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.

Buttons wrote:
Yeah not all humans are warriors, and they don't (at least most don't) have a caste system so all humans are either regular humans, or human helpers, the helpers can mine metals, farm crops, or fight. Calling all human allies Human Warriors because some fight is like calling all public servants city soldiers because police carry guns even though the fire department and city hall never carry guns.

The Gue'vesa were specified as former military , regular humans, ie the populace of a planet would surely have its own name, yes? Like basic human = Gue'la.. ?

Lynata wrote: the Gue'vesa "fill a tactical niche in the Tau military",

Thought a lot of: Proposed rules / Tau threads would disagree with this?

Lynata wrote:
That said, "auxilia" is latin for "to help", and even the Roman Empire already used formations of foreign warriors adopted into its own war machine called Auxilia in battle.

A codex "Legions of the Roman Empire" would include those auxilia A codex Tau empire does not include anything beyond Kroot and Vespids.

Lynata wrote:

1hadhq wrote:I am just basing my statements on the fluff posted in this thread. ( CA ruleset and your quote )

But isn't the fluff you are supposedly basing your statements on no longer in effect?

Its no longer supported/used regularly by GW and thus a rather weak source and I would go so far to say its not having a bright future either since GW focused on 'pure' themes and humans in a non-human army aren't likely.
I'd personally drop it, as the more recent background keeps it straight at just 3 suppliers of troops and none of them humans.

Lynata wrote:
The only thing that is "current", as per your opinion posted earlier, would be the existence of human auxiliary troops in the ranks of the Tau military. Anything else is open for interpretation, as all the other fluff (like the CA ruleset) would be, in your mind, invalid?

Oh dear..
You can't have the old DGC story without the old ruleset, but the story changed and the CA isn't a current GW product anymore.
So currently, there are no left behind forces to make an offer to become Gue'vesa. Currently GW didn't use the name Gue'vesa at all in 4th and 5th ed. Currently these Gue'vesa are stuck inside the memory of the fanbase, copies to link to anywhere stored but not at GW, and generally their sole purpose is more often than not to mix IG into Tau lists.
And in this, currently Gue'vesa may be imagined as former IG and/or PDF by some. Can't stop them, can't I?
But to assume GW didn't keep them serves no purpose, is IMO a big mistake. They got left out and the Vespids brought in.
Change of focus from a Human vs Tau and Tau vs Human storyline too, the rest of the established factions needed the spotlight..
So yes, the humans employed by Tau are limited to the rabble of the border worlds actually.

Lynata wrote:On the other hand, if we take the older fluff into account, it specifically states that the Gue'vesa have, in fact, "become a respected part of the Tau military".

So respected, they don't mention them at all. Weird...

Lynata wrote:
I think this has to do with the Tau mentality and their belief in the Greater Good being the superior doctrine. They are of the opinion that anyone could be re-educated to serve them, like it'd be a logical thing and as if everyone else just needs to be shown how wrong they are for not having joined them yet.

OK.

Lynata wrote: The IoM could even trick them with a fake pardon proclaimed via loudspeakers on the battlefield, WW2-style.

Who would be so cruel to announce fake pardons?

The IoM is wellknown to be honest in this, so turn up the volume and tell them of their fiery death...

Kroothawk wrote:Gue'vesa are almost always Imperial Guard/PDFs defected from the IoM, joining the forces of the Tau Empire. Organisation and equipment stay the same (also with most other Xeno ally armies). So ruleswise they are dealt with in the IG Codex.

The rules of Gue'vesa were posted in this thread and what I see there is a very limited unit. Sure its a chapter approved article and was 'official' if both players agree and maybe still is if you can find someone to accept these old lists.
I doubt anyone thinks a codex isn't adopted to play something different if it looks close enough and again, opponents willing to play are found is the crux here. But to say the codex IG represents Gue'vesa is a bit much. Especially when GW limited the Gue'vesa list before. I mean , GW could offer a conversion kit but choose to limit the rules and offer nothing. Still sure its intended to use the unlimited IG codex of another edition?

Kroothawk wrote:
GW has no interest to include the IG Codex into the Tau Empire Codex, as they want to keep the focus on the Xenos character.

Correct.
Plus they have no interest in allied lists anymore, as proven with DH , WH, deathwatch, LotD , LatD, 13th co etc.

Kroothawk wrote:
They are still in the background (as proven above), but Codex and BL novels have other more interesting things to talk about.

Really old background, yes. Talk using things left behind after they got their second codex. Something that always can happen to anyone. Crons lost the Pariah-story arc for example.

1hadhq wrote:
Really old background, yes. Talk using things left behind after they got their second codex. Something that always can happen to anyone. Crons lost the Pariah-story arc for example.

But strangely Pariahs still show up in the codex (artwork).

King Pariah wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
Really old background, yes. Talk using things left behind after they got their second codex. Something that always can happen to anyone. Crons lost the Pariah-story arc for example.

But strangely Pariahs still show up in the codex (artwork).

Aren't they lychguards now?

Tadashi wrote:

King Pariah wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
Really old background, yes. Talk using things left behind after they got their second codex. Something that always can happen to anyone. Crons lost the Pariah-story arc for example.

But strangely Pariahs still show up in the codex (artwork).

Aren't they lychguards now?

They're current equivalent(ish) is lychguard, but there is actual artwork of Pariahs in the codex (surprise surprise)

King Pariah wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

King Pariah wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
Really old background, yes. Talk using things left behind after they got their second codex. Something that always can happen to anyone. Crons lost the Pariah-story arc for example.

But strangely Pariahs still show up in the codex (artwork).

Aren't they lychguards now?

