented as a unit type.
But, like, if you want that option... just take more of the generic units that make that trope a reality in your list?
White Scars (according to tropes) take bikes and fast moving mechanised infantry. They don't need a "White Scars Biker Squad" to reflect that - if a player wants to reflect that trope, they can take bikes and mechanised infantry in their White Scars list. They can ALSO take Devastator Squads and so on, according to their preference, but that's just it - their preference.
What's wrong with the generic unit (ie, like Guerrilla Fighters and/or Grenadiers) being able to reflect the trope? Just take more of them in your army if you want that theming - there's the option.
This is then compounded by the fact that fluff wise, those regiments also contain elements represented by other regiments ironically.
But they don't...? The Armageddon Ork Hunters are a separate regiment to the Steel Legion. Elements of the Ork Hunters might show up alongside of a Steel Legion force but guess what...it's not the whole army!
This is the part that is so daft. People want to blather on about the lore while the getting key elements wrong.
Very true! But also, this reinforces that *it's not about where the regiment comes from!* It's about the training and the particular unit they form that is the PREDOMINANT factor in their fighting style.
Like I said earlier - would a Cadian Armoured Regiment not might more similarly to an Armoured Regiment of another world than to a Cadian Light Infantry Regiment?
But it's just as, if not more weird, that someone's force would conveniently have catachans, cadians, kriegers and attilans all at the same place and time with regularity.
It's far less weird for those regiments to show up at the same place and time than it is for them to be able to be taken in a GSC force.
If you don't mind my asking... why?
I mean, Cadians can be infected. Catachans can be infected. Kriegers can be infected. The only weird part is that they specifically *called* those units. If "Catchan Jungle Fighters" were instead named "Guerrilla Fighters", would you argue that GSC should be incapable of having guardsmen who fight in that style?
So oddly making those generic fixes the issue with brood brothers as well as the weird hyper specific representation in guard units. Yet you're being combative about the concept.
How does adding MORE GENERICS "fix the issue with Brood Brothers"?
Not *more* - renaming the "regional" units with generic names instead.
Did I miss any of them suggesting "BUT NO GRENADIERS OR JUNGLE FIGHTERS FOR GSC!"?
Why shouldn't GSC be able to corrupt regiments that might happen to have Grenadiers? Not all Grenadiers are Cadians.
Again, I say this all in the interest of genuine questioning. *Why* is it so important that Catachan Jungle Fighters ONLY be called Catachan Jungle Fighters, and not "Guerrilla Fighters"?
Catachan/Elysian regiment merger, airmobile jungle regiment. First appeared in the 6th edition codex.
Just to provide validation for this point, but it was as early as 5th, at the very least. I don't have my 4th ed book on me, but I distinctly remember the Prosan in the 5th edition book!
Catachan/Elysian regiment merger, airmobile jungle regiment. First appeared in the 6th edition codex.
Just to provide validation for this point, but it was as early as 5th, at the very least. I don't have my 4th ed book on me, but I distinctly remember the Prosan in the 5th edition book!
the world of Prosan dates as far back as Codex: Eye of Terror, and was mentioned again in the second 3rd edition guard codex
granted, there isn't a lot here talking about it (might have missed some stuff, there's a lot of fluff in these books), but their role to guard and cadians in particular gets pretty well established just with this
Sorry for the "Um actually", but Prosan the world =/= Prosan the regiment . IIRC the regiment got the name because they were merged and reconstituted there, not because they were raised there. I think Sgt_Smudge is right that the first mention would be the 5e 'dex, I just went through my 3.5 IG 'dex and they aren't listed (there's even a bit where the codex explicitly mentions mixed/remnant regiments, and namedrops two other such formations but not the Prosan). It wouldn't surprise me if they got mentioned in a WD or something before that, but I couldn't say.
waefre_1 wrote: Sorry for the "Um actually", but Prosan the world =/= Prosan the regiment . IIRC the regiment got the name because they were merged and reconstituted there, not because they were raised there. I think Sgt_Smudge is right that the first mention would be the 5e 'dex, I just went through my 3.5 IG 'dex and they aren't listed (there's even a bit where the codex explicitly mentions mixed/remnant regiments, and namedrops two other such formations but not the Prosan). It wouldn't surprise me if they got mentioned in a WD or something before that, but I couldn't say.
