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.

Now that Veterans are a Troop choose with better BS and weapons selection, is it right that there is no restriction to their selection.
Amongst my friends when we play, Veterans can only be selected if a Platoon has been selected, 1 Platoon = 1 Veterans squad. As the Guards player I find it hard to justify changing this rule other than the Codex allows it but, as the bulk of the IG force would be made up of fresh troop with a small core of Veterans we play within the intent of the rule not to the letter.
What are your thoughts on this.

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Adapt or Die.

Seriously, taking Veterans means he doesn't have 250 Models of Infantry to grind you down. Stop whining.

I have to disagree, in smaller point games i might not want to dictate 200 points just too vanilla troop choices. In a 500 point game your gonna be spending almost 50% of you points on non upgraded troops. Veterans allows you to customize your army better, there is nothing wrong with that. Story wise you could say your fighting the elite special forces for that army, or however you want to swing it.

(edited to withdraw unnecessarily inflammatory part)
Actually I believe "cheating" describes what happens when you do something not allowed by the rules, like you and your friends are doing by restricting veteran guard choices. It's pretty clear that the rules intend vets to be an unrestricted troops choice. I'm fine with whatever house rules players agree to abide by, though.

Veterans we play within the intent of the rule not to the letter.

Since there is no limit, the intent of the rule is obvously to let you take as many vets as you want.

IG Veterans are the cheating

So you'd call a judge over in a tourney if a guard opponent had only vets?

Prepare to be laughed right out the door

Flavius Infernus wrote:Actually I believe "cheating" describes what happens when you do something not allowed by the rules, like you and your friends are doing by restricting veteran guard choices. It's pretty clear that the rules intend vets to be an unrestricted troops choice.

Before we toss the cheating grenade, I'd say that what he and his friends are doing constitue a House Rule. Now if they were to try to enforce this outside of their group, well toss away

-Yad

Please reference the “Tenets of You Make Da Call” sticky post at the top of the forum. Using the word “cheating” in rules discussion threads is unnecessarily inflammatory and rarely makes things any clearer.

As noted, this is a house rule. The current IG codex has been designed to allow you to use Veterans as your compulsory Troops if you so choose. The advantage is higher BS and more options. The disadvantage is higher cost and consequently lower numbers.

All IG are squishy and die fast. IMO (and most players I know), Infantry Platoons are an outstanding value for points, as Strength in Numbers is an important principle in 40k. I’d be happy if my opponent took all veterans, as that means fewer Troops I need to kill to win the game.

Ya Idk whats wrong with vets there low leadership and there low model count makes them extremely vunerable to pinning and leadership let alone getting beat up. They can be deadly but they are basically an army of suicide meltaguns and demo charges then letting the Russes clean up.

OP

As a house rule this is fine.

I have played in escalating campaigns where their are restrictions on some core codex troop elite and heavy support choices.

However, the codex states that Veterans a e a troop choice fluff wise I would suggest that any troops that survive an initial landing or drop into a grim dark battlefield and survive for a couple of days would be 'veterans'

the 'intent' of the rules is to provide players with an option of including battle hardened troops alongside fresher faced recruits.

Well, and also the flexibility to field a force comprised entirely of experienced guys, ALA an elite IG outfit like the Tanith First & Only or something.

Now that Veterans are a Troop choose with better BS and weapons selection, is it right that there is no restriction to their selection.
Amongst my friends when we play, Veterans can only be selected if a Platoon has been selected, 1 Platoon = 1 Veterans squad. As the Guards player I find it hard to justify changing this rule other than the Codex allows it but, as the bulk of the IG force would be made up of fresh troop with a small core of Veterans we play within the intent of the rule not to the letter.
What are your thoughts on this.

First: It's your game -> your rules as long as everyone agrees.
Second: By no means, neither rules-wise (where GW never shined) nor plotwise (not willing to talk about that ), is it cheating to use up to six veteran squads. Really, that's one of the clear parts of the codex, so I can't see how you could get it wrong. This refers to the rules.
As far as the view on Guard goes: just look at the Marines. Let them be 1,5 million, which is hardly a drop in the great ocean. Yet
they are allowed to join everywhere and noone says: "Hey, take some scouts already! They need the experience and it's unplausible to take only highly experienced Marines just because they are better." My point being: it's in the `dex and storywise I see no reaon for not playing a hardened force of veterans hitting hard at one point of the enemies' line.
Conclusion: I find it unnessecary to restrict the Guard player just because you think it won't fit.

P.S.: Look at it this way. We are still talking about W3 models with mostly ignorable saves. Shouldn't be too hard, now would it?
P.P.S.: I really like that smiling guard

Harms66 wrote:we play within the intent of the rule not to the letter.

I point you to the Elysian D99 Regiment composed entirely of Veterans.

Not all Regiments are new or organized the same way.

Also, a 40k force does not actually represent a full-sized army, either numerically or proportionally.

Your 40k force can either be seen as a detachment, or as a part of a larger battle.

Either way, there's nothing wrong with saying "I'm playing with a detachment of Cadian veterans sent to fight this foe/take these supplies/hold these objectives/etc."

I'd personally say that I feel about as much in favor of this rule as an Ork player would if we dictated the rule: You must take a group of Flash Boyz for every other squad you take, or a SM player would feel about having to take Scouts with bolters for every other squad they take. Rules that single out one specific army are bad, very bad. Unless you're okay with my rule: IG have to have one Platoon for each Vet squad, but they win on a die roll of 1+ at the start of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thought of another:

Oh... Wait, you can't take THOSE Ultramarines... They're all in a different part of the galaxy fighting other forces. You have to have an army of scouts.

This is fun.

Just want to point out that there is a limit. Six squads.

don_mondo wrote:Just want to point out that there is a limit. Six squads.

Not with TMIR!

TMIR?

don_mondo wrote:TMIR?

T3h Moist Impertent Roolz!!!!!

Da onez dat sez da roolz are not roolz!

Sorry, mind went a bit orky there.

willydstyle wrote:Also, a 40k force does not actually represent a full-sized army, either numerically or proportionally.

Your 40k force can either be seen as a detachment, or as a part of a larger battle.

Either way, there's nothing wrong with saying "I'm playing with a detachment of Cadian veterans sent to fight this foe/take these supplies/hold these objectives/etc."

Yep. A regiment composed of nothing but veterans would be a little strange, but commanding a company of mixed veterans from assorted platoons (or a grenadier company) is perfectly reasonable.

Gwar! wrote:

Adapt or Die.

QFT

Gwar! wrote:BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Adapt or Die.

Seriously, taking Veterans means he doesn't have 250 Models of Infantry to grind you down. Stop whining.

QFTMFT!

I've got 40 stormtroopers left over from the last codex.

What the hell am I supposed to use them as?

Storm Troopers?

Please? I'd rather take spawn.

Grenadier Veterans ... or 40 Bastonnes?

It's not suprising, IG have the most beneficial rules to fit this edition.