They're current equivalent(ish) is lychguard, but there is actual artwork of Pariahs in the codex (surprise surprise)

Who was it who originally manipulated the Human genome to carry the pariah gene anyway? Was it the Void Dragon or the Deceiver? I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Outsider, since the others threw him into, well, someplace, after Cegorach drove the guy over the ledge, and the Nightbringer was busy imprinting everyone (except the Orks) with the fear of death.

I don't have a 3rd Ed. codex on me anymore, but i think it said that it was a joint venture by the C'tan (my money is both the Void Dragon and the Deciever)

...and the Outsider was shoved into the Dyson sphere by the combined efforts of the Eldar Gods I believe, but he's destined to escape... another interesting note is though it seems that he couldn't get out, he could still send his forces out and bring him creatures to nom on

King Pariah wrote:I don't have a 3rd Ed. codex on me anymore, but i think it said that it was a joint venture by the C'tan (my money is both the Void Dragon and the Deciever)

Were they planning on creating next-generation Necrons from Humans? Kinda like the newcrons, since pariahs appear to have free will of some sort still left. Or just specialist troops?

...and the Outsider was shoved into the Dyson sphere by the combined efforts of the Eldar Gods I believe...

Those guys were weak. The Emperor stuffed the Dragon into Mars' core by himself.

Tadashi wrote:

King Pariah wrote:I don't have a 3rd Ed. codex on me anymore, but i think it said that it was a joint venture by the C'tan (my money is both the Void Dragon and the Deciever)

Were they planning on creating next-generation Necrons from Humans? Kinda like the newcrons, since pariahs appear to have free will of some sort still left. Or just specialist troops?

...and the Outsider was shoved into the Dyson sphere by the combined efforts of the Eldar Gods I believe...

Those guys were weak. The Emperor stuffed the Dragon into Mars' core by himself.

The Pariahs were the basis for their ideal galaxy with no living thing being connected to the Warp (which would in effect, starve out every single god in the warp). And yeah, the emperor barely managed to shut down a starved and weakened Void Dragon to which he admitted he would not have been able to kill the Dragon and that is was by luck really that he found a weak point upon the dragon (the battle between the two of them I think raged for two days straight). Which in effect nerfs the emperor because now the emperor barely beat down a starved, weakened shard of the Void Dragon (you can thank Ward for that).

and to OP: Sorry for taking the thread off topic .

King Pariah wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

King Pariah wrote:I don't have a 3rd Ed. codex on me anymore, but i think it said that it was a joint venture by the C'tan (my money is both the Void Dragon and the Deciever)

Were they planning on creating next-generation Necrons from Humans? Kinda like the newcrons, since pariahs appear to have free will of some sort still left. Or just specialist troops?

...and the Outsider was shoved into the Dyson sphere by the combined efforts of the Eldar Gods I believe...

Those guys were weak. The Emperor stuffed the Dragon into Mars' core by himself.

The Pariahs were the basis for their ideal galaxy with no living thing being connected to the Warp (which would in effect, starve out every single god in the warp). And yeah, the emperor barely managed to shut down a starved and weakened Void Dragon to which he admitted he would not have been able to kill the Dragon and that is was by luck really that he found a weak point upon the dragon (the battle between the two of them I think raged for two days straight).

Weren't C'tan invincible? Not even the main warp cannon of a Blackstone could hurt one. Not that they couldn't be beaten, but rather were unkillable.

Which in effect nerfs the emperor because now the emperor barely beat down a starved, weakened shard of the Void Dragon (you can thank Ward for that).

Was it ever confirmed that the Void Dragon was splintered? That guy was so powerful that even the Deceiver didn't dare cross him. I prefer not to think so, because:
1) The Void Dragon's reputation is so badass, especially his name "Dragon of the Void"
2) Because, as you said, it makes the Emperor look bad
TBH, I prefer the oldcrons - they seem more badass not mention more evil and grimdark than the newcrons. After all, which is better, an ancient implacable evil that has no interest in culture or civilization and is simply bent on harvesting the galaxy, or ancient trans-xenos egyptians who want to rebuild their empire?

1hadhq wrote:Thought a lot of: Proposed rules / Tau threads would disagree with this?

I've not read those threads, I'm just saying what the studio material states.

1hadhq wrote:A codex "Legions of the Roman Empire" would include those auxilia A codex Tau empire does not include anything beyond Kroot and Vespids.

Kroot and Vespids are not the only aliens fighting in the Tau military - even the Codex specifically states as such when it presents them not as the only ones, but merely the "most notable". This is in line with the statement earlier in the same book that human volunteers have been adopted into the Empire's fighting ranks.
Bottom line: You can't field 'em with the current rules (unless you somehow do a "counts as", I suppose), but they exist in the background. Which this thread is about (I think).

If a "Codex: Legions of the Roman Empire" would focus on the Legions and not include the Auxilia, would that mean they cease to exist, historically?

1hadhq wrote:You can't have the old DGC story without the old ruleset, but the story changed and the CA isn't a current GW product anymore.

How did the story change? As I said, this isn't an area of fluff I'm focusing on, so perhaps I am mis-interpreting something. I can only say that it still exists within the Codex: Tau Empire, as I've seen it the other day.
This being said, even if there are no Crusade forces left behind, those are not necessary to make Gue'vesa. All that the Tau need is a human willing to fight for them. Many Imperial Guard regiments aren't really that "professional" either, considering that actual IG training is limited to a few weeks of basic instructions whilst the hastly conscripted forces are already en-route to their dropzone. Anything raised by the Tau on allied/controlled human colonies should at least qualify as PDF, out of which most IG regiments are formed.

As far as the "Chapter Approved" label goes, GW is still using it (the latest SoB Minidex has it). Doesn't change anything about Gue'vesa not being a viable unit for the TT right now, of course, but this thread isn't about the rules.