This. It is possible the Prosan regiment was merged on the world Prosan in the Cadian system, but may have been on a different world of the same name.
I can't find any reference to the Prosan regiment in the 5th edition Codex. The paragraph on regimental merging on pg.10 gives no examples. It definitely appears on pg.17 of the 6th edition Codex.
There is a very similar regiment mentioned in Libre Apocalyptica: Valkyrie (published between the 5th and 6th edition codices), the Catachan 22nd. This was permanently attached to an Imperial Navy tactical squadron and has the same MO as the Prosan- airmobile jungle fighters. I think someone at GW liked the Vietnam-war imagery of helicopters over the jungle. That article mentions several similar formations (at least a hundred within Ultima Segmentum alone) including a Valhallan regiment- the Grey Devils.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For examples of Catachan armoured regiments- two fought against the Tau annexation of Cytheria. The 97th Catachan Armoured was entirely destroyed by Tau tank-hunting units on the 3rd day of the invasion.
Here is a Catachan Hellhammer from (UK) White Dwarf 338.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that they're saying that a Cadian Armoured Regiment is going to fight more like an Armoured Regiment from another world than it would a Cadian Light Infantry Regiment.
Then maybe they should say that.
From where I'm sitting (and apparently everyone else too), they did. You seem to be very aggressively titling at windmills here over what most people are saying is a pretty reasonable complaint: locking fighting styles and variant loadouts to specific, named regiments is a bad idea. It makes no sense that only Catachans can be jungle/guerilla fighter, for example. I'd also argue that in many cases the in-game restrictions fail to represent the specific regiments properly because the loadouts are based on the NMNR policy and the boxes don't all seem to have been created with that in mind. I have no clue how the DKoK box restrictions properly represent that regiment, for example. They exist purely because the KT unit needed certain things and that's now been transferred to 40k.
Slipspace wrote: From where I'm sitting (and apparently everyone else too), they did. You seem to be very aggressively titling at windmills here over what most people are saying is a pretty reasonable complaint: locking fighting styles and variant loadouts to specific, named regiments is a bad idea. It makes no sense that only Catachans can be jungle/guerilla fighter, for example. I'd also argue that in many cases the in-game restrictions fail to represent the specific regiments properly because the loadouts are based on the NMNR policy and the boxes don't all seem to have been created with that in mind. I have no clue how the DKoK box restrictions properly represent that regiment, for example. They exist purely because the KT unit needed certain things and that's now been transferred to 40k.
Yeah. To my mind its just this odd issue that you have explicitly Cadian, Kreig, Catachan units etc. Ignoring the lack of (non-ancient) models, but if said "I'm playing Tallarn or Mordians or Steel Legion" then I shouldn't have any of these guys."
I mean we can talk about Marines - but what about other factions? If all Guardians became Black Guardians of Ulthwe. Jetbikes became Wild Riders of Saim-Hann. Wraithguard were all from Iyanden. Certain Aspect Warriors were Beil-Tan exclusive etc. It would feel kind of weird. "I'm going to play Alaitoc, I guess in the fluff I don't get any of these?"
Admittedly I don't think 10th cares rules wise. So to a degree its whether you want GW to officially go "counts as" or you can just do it yourself. But I can see why people would prefer GW to do it.
If GW were going to expand the range so various Guard subfactions could be things in their own right then maybe it would be fine. But I don't see them doing that. Someone walking into a GW store to start collecting Guard today is effectively going to be collecting Cadians, with odd other things thrown in.
