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.

Ok guys. So, after a run in with TFG last night I am a bit miffed. I love the idea that an IG army is made up of dozens of regiments from across the universe. Needless to say I have some of just about every IG model made...all the way back to RT days. With this idea I have always fielded a "mixed bag" sort of army. but I ALWAYS ensure that an entire troop choice is made up of one range of minis... I.E. Platoon one is all cadian and platoon 2 is all Vostroyan. I have never had a problem with this until TFG said that I couldn't do this - an army has to be made up of all one type of model. I then pointed out that if were playing WYSIWYG then he needed to remove all his half built models (including his only Land Raider). He quickly changed his tune.

So my question is simple. Is this a problem for you?

*NOTE* I would def. say no if you took an army specific set of doctrines i.e. the Cadian set. I don't use doctrines or I pick them out of the list.

tbh the way I play it unless the miniature is in a shooting position it cant shoot, only running ones move etc

There is no rule about thing having to be all cadians etc. Heck, nothing have to be the same color or whatever, its all up to you.

I wouldn't sweat it. He's TFG for a reason, right?

No, especially since all the models are armed the same. That would actually be a nice back story for a regiment. Colonel so and so's left overs.

If you wanted to use one regiment's doctrine set there could possibly be something said for WYSIWYG, but otherwise WYSIWYG doesn't enter into it.

I'd have no problem.

The *only* ruling for IG that would have *anything* to remotely deal with situation is in the most current IG FAQ.

Q. What exactly is a “Cadian” army for the
purposes of being allowed to take Ursarkar
Creed?
A. An army using the Cadian Shock Troops
doctrines listed on page 58 of the Codex and
using Cadian Shock troops models, or any
Imperial Guard army that doesn’t use any
doctrines and uses Cadian Shock troops models.
Q. As Colonel-Commissar Gaunt has Fearless
and passes the ability onto his squad, what
effect does his trademark item have?
A. Its only effect is to make his squad take a
Morale check when he dies.

There is a "Tanith" version of this question as well, it is the only reference to the "type" of model an IG player is using in any of the rulings.

So unless you are playing as a "Cadian" army, with the "Cadian Doctrines" (as per the IG codex) and trying to use a "Cadian Special Character" (replace Cadian with Tanith if you are using Tanith models). There would not be any issue with using different ranges of IG models.

I have a sinking feeling that you are not playing a "Cadian" army and using Creed. Therefore, you can use any models you see fit

Next time TFG tries to pull that crap on you, you will at least have some rules to back yourself up with.

No , he/she is stupid.
When something along these lines come up , I always say " hmmm , I must have missed that rule , show it to me".
This ALWAYS gets "I read it in a Faqs , or on GWs web site".
I will then reply " I'll check it out when I get home" and then promply ignore it.

Sincity

I personally like the idea. Unless it is a "cadian" army this shouldn't be an issue.

In all honstesty you should be able to play any model you want, of course, WYSIWYG does help sort out the confusion.

Bad form by TFG

Of course would he be TFG without it?

Sincity wrote:When something along these lines come up , I always say " hmmm , I must have missed that rule , show it to me".
This ALWAYS gets "I read it in a Faqs , or on GWs web site".
I will then reply " I'll check it out when I get home" and then promply ignore it.

I've had TFG do that to me when he was zipping a Farseer around in a Falcon casting Doom and Guide inside the Falcon back in 4th.

Where's the "kick TFG in the marbles" option in the poll?

Commissar Molotov wrote:Where's the "kick TFG in the marbles" option in the poll?

TFGs don't have marbles.

Also, imagine your foot getting lost in a very large, and very unkempt, mangina.

malfred wrote:Also, imagine your foot getting lost in a very large, and very unkempt, mangina.

OMG you KNOW my TFG...the kid is right out of High School and weighs atleast 450lbs. Sure to die in his 30's from heart failure....


Anywho, thanks for all the support guys.

Dude, that's BS. Play your mixed Guard - it's cool.

Commissar Molotov wrote:Where's the "kick TFG in the marbles" option in the poll?

That's a large assumption, most of these people have never seen marbles, let alone proven to have any!

The TFG moments of recent history where I've gamed?

There are a few people who really do themselves in, but a Dark Eldar player tops the charts especially with WYSIWYG situations.

According to them:
Their vehicles don't use the same arc of fire rules as other armies (and don't need to be attached either!)
It's ok to claim your skimmer is flying, after you've made it clear it isn't, in response to an Apoc Barrage template landing on it.
And -
Units with rapid fire weapons can not shoot and assault - even if they're only shooting pistols/assault-weapons.

This even made a poll? Tell the guy to have a coke and a smile and STFU, or to pick up his dice and Foxtrot Oscar.

burb1996 wrote:Ok guys. So, after a run in with TFG last night I am a bit miffed. I love the idea that an IG army is made up of dozens of regiments from across the universe. Needless to say I have some of just about every IG model made...all the way back to RT days. With this idea I have always fielded a "mixed bag" sort of army. but I ALWAYS ensure that an entire troop choice is made up of one range of minis... I.E. Platoon one is all cadian and platoon 2 is all Vostroyan. I have never had a problem with this until TFG said that I couldn't do this - an army has to be made up of all one type of model. I then pointed out that if were playing WYSIWYG then he needed to remove all his half built models (including his only Land Raider). He quickly changed his tune.

So my question is simple. Is this a problem for you?