1hadhq wrote:So respected, they don't mention them at all. Weird...

Well, they are mentioned, just not with the name given to them by the Tau. It stands to reason the Tau do use a term from their own language, though, and "human helper" still sounds like it'd fit.

One could say the Gue'vesa (just like Demiurg ground forces) are not notable, however, given that they are omitted from the Codex where it mentions the Kroot and the Vespids with these words.
I suppose this has to do more with their limited numbers, though. As far as the Tau military as a whole is concerned, Gue'vesa just wouldn't show up on a regular basis, but merely on a single front. A regional oddity, so to say. I wouldn't be surprised if other fronts of the Tau Empire had other aliens who fill this niche.

I don't think there's a reason for the argument, anyways. As Gav Thorpe said, Wh40k is a franchise that is intended to be "customized" by its players rather than presenting a uniform canon. Do I personally believe that Gue'vesa will ever show up again in official material? I wouldn't bet on it. But I don't see why they still shouldn't "fit in" as long as the Tau army's style continues to support alien auxiliaries, so I see no reason to discourage those who want to get creative there.

Tadashi wrote:TBH, I prefer the oldcrons - they seem more badass not mention more evil and grimdark than the newcrons. After all, which is better, an ancient implacable evil that has no interest in culture or civilization and is simply bent on harvesting the galaxy, or ancient trans-xenos egyptians who want to rebuild their empire?

I can relate.

Lynata wrote:Many Imperial Guard regiments aren't really that "professional" either, considering that actual IG training is limited to a few weeks of basic instructions whilst the hastly conscripted forces are already en-route to their dropzone. Anything raised by the Tau on allied/controlled human colonies should at least qualify as PDF, out of which most IG regiments are formed.

As always you present a solid argument, Lynata. This is the only point I'd disagree with you on, as Imperial Guard tithes are taken from the top 10% of a world's PDF, which generally results in good quality. Cases like the BL novel '15 hours' are either examples of further conscription or exceptions to the rule.

On another point the IA book mentioned that, while Gue'vesa were initially comprised largely of Imperial forces that surrendered to the Tau when the Damocles Crusade broke off, nowadays the vast majority of them are actuality Tau loyalists to the core, coming from worlds that have folded into the Tau Empire generations beforehand.

Hazardous Harry wrote:This is the only point I'd disagree with you on, as Imperial Guard tithes are taken from the top 10% of a world's PDF, which generally results in good quality. Cases like the BL novel '15 hours' are either examples of further conscription or exceptions to the rule.

Granted, there is a wide range of possible options, and the source material does not go into detail which one is more prevalent. My perception is based on the thought that, in addition to the conscription of civilian commoners (as I've read about in the Planetstrike Codex), there would be a large number of PDFs that just are not very professional, be it because it's a bunch of barbarians or feudal militias or contracted hive gangs, or because the planet in question is so quiet that its PDF is more like a glorified police force or just a cute toy for jaded nobles (99% parade drills in fancy Napoleonic Wars-style uniforms).
Basically, when the PDF isn't that capable in general, even its top ten percent will barely qualify as useful material. This lack of capacity would also be in line with the importance of local Ministorum clergy for matters of defence.

Just one opinion of many, though! I won't even try to convince people, and the above should merely be regarded as an explanation of my thoughts. Even if one were to take the available material as gospel instead of a suggestion, I don't think there is enough solid information to make a 100% convincing case either way.

Lynata wrote:
Bottom line: You can't field 'em with the current rules (unless you somehow do a "counts as", I suppose), but they exist in the background. Which this thread is about (I think).

The subject was the organization of the 'helpers' and their chance to climb up to command levels. IIRC.

Lynata wrote:
If a "Codex: Legions of the Roman Empire" would focus on the Legions and not include the Auxilia, would that mean they cease to exist, historically?

History and GW publications have only 1 thing in common: GW needs history to be 'inspired' but history doesn't need GW...

A codex of historical TT would include Auxilia if it had to cover the whole timeline of the Roman Empire like the 40k codices start at a given time ( IoM ~ M 30 in fluff and ~ M34 in rules ) and cover everything from then onwards until the 'present' ( which we know is in 40k the mythical barrier of M41 ). A focus could work with a restricted timeline and / or theatre of war but 40 k doesn't use such limits ( except armageddon and EoT ) so I'd assume the codex LotRE is designed to cover an army from the outset as city state to a continental wide rule of the Cesars.
disclaimer: SPQR...everywhere ...except that small village in Gallia .. is a comic. I may add its not the base of anything I write about the Roman empire here. I Promise.

Lynata wrote:
How did the story change? As I said, this isn't an area of fluff I'm focusing on, so perhaps I am mis-interpreting something. I can only say that it still exists within the Codex: Tau Empire, as I've seen it the other day.

Seen it? Ye shall not read heretical text! Not this day or the other!

The change was a simple one.


Old story from old codex of another edition moved on and didn't use the Gue'vesa part anymore.
How to answer the OP's question based on the original material?
a) CA gives you a seargent so be happy with that.
b) there must be more but i can't provide a source
c) the feebled IA 3 ( that i do not own ) provides FW's take on the matter. Still pretty old as were now at 12 or so...
..and the answer to this, compliant with the current background of 5th ed is: ???

Lynata wrote: Anything raised by the Tau on allied/controlled human colonies should at least qualify as PDF, out of which most IG regiments are formed.

The issue of PDF is, they don't get off-world.
Its a most likely solution to the requested answer, a locally formed unit with locally common organization. Still a military deeply rooted in a culture of short lived creatures would have problems if they had to integrate creatures with a different life-cycle. This would exclude non-Tau from Tau cadres as part of the general forces and limit them to auxilia. Chances are, only the fire caste and the Kroot with their own vessels get around and the rest is garrisoned.