If I may, I would also like to bring up a possible reason why people might like that there are "seperate" units (ie, explicitly Cadian units, explicitly Catachan units). Guardsmen don't fight like Space Marines, or like many other factions in 40k. They're used to combining elements from multiple different regiments, with different training doctrines, and throwing them all into one warzone. So, that Leman Russ in your army? Good chance that it might come from a different regiment from the infantry (not ALWAYS the case, but likely!) It's very normal in the Guard for multiple different worlds to all be represented in one strikeforce, so having, say, a unit from Planet X, a unit from Planet Y, a unit from Planet Z is actually very fluffy!
Do I still think that we ought to keep how GW have done explicit Cadian, Catachan and Krieg units? No, I don't. I think that if people *want* to reflect the different backgrounds of the disparate elements of their army, they should be encouraged to paint their units like that. Ideally, I'd also include something more akin to the decurion/gladius organisation structure from 7th edition - I liked that you could create formations of specific regimental/company groupings, and if we wanted to mechanically reflect the mixed-forces nature of the Guard, I'd be interested in a return to that.
But yes - just to say that I do recognise that Guardsmen are notable in their eclectiveness, but I don't feel that having EXPLICITLY NAMED units is helpful there.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If I may, I would also like to bring up a possible reason why people might like that there are "seperate" units (ie, explicitly Cadian units, explicitly Catachan units). Guardsmen don't fight like Space Marines, or like many other factions in 40k. They're used to combining elements from multiple different regiments, with different training doctrines, and throwing them all into one warzone. So, that Leman Russ in your army? Good chance that it might come from a different regiment from the infantry (not ALWAYS the case, but likely!) It's very normal in the Guard for multiple different worlds to all be represented in one strikeforce, so having, say, a unit from Planet X, a unit from Planet Y, a unit from Planet Z is actually very fluffy!
Do I still think that we ought to keep how GW have done explicit Cadian, Catachan and Krieg units? No, I don't. I think that if people *want* to reflect the different backgrounds of the disparate elements of their army, they should be encouraged to paint their units like that. Ideally, I'd also include something more akin to the decurion/gladius organisation structure from 7th edition - I liked that you could create formations of specific regimental/company groupings, and if we wanted to mechanically reflect the mixed-forces nature of the Guard, I'd be interested in a return to that.
But yes - just to say that I do recognise that Guardsmen are notable in their eclectiveness, but I don't feel that having EXPLICITLY NAMED units is helpful there.
waefre_1 wrote: Sorry for the "Um actually", but Prosan the world =/= Prosan the regiment . IIRC the regiment got the name because they were merged and reconstituted there, not because they were raised there. I think Sgt_Smudge is right that the first mention would be the 5e 'dex, I just went through my 3.5 IG 'dex and they aren't listed (there's even a bit where the codex explicitly mentions mixed/remnant regiments, and namedrops two other such formations but not the Prosan). It wouldn't surprise me if they got mentioned in a WD or something before that, but I couldn't say.
This. It is possible the Prosan regiment was merged on the world Prosan in the Cadian system, but may have been on a different world of the same name.
I can't find any reference to the Prosan regiment in the 5th edition Codex. The paragraph on regimental merging on pg.10 gives no examples. It definitely appears on pg.17 of the 6th edition Codex.
There is a very similar regiment mentioned in Libre Apocalyptica: Valkyrie (published between the 5th and 6th edition codices), the Catachan 22nd. This was permanently attached to an Imperial Navy tactical squadron and has the same MO as the Prosan- airmobile jungle fighters. I think someone at GW liked the Vietnam-war imagery of helicopters over the jungle. That article mentions several similar formations (at least a hundred within Ultima Segmentum alone) including a Valhallan regiment- the Grey Devils.
For posterity, the 314th is mentioned on page 40 of the 5e 'dex (the rules page for Veterans), in a box titled "Combining Regiments".
