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.

Over on the commisar boards (http://commissar.proboards22.com/index.cgi) there has been some doctrine discussions that I wanted to validate, or have validated.

They were talking about a way to use a doctrine that isn't represented on the model. For example, using the carapace armor doctrine but justifying it by saying something like "My models are really good at using small terrain features to shield their bodies, so they get a 4+"
If you pay for it there shouldn't be a difference.

Would this be allowed in a small local tournement? Or just home games? Could I use this to justify other dotrines?

Thanks for any and all help!

Your models should be WYSIWYG for a tournament. If you want Carapace you need to model it on your figs.

It's a slippery slope from ignoring armour types and looks to 'This Carnifex is a Land Raider.'

As Asmodai said. It should be WYSIWYG for tournaments. Home or friendly games, as long as your opponent is aware is OK, I suppose. But should be modeled as well IMO.
Especially if there are different units with different doctrines.

"No no! THIS unit has carapace and THIS unit has cameleoline...." It can be lost what unit has what.

Very good point, Asmodai. Thanks for the help.

Joo to Laserbait

Laserbait wrote:As Asmodai said. It should be WYSIWYG for tournaments. Home or friendly games, as long as your opponent is aware is OK, I suppose. But should be modeled as well IMO.
Especially if there are different units with different doctrines.

"No no! THIS unit has carapace and THIS unit has cameleoline...." It can be lost what unit has what.

Considering that both Carapace and camoline are all or nothing army upgrades, I don't see too much of a problem. Especially considering that compared to Mordians and old Cadians, the new Cadians look like they're up-armoured...

None of the doctrines, besides Xeno-Fighters specifies that it must be represented on the model.

The only thing in the Codex in general is that all "weapons and wargear" must be represented on the model.

Carapace armor is found in the wargear section, so that clearly has to be represented on the model as does warrior weapons (as they're weapons).

But for the RAW no other doctrine has to be modeled, although common sense would dictate that any of the other "special equipment" doctrines are 'wargeary' enough to warrant being modelled.

And seriously, how would you model Iron Discipline or Close Order Drill anyway?


And as Skyth points out, both Carapace and Cameleoline are upgrades for the whole army (for the most part) it really shouldn't be that hard to remember they all have a 4+ save anyway.

Again, a good point. But still no definitive answer. I guess that proves that it's open to interp. Oh well.

Thanks guys!

HaLLuCiNaTiOn wrote:They were talking about a way to use a doctrine that isn't represented on the model. For example, using the carapace armor doctrine but justifying it by saying something like "My models are really good at using small terrain features to shield their bodies, so they get a 4+"

This is somewhat problematic from a WYSIWYG standpoint. But 40k no longer requires WYSIWYG (check the rulebook).

If all of the models have Carapace, then it's no big deal. It's no stupider than saying that Catachans get a 5+ or 6+ from pants & headband.

But for the particular Fluff you're using above, that's really more like Cameoline.

This nonsense, BTW, is why Doctrines are likely to go away in the next version of the IG Codex.

hmm when i had steel legion i used them as grenadiers. the person i was playing with said were is there carapace ? i said its under there great coats thats how you fix some people.

I really hope they don't take doctrines away from guard. I don't play guard but I think the doctrines are an almost indispensable part of Fluff army construction. I don't see why they'd screw so many of their loyal customers.

Then again, they did take away veteran abilities from the Chaos Codex so it doesn't seem like a leap.

If they do do that then I guess it's away with chapter variances in the Space Marine codex and people like me who payed a tonne to get the bits to convert 30 marines to bolt pistol and CCW then tack on furious charge get totally screwed. I'll probably quit then I suppose.

Back to point in question, how do you model 4+ armour on a Cadian? They look pretty armoured to me.

Celtic Strike wrote:Back to point in question, how do you model 4+ armour on a Cadian? They look pretty armoured to me.

Look at the Kasrkin. That's how you model carapace armor on a Cadian.

I would use the arguement people use for extra armor. Saying somthing to the effect that it is internally reinforced. So I would say, the material these cadians have it more dense and thus harder to penetrate. Therefore giving a 4+ save. Who really wants to sculpt 100+ carapace sets on models. YIKES!!

"Counts As" to the rescue!!!

Just compare a Cadian to Catachan.

Compared to a Catachan, a Cadian has Carpace Armor.

Negativemoney wrote:Just compare a Cadian to Catachan.

Compared to a Catachan, a Cadian has Carpace Armor.

Well, that works for home games, but tournaments? Would any of this fly without Kasrkin models? Could I simply color the carapace soldier's one color, and the others a different one?

This guy I knew spent 6 months cutting up plasticard to model his carapace armor. Crazy.

How to model close order drill? Personally I'd put everyone in a charge forward stance with a bayonet on their rifle sticking out. You never see it done, so...it could be modeled that way.

Modeling iron discipline seems easy as well. Make your unit leaders stand out. Like put them on a rock on their base or give them a glorious pose.

Most guard armies, the leaders aren't standouts--they're just another guy in a green outfit.

HaLLuCiNaTiOn wrote:

Negativemoney wrote:Just compare a Cadian to Catachan.

Compared to a Catachan, a Cadian has Carpace Armor.

Well, that works for home games, but tournaments? Would any of this fly without Kasrkin models? Could I simply color the carapace soldier's one color, and the others a different one?

As with all tournaments, the real answer is that you would need to contact the tournament organizer to find out what their ruling is.

Stelek wrote:This guy I knew spent 6 months cutting up plasticard to model his carapace armor. Crazy.

How to model close order drill? Personally I'd put everyone in a charge forward stance with a bayonet on their rifle sticking out. You never see it done, so...it could be modeled that way.

Modeling iron discipline seems easy as well. Make your unit leaders stand out. Like put them on a rock on their base or give them a glorious pose.

Most guard armies, the leaders aren't standouts--they're just another guy in a green outfit.

I'm not saying that players can't model their doctrines just that their absolutely isn't any rule requiring them to do so.

Personally I have done it like once in a tournament simply because I dont think carapace armor is worth the points. However Nobody has ever complained. i would stick to my , interally-more-dense material answer.

HaLLuCiNaTiOn wrote:Could I simply color the carapace soldier's one color, and the others a different one?

I'm a big fan of liberal use of the "counts as" rule, as long as things are kept consistant and as un-confusing as possible. Your example about painting the armor different colors I would say is a no go - I'm guessing so some are stormtroopers / grenadiers - but using Cadians as carapace doctrined IG consistently throughout the army I could handle. I'd rather see bulkier carapace armor on everybody, but that's currently a big pain and I wouldn't complain about the lack.

And on Steel Legion, my brother runs them as carapace guard too, and I remember commentary from GeeDub to the effect that greatcoat guard = "heavy" pattern guard (vs "light" 6+ catachan, "medium" 5+ cadians).

- Salvage