Lynata wrote:As far as the "Chapter Approved" label goes, GW is still using it (the latest SoB Minidex has it).

To have to rely on a WD mini dex is a reason to
So this CA label isn't as great as it was, when it provided additional variety to existant codices.

Lynata wrote: Do I personally believe that Gue'vesa will ever show up again in official material? I wouldn't bet on it. But I don't see why they still shouldn't "fit in" as long as the Tau army's style continues to support alien auxiliaries, so I see no reason to discourage those who want to get creative there.

*Steps aside to let creativity through*





PS:

1hadhq wrote:The subject was the organization of the 'helpers' and their chance to climb up to command levels. IIRC.

Oh, well, I've given my opinion on that one, too.

1hadhq wrote:A codex of historical TT would include Auxilia if it had to cover the whole timeline of the Roman Empire like the 40k codices start at a given time ( IoM ~ M 30 in fluff and ~ M34 in rules ) and cover everything from then onwards until the 'present' ( which we know is in 40k the mythical barrier of M41 ). A focus could work with a restricted timeline and / or theatre of war but 40 k doesn't use such limits ( except armageddon and EoT ) so I'd assume the codex LotRE is designed to cover an army from the outset as city state to a continental wide rule of the Cesars.

Ah, but the 40k Codices aren't "historical" - they do not represent the entire range of options. The current SoB one doesn't even allow for Frateris Militia, but according to this argumentation they would have ceased to exist just like the Gue'vesa?

1hadhq wrote:the DGC gets its own late BL novel and alters the events. Most current variant today.

Ohhhh, that explains it. To me, anyways.

Honestly, it just sounds like yet another breach in consistency between GW's vision and that of some outsourced product. Artistic license allows BL writers to get away with a lot of own ideas and changes.

In other words: If this change did not come from the GW team but rather just some freelance writer who managed to get a hold of a BL license to publish some story he came up with, *I* have no reason to believe that the studio's opinion on the subject (which I, personally, regard as more important) would have changed. We've seen this happen countless times before. The background forum is full of threads discussing such blatant contradictions when in the end there is no actual answer other than "yes, it's a contradiction, deal with it and pick the answer you like best".

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
-- Andy Hoare

1hadhq wrote:The issue of PDF is, they don't get off-world.

That's my point - that this is pretty much the biggest difference between PDF and proper IG. And in case of the Gue'vesa, the Tau would provide transportation.

1hadhq wrote:To have to rely on a WD mini dex is a reason to
So this CA label isn't as great as it was, when it provided additional variety to existant codices.

Well the label's authenticity didn't change...
But I too yearn for the golden days of old!

Lynata wrote:

Ah, but the 40k Codices aren't "historical" - they do not represent the entire range of options.

Sure they do represent the entire range of options. The entire range of models you have the option to buy or convert if not available yet.

Lynata wrote:The current SoB one doesn't even allow for Frateris Militia, but according to this argumentation they would have ceased to exist just like the Gue'vesa?

Frateris militia wasn't part of the WH codex also. 2 times not included = disbanded.
Frateris militia was demobilized methinks as the verdict was "no men" and the only males you could argue as part of any SoB pamphlet would belong to the ecclesiarchy itself and not the sisterhood. Until the theme changes from minions of ordo hereticus to minions of the ecclesiarchy and someone allowed them to field "enraged citizens" , "redemptionists" or any other group of armed humans, which aren't part of the organization of the SoB ,one could see those as a "new" or the return of the "old" militia..

Lynata wrote:
Honestly, it just sounds like yet another breach in consistency between GW's vision and that of some outsourced product. Artistic license allows BL writers to get away with a lot of own ideas and changes.
................................Andy Hoare

Did you notice you have cited the person who wrote that BL novel and the latest codex Tau?
Unlikely to get something wrong if you are part of the studio and get to work on the same theme later for a sub-company. His former "license" would allow him to rewrite things too...

Lynata wrote: And in case of the Gue'vesa, the Tau would provide transportation.

That assumes they do not consider humans have to be stopped from tainting the Galaxy with their rebellious behaviour. Humans are not as easy to control as vespids are

1hadhq wrote:Frateris militia wasn't part of the WH codex also. 2 times not included = disbanded.

Is that an official rule?

As a sidenote, the Frateris Militia actually was available for 3rd and 4th edition thanks to some CA article.

1hadhq wrote:Frateris militia was demobilized methinks as the verdict was "no men" and the only males you could argue as part of any SoB pamphlet would belong to the ecclesiarchy itself and not the sisterhood.

The "no men under arms" is as old as the Sisters' very first Codex. Frateris Militia have always been presented and even explained in contrast to it as "they don't count because they're not a standing army". Which is true - the militias are raised only in times of need.

1hadhq wrote:Did you notice you have cited the person who wrote that BL novel and the latest codex Tau?

Nope. But when this guy says that you shouldn't assume it's gospel, that's even better.

1hadhq wrote:Unlikely to get something wrong if you are part of the studio and get to work on the same theme later for a sub-company. His former "license" would allow him to rewrite things too...

That's not quite how it works. Every Codex is a joint effort, a product of the entire studio. It may have a single chief writer, but the others pitch in as well, and at the very least the writer's idea has to be approved by the team.

With a Black Library novel, this process does not exist. You, as a single person, can write what you want. Which is why we have stuff like Abnett's Servitor-Navigators or Mitchell's frisky Sisters. I'm sure you have spotted an oddity once or twice in some novel, too. All that matters is to get a book past the editors, but as we've seen this doesn't appear to be that difficult. Likely depends on who is reviewing the idea you've been pitching, tho.

"Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
-- Gav Thorpe

Or, somewhat more to the point:
"On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."

So at the very least some novel does in no way play any role whatsoever for which course the studio material is taking. They may adopt it. They may also simply ignore it, like they do with most stuff that BL and the other licensees are churning out. If you like the novel, go ahead and adapt your vision to it. I'm not saying it's "wrong", merely that it does not override the Tau Codex. All it does is presenting an alternate version.

1hadhq wrote:That assumes they do not consider humans have to be stopped from tainting the Galaxy with their rebellious behaviour. Humans are not as easy to control as vespids are

Naturally. Yet if the Tau would believe this, they'd likely not trust them at all instead of supplying them with advanced weaponry like pulse rifles. Instead they might even engineer a plot to eradicate these colonies and everyone in them, as efficiently and covertly as possible.
This is a deliciously grimdark idea, but for the time being I'm thinking re-education more likely. Personal preference, tho.

1hadhq wrote:

Lynata wrote:The current SoB one doesn't even allow for Frateris Militia, but according to this argumentation they would have ceased to exist just like the Gue'vesa?

Frateris militia wasn't part of the WH codex also. 2 times not included = disbanded.

Nice. You're not even providing any sort of authority for this view, you're just stating that it's fact.

Lynata wrote:

As a sidenote, the Frateris Militia actually was available for 3rd and 4th edition thanks to some CA article.

In 3rd, if you declare Redemptionists = Frateris militia , sure... but if the Redemption isn't frateris militia in general..where may I find the CA article besides the SoB list in CA 1 ?
In 4th , there was only IG and the WH book called the frateris militia: civilians, secondary PDF, etc at page 10 , so maybe its up to a personal PoV but I will admit I wouldn't consider the option to take IG as a chance to have frateris militia as militia seemed to me "non-professionals or drafted and low experience", not troops beyond the control of the local governor. Maybe not seen the tree... because of this inquisitional "wood" .

Lynata wrote:The "no men under arms" is as old as the Sisters' very first Codex. Frateris Militia have always been presented and even explained in contrast to it as "they don't count because they're not a standing army". Which is true - the militias are raised only in times of need.

The old "they don't count" trick?
Thought the =I= kept an eye on them after the SoB were granted as force to stay.

Lynata wrote: when this guy says that you shouldn't assume it's gospel, that's even better.

Not this again! I've already accepted this is a universe of cannons, not canon.

Lynata wrote:I'm not saying it's "wrong", merely that it does not override the Tau Codex. All it does is presenting an alternate version.

Alternate isn't the right term if the event isn't fleshed out before, IMO.
There maybe isn't much to override at all. Just a few general statements and a story which is more about "first contact" than "victories of < insert faction here > ". More like an expanded version..

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Nice. You're not even providing any sort of authority for this view, you're just stating that it's fact.

Authority?
So who is neccessary to back me up? His gloriousness at Terra itself?
At least I dare to provide quotes if asked for good sir.

1hadhq wrote:In 3rd, if you declare Redemptionists = Frateris militia , sure... but if the Redemption isn't frateris militia in general..where may I find the CA article besides the SoB list in CA 1 ?

No, Redemptionists are a specific sect, whereas Frateris Militia is a term for the whole rabble in general.

Their rules can be found in WD304.

Fluff Time! ->
"As well as the Sisters of Battle, the Ministorum can call upon the masses of the faithful to wage its wars and smite its foes. Though forbidden by the Decree Passive from maintaining 'Men under Arms', the armies of the Ecclesiarchy often include whole bands of zealous fanatics who rally to the Emperor's cause. Graham McNeill provides rules for using these frothing maniacs on the battlefields of the 41st millennium.

After the Age of Apostasy and the death of the insane High Lord of the Administratum, Goge Vandire, the Ecclesiarchy was forbidden from raising and maintaining standing armies of professional soldiers or 'Men under Arms'. The Adepta Sororitas were excluded from this ban by virtue of their sex, and the Orders Militant have served as the fighting arm of the Ecclesiarchy since that time. But though there are prohibitions on raising such armies, there is a tacit understanding that, in times of crisis, the faithful may rise to fight alongside the forces of the Ecclesiarchy in determined defence of those that uphold the Imperial Creed. There has also been occasion when it has been known for a Witch Hunter to enlist these maniacal devotees of the Imperium into his forces in order to serve his own clandestine motives and designs.

These armies of fanatics range from the ordinary citizenry of the Imperium to those sects of the Imperial Cult who preach fiery persecution of the heretic, the xeno, and the unbeliever. Such cults can be useful tools for the Ministorum or an Inquisitor, but must be utilised carefully, lest they slip out of control. In fact, many Inquisitors believe the trouble these fanatics cause outweighs the worth of any benefit they might bring. Such is their fervour, zealots will often utterly destroy in a frenzy those who might best be captured and then interrogated.

Whipped into frothing fits of religious ecstasy by the fiery priests of the Ecclesiarchy, entire cities can be raised to fight against those declared heretic or Excommunicate. Armed with whatever weapons are at hand, these fanatical zealots march alongside the Sisters of Battle, with the light of adoration shining in every face. As battle approaches, the preachers and confessors pass amongst the rabid followers they have gathered, giving out more advanced weaponry to those whose desire to fight and die for the glory of the Emperor seems especially strong.

Thrown into the thickest of the fighting, zealots fight with fanatical fury, heedless of danger or threat to their lives. Indeed, the more deadly the fighting, the harder they will fight. Frequently, at battle's end, there will be few if any survivors once the smoke has cleared and the final butcher's bill will be recorded. But such is the price of devotion to the Emperor, and there are always more zealots where they came from..."

