Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 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).


But I'm sure that fits your point too, right?

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!"?

I don’t recall saying “Generic options suck!”
I think you’re mistaking me for another poster.

 Valkyrie wrote:
So we all saw this when 10'th was released

Spoiler:

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.

 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?

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

 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"?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

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!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

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!

Stupid sexy Flanders.

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.

I agree with that.

 Haighus wrote:

 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".

Ah! Thanks

Dunno how I missed that.