*NOTE* I would def. say no if you took an army specific set of doctrines i.e. the Cadian set. I don't use doctrines or I pick them out of the list.

while i understand the frustration of your case, there might be a reason why some people ( maybe TFG, maybe not , im not psychic )
might react that way.

During any game, most players quickly look over / keep track of the opponent's unit and what gear they have ( this is normal to formulating a plan right? )
i mean for you, you know by heart of what each unit is since you made it.
But if someone never played you before , the time needed in looking at the unit figuring out what they carry would definately be longer .
Mix of color, mix of different shape ( for example you might field cadian and vetroyan ) etc etc,
makes it way harder to spot the the weapon option they carry.

I play with unpainted minis often , and from a long distance, i do admit, they all look like grey chunks of plastic.
To make sure people dont get frustrated from that issue, i often take paper and just write down simple stuff like " 2x melta "
so from a quick glance , my oppnent can tell right away, ok this is melta unit. Instead of trying to look at every mini to see
what they have ESPECIALLY with WYSIWYG

@Luna: That is why the individual weapons are uniform and oversized.

Besides, if he can play against Black Legion CSM (each unit different shapes), he can play against mixed Guard.

...well, personally I think it would look better if every unit in the army was of the same regiment. Looks kinda odd to have one of everything in there to me, but I wouldn't say you couldn't do it...

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Luna: That is why the individual weapons are uniform and oversized.

Besides, if he can play against Black Legion CSM (each unit different shapes), he can play against mixed Guard.

like i said, maybe the guy is trying to give OP a hard time , maybe not . I really dont know.

But what i said is definately true .
I might need glasses since i often come across with some armies with painting
or layers of glue etc etc that extorted the mini so much that they look all look like chaos spawns to me.

Full skittles Guard would be awesome:

Cadian Command

2E Ratlings
2E Ogryns
4E Ogryns

Grenadiers
- 3E "Bedford" Storms
- 5E Kasrkin
- FW Elysians

Platoon A
- 2E Cadian
- 2E Catachan
- 2E Mordian
- 2E Praetorian
- 2E Tallarn
- 2E Valhallan

Platoon B
- 2E "beret" Storms w/ Heavy
- 3E Tanith
- 4E Vostroyan
- 3E Cadian
- 3E Catachan
- FW DKoK

Rough Riders
- 2E Atillan
- 4E Tanith (or FW Tanith)
- FW DKOK

I *think* those are all of the post-RT flavors... If you back to RT, then the Ogryns get silly looking.

No no no...How I run is entire command squad are Cadians.

Entire 1st troop choice are cadians

entire 2nd troop choice are vostroyan

All veterans are DKoK

No mixing of models in units. If I was to mix then it would be impossible to keep track of what even for me.

All troops are painted in a matching uniform color and all weapons are WYSIWYG. Considering an Imperial Melta looks like any other human melta I don't see and have never had a problem with any opponent other than than this TFG give me crap about it. Most of the other players (and it looks like most of you) think its a cool idea.

I've played (well collected - didn't actually play 3rd and 4th ed) since Rouge Trade days and ALL the fluff that kept me collecting for all these years has pointed to regements from all over being sent to one combat zone. I COULD field an army of Tallarn, Vostroyan, Cadian, or Mordian (buying Praetorian and DKoK right now to increase that) but It goes against my idea of IG.

Back in 3E, I toyed with the idea of having squads of different models, representing add-on units being merged togethr. But ultimately, I like the more uniform look, so it's pretty much all Tallarn with some Cadians for looks. I may add more Cadians, depending on the new Codex.

TFG is just being TFG.

I run an all metal (infantry) 2nd edition Guard army.
It is a mix of Tallarn, Catachan and Cadian.
There is an even mix of all of these models spread through each unit.
I did this in order to meet the new codex and to look good.
I even have a Cadian halping a tallarn to load his missle launcher!!!!! LOLLOLLOL (not).
They were stripped and repainted in a coherent scheme with easily distinguishable squad markings.
I've never had a problem and I think they look good!

TFG can go F himself!

The question isn't clear. Are you asking if it's a problem what he did or what you did?

~Logic

Isn't "Mixed Guard" something GW occasionally references in the IG COdex and similar? Although I might be thinking of the previous Codex...

burb1996 wrote:Ok guys. So, after a run in with TFG last night I am a bit miffed. I love the idea that an IG army is made up of dozens of regiments from across the universe. Needless to say I have some of just about every IG model made...all the way back to RT days. With this idea I have always fielded a "mixed bag" sort of army. but I ALWAYS ensure that an entire troop choice is made up of one range of minis... I.E. Platoon one is all cadian and platoon 2 is all Vostroyan. I have never had a problem with this until TFG said that I couldn't do this - an army has to be made up of all one type of model. I then pointed out that if were playing WYSIWYG then he needed to remove all his half built models (including his only Land Raider). He quickly changed his tune.

So my question is simple. Is this a problem for you?

*NOTE* I would def. say no if you took an army specific set of doctrines i.e. the Cadian set. I don't use doctrines or I pick them out of the list.

Offer him a bet. Have him show the exact quote in the rulebook. If you win you get to kick him in the cojones.

Actually sounds like a good way to differentiate your squads.

EDIT: So why did you waste valuable hours of your life that you will never get back playing TFG in the first place? Shunning, a time honored practice since 2000 BC.

yeah,
I think mixed guard will help as it'll make clear which models are from which unit.
especially with guard as every thing is bunched up at the start.

Panic.