1hadhq wrote:In 4th , there was only IG and the WH book called the frateris militia: civilians, secondary PDF, etc at page 10 , so maybe its up to a personal PoV but I will admit I wouldn't consider the option to take IG as a chance to have frateris militia as militia seemed to me "non-professionals or drafted and low experience", not troops beyond the control of the local governor.

Oh, I wasn't counting IG, of course. I've always been under the impression that a CA extension of a Codex is valid until rendered invalid by a new Codex or a FAQ, though. Was I wrong?

1hadhq wrote:The old "they don't count" trick?
Thought the =I= kept an eye on them after the SoB were granted as force to stay.

Yep, the Ordo Hereticus keeps a close eye on the Ecclesiarchy's power. I would assume the militias are "okay" because it is expected of any Imperial citizen to fight and die for the Emperor, so the Ecclesiarchy employing them in this capacity is beneficial to the cause. Given how quickly they are raised there isn't much the Inquisition could do against them either way. If a Frateris Militia is raised by a cleric pursueing a sanctioned mission, any interference would only rob the Imperium of useful manpower and thus be an obstruction of the Imperial cause. If a Frateris Militia is raised by an Apostate, however, then this is guy has already gone rogue and the Inquisition/SoB would have to interfere either way.

The only thing that would violate the Decree would be if a cleric would keep a standing army of Frateris Militia around, and this wouldn't be tolerated. Of course, the Ecclesiarchy has its means to compensate for this fact, and many clerics have profound influence with the local PDF or even Imperial Guard and Navy assets. This, however, is another topic.

1hadhq wrote:Alternate isn't the right term if the event isn't fleshed out before, IMO.
There maybe isn't much to override at all. Just a few general statements and a story which is more about "first contact" than "victories of < insert faction here > ". More like an expanded version..

Well, evidently the Damocles Gulf Crusade was fleshed out before, else this novel wouldn't have been able to conflict, as you claim, with the Tau Empire Codex fluff about human deserters now fighting in the Tau military.

1hadhq wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Nice. You're not even providing any sort of authority for this view, you're just stating that it's fact.

Authority?
So who is neccessary to back me up? His gloriousness at Terra itself?

You could start with anything. Seriously, even a random statement in a white dwarf article would be better than your own personal opinion on this matter.

Your opinion, while creative and imaginative, has jack gak authority in this regard. The Imperial Armour volumes on the other hand do have some kind of authority. As does any official GW working.

At least I dare to provide quotes if asked for good sir.

So you doubt the veracity of the Gue'vesa entries themselves then? I thought your objection was based on the lack of more current fluff. Oh, but this is just more shifting of the goal posts isn't it.

Lucky for you I have a compilation of the relevant fluff articles. Though I think the top-left quote isn't actually from the Taros IA.

Lynata wrote:

Their rules can be found in WD304.

*bows head in shame*

Didn't think of the chapter approved material released after the 3 collections ( CA 1-3 ) in WD.
To my defense, I may add the WD's I have are localized and lack said article ( only 120 pages ). We got the termie IA article and young Ward's necrons vs Haines UM amongst other content ( yes WD had this ) but no CA/Zealots.
The interweb provided, sure.
It was 7 years ago and I don't know if they published it later or not at all in our 'region' .
Having brought forth my sad excuse, I would like to express my thanks to see the source your coming from and admit I forgot a few of those optional rules.

Lynata wrote:I've always been under the impression that a CA extension of a Codex is valid until rendered invalid by a new Codex or a FAQ, though. Was I wrong?

No. I wasn't aware of the extension in 2005 and thought of the wrong set of rules, sorry.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

So you doubt the veracity of the Gue'vesa entries themselves then?

I questioned them recently in this fashion too to get some quotes into this thread as the whole "can't quote" affair reeked a bit of lack of access of sources and just posting from memory.
A modus operandi that doesn't work so well as you can see with my failure in frateris militia fluff ^.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I thought your objection was based on the lack of more current fluff.

It still is , too. But thanks, your collection of fluff from 9-10 years ago pretty much proves the point of it being not recycled the usual GW way, ie copied again and again and thus I believe its ok to consider fluff left aside as not a primary or secondary piece of current fluff, at best tertiary.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Oh, but this is just more shifting of the goal posts isn't it.

Where are these imaginary goal posts?

* requests firing solution to get rid of these heretical installations, called "goal posts". *

Hazardous Harry wrote:Lucky for you I have a compilation of the relevant fluff articles.

So lucky I am. He has a compilation of articles...without any markings where the pieces come from. Can you remember? Or found this recently on a cruise in the web?

So the head on top is fan-made and the upper right most likely codex Tau or such. Bottom left some sort of thoughts added. I mean its not bad for a start and generally would help the OP more than a lot of the pointing at a Imperial armor book he might not have.


Still includes the risk of fluff from older editions, close to the release of 6th ed, where changes are ( as always ) rumored to come. I would wait till summer before I would consider anything that "ancient" to use as base, maybe just collect the sources available and drop whatever isn't compatible then.

1hadhq wrote:To my defense, I may add the WD's I have are localized and lack said article ( only 120 pages ). We got the termie IA article and young Ward's necrons vs Haines UM amongst other content ( yes WD had this ) but no CA/Zealots.

Aye, global consistency would have been nice. There's no telling on what people may have missed out due to this! :(

Fortunately, we now have forums such as this one, so we may at least share our knowledge better.

1hadhq wrote:He has a compilation of articles...without any markings where the pieces come from.

That bit bothers me, too. Someone on the web goes ahead and does a cool collage but forgets to add where he got it from.

I don't doubt that it stems from some book, but I for one would've liked to know which ones. This is rooted in my newfound doctrine to place differing emphasis on fluff depending on their origin, though. For example, I'm sure some of those texts are from Forgeworld's Taros book - the same series of IA products that want to tell me that there's a Sororitas Order with a blue paint scheme, or that hellgun lasers ricochet off of power armour. Nope. Adding sources to any quote should be considered standard etiquette.

While I can't speak much for Sororitas, I can say with some certainty that bottom left one and possibly the top left are from IA3. And hellguns are not hotshot lasguns, so they would ricochet off power armour.

I never played IG 4E, but I think the hellgun rules were:
24" S3 AP5 Assault2?

acekevin8412 wrote:And hellguns are not hotshot lasguns, so they would ricochet off power armour.

Ah, I'm aware that these weapons' Pen wasn't quite as high back then - I was just amused that bolts of light can "ricochet" off armour as if they'd be bullets. Imagine how it must look like when you have the Imperial Guard fighting Space Marines. Disco Inferno!

1hadhq wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

So you doubt the veracity of the Gue'vesa entries themselves then?

I questioned them recently in this fashion too to get some quotes into this thread as the whole "can't quote" affair reeked a bit of lack of access of sources and just posting from memory.
A modus operandi that doesn't work so well as you can see with my failure in frateris militia fluff ^.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I thought your objection was based on the lack of more current fluff.

It still is , too. But thanks, your collection of fluff from 9-10 years ago pretty much proves the point of it being not recycled the usual GW way, ie copied again and again and thus I believe its ok to consider fluff left aside as not a primary or secondary piece of current fluff, at best tertiary.

Cool, do you have something to back that claim up? As far as I know GW hasn't released a statement saying that everything that hasn't been updated is now no longer part of the 40k background.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Oh, but this is just more shifting of the goal posts isn't it.

Where are these imaginary goal posts?

* requests firing solution to get rid of these heretical installations, called "goal posts". *

Shifting goal post is what you call it when the person you're arguing with changes what they're arguing about. For example, your initial objection was that the old fluff for the Gue'vesa was no longer part of the Tau Empire background because there are no very recent releases that mention them. Then you shifted your argument to doubt whether there were any GW released entries on Gue'vesa at all.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Lucky for you I have a compilation of the relevant fluff articles.

So lucky I am. He has a compilation of articles...without any markings where the pieces come from. Can you remember? Or found this recently on a cruise in the web?

So the head on top is fan-made and the upper right most likely codex Tau or such. Bottom left some sort of thoughts added. I mean its not bad for a start and generally would help the OP more than a lot of the pointing at a Imperial armor book he might not have.

]Still includes the risk of fluff from older editions, close to the release of 6th ed, where changes are ( as always ) rumored to come. I would wait till summer before I would consider anything that "ancient" to use as base, maybe just collect the sources available and drop whatever isn't compatible then.

Unfortunately I don't have the Taros Campaign on hand, it was a choice between buying that or Doom of Mymeara. If you really doubt the accuracy of the entries you'll have to check for yourself.

But again, as I've already said, there is absolutely no kind of rule where older fluff is rendered irrelevant. This is only the case if it is directly contradicted, in which case the new fluff takes priority.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Cool, do you have something to back that claim up? As far as I know GW hasn't released a statement saying that everything that hasn't been updated is now no longer part of the 40k background.

Cool do you have a 'users guide' from GW how to treat their background?
No?
Something 'official' , preferrably printed on dead trees.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Shifting goal post is what you call it when the person you're arguing with changes what they're arguing about. For example, your initial objection was that the old fluff for the Gue'vesa was no longer part of the Tau Empire background because there are no very recent releases that mention them. Then you shifted your argument to doubt whether there were any GW released entries on Gue'vesa at all.

Didn't shift anything, just expanded.
Maybe my layout is bad, maybe I didn't write it properly, but usually any reply beneath a quote is aimed at the quoted post, not the whole thread in general.
I admit I questioned the existance to dig you out of that fox-hole called " can't quote ".
So no, the concept of goal posts is yours, not mine. The confusing layout however, I am to blame for.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Unfortunately I don't have the Taros Campaign on hand, it was a choice between buying that or Doom of Mymeara. If you really doubt the accuracy of the entries you'll have to check for yourself.

Could have said that from start, instead of promises of plenty of fluff.
I am sure I said the IA 3 is not in my possession, nor was it sold where I live. We had IA 1+2 and then a change to make them FW direct only. Not going to buy an out of stock product just to argue in a dakka thread.

Hazardous Harry wrote:But again, as I've already said, there is absolutely no kind of rule where older fluff is rendered irrelevant. This is only the case if it is directly contradicted, in which case the new fluff takes priority.

Sure of this?
Codices are tied to themes and those may change. You don't need contradictions to decide what has priority IMO.

The sisters examples in this thread had Redemptionists as playable part once, and civilian ordos as IG like advisors.
Then got attached to ordo hereticus, the inquisition. Where is the redemption at this time? Maybe after the CA article of zealots they count as. Next step is the end of the allies as concept and thus codex WD. A very limited background there, no civilian ordos and no sign of frateris militia or other enraged masses as related to the SoB.

Does it need a contradiction to let things sink to the bottom of the background?


I'd say the current fluff is written with all things ever published in mind and the actual image is what was picked from this. Whatever was put to the side, is put there for a reason.
I think the question is not if something was part of the actual publications of GW, its about the reliability of fluff once
published and never used again. Because there is no reason to "forget" a concept like Gue'vesa " accidentally ".
But GW exactly stopped to use Gue'vesa. Used them early on in codex and IA and left them behind later on purpose. Because the image they wanted to transport was different from what they began with.
Take Nimbosa or Zeist for example. Only Tau there with their major allies ( kroot,vespids ).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I am arguing for personal choice and you are arguing in favor of official ruling?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1hadhq wrote:The sisters examples in this thread had Redemptionists as playable part once, and civilian ordos as IG like advisors.
Then got attached to ordo hereticus, the inquisition. Where is the redemption at this time? Maybe after the CA article of zealots they count as. Next step is the end of the allies as concept and thus codex WD. A very limited background there, no civilian ordos and no sign of frateris militia or other enraged masses as related to the SoB.
Does it need a contradiction to let things sink to the bottom of the background?

In my personal opinion, yes. At least all the way from Rogue Trader to the 3E 'dex, we have official confirmation that the Sisters' background didn't change. It was merely expanded. Do you really believe that the entire sects of the Ministorum just suddenly cease to exist because they no longer appear as a Codex unit? That the Imperial population suddenly becomes less fanatical and is no longer willing to get whipped into an impromptu mob by their preachers?

From the Witch Hunters Codex Designer Notes, as printed in WD292:
"With this Codex, we've aimed to remain faithful to the rich history of the Sisters of Battle and the Ecclesiarchy, but we've also aimed to move the story on – not by contradicting anything previously published but by expanding the background in directions not yet explored."

A lot of people seemed to have misunderstood the connection the Sisters shared with the Inquisition. They were never "attached" to the Ordo Hereticus, they were still a Ministorum force that was simply bound to aid the OH as per the Treaty of Nephilim. Which, coincidentally, made them somewhat more independent than most other Imperial organisations, who are regularly called upon by all Inquisitors regardless of Ordo.
If this connection still exists in 5E, I'm not sure. The new Grey Knights Codex seems to contradict it when it says that the GK are now the go-to force for all Inquisitors, basically releasing the Sisters from their bond and allowing the Deathwatch to fade away onto the pile of cool discarded ideas.

As a sidenote, if there are no Non-Militant Orders, where does the Hospitaller come from that you can field in the Sororitas Command Squad?

1hadhq wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Cool, do you have something to back that claim up? As far as I know GW hasn't released a statement saying that everything that hasn't been updated is now no longer part of the 40k background.

Cool do you have a 'users guide' from GW how to treat their background?
No?
Something 'official' , preferrably printed on dead trees.

I'd imagine the stuffy the release as fluff counts as fluff until something says otherwise. But they also say everything is up to personal opinion, like Lynata says. So sure, you could have the view that in your personal version of 40k Gue'vesa don't exist, you could say the same for the Tallarn or Adeptus Arbites. It would be impossible to convince other people of that, seeing as to reach that conclusion you have to ignore established fluff.

Now, maybe with the case of "Nurgle has the Eldar God Isha locked away" anyone could make an argument either way, given that it's rumour that is not widespread and mentioned in the stories of only a single Craftworld, the conjecture there is intended. There is no such ambiguity with the existence of the Tallarn, or the Adeptus Arbites, or the Gue'vesa. And you STILL have yet to provide a reason why you think 'Old Fluff =/= Fluff".

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Shifting goal post is what you call it when the person you're arguing with changes what they're arguing about. For example, your initial objection was that the old fluff for the Gue'vesa was no longer part of the Tau Empire background because there are no very recent releases that mention them. Then you shifted your argument to doubt whether there were any GW released entries on Gue'vesa at all.

Didn't shift anything, just expanded.
Maybe my layout is bad, maybe I didn't write it properly, but usually any reply beneath a quote is aimed at the quoted post, not the whole thread in general.
I admit I questioned the existance to dig you out of that fox-hole called " can't quote ".
So no, the concept of goal posts is yours, not mine. The confusing layout however, I am to blame for.

Fair enough.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Unfortunately I don't have the Taros Campaign on hand, it was a choice between buying that or Doom of Mymeara. If you really doubt the accuracy of the entries you'll have to check for yourself.

Could have said that from start, instead of promises of plenty of fluff.
I am sure I said the IA 3 is not in my possession, nor was it sold where I live. We had IA 1+2 and then a change to make them FW direct only. Not going to buy an out of stock product just to argue in a dakka thread.

Well you don't really need to quote the articles in the Taros Campaign, do you? You need to quote some entry that contradicts the existence of Gue'vesa, which the IA 3 certainly doesn't. It would be like quoting a Grey Knights book to point out the Deamonhosts don't exist.

Hazardous Harry wrote:But again, as I've already said, there is absolutely no kind of rule where older fluff is rendered irrelevant. This is only the case if it is directly contradicted, in which case the new fluff takes priority.

Sure of this?
Codices are tied to themes and those may change. You don't need contradictions to decide what has priority IMO.

Of course the newer codex has priority. But there is absolutely nothing in the new codex that suggests Gue'vesa, as mentioned in the older fluff, no longer exist. If it had said something like "The only alien allies the Tau have in their entire force are the Kroot and Vespid" then that would contradict the older fluff and overrule it. As it is though the codex actually states that the Kroot and Vespid are certainly not the only alien allies the Tau have.

The sisters examples in this thread had Redemptionists as playable part once, and civilian ordos as IG like advisors.
Then got attached to ordo hereticus, the inquisition. Where is the redemption at this time? Maybe after the CA article of zealots they count as. Next step is the end of the allies as concept and thus codex WD. A very limited background there, no civilian ordos and no sign of frateris militia or other enraged masses as related to the SoB.

Does it need a contradiction to let things sink to the bottom of the background?

What? Both Hospitallier and Dialogus feature in the new 'codex'. But even if they didn't, nothing short of a direct statement or implication stating that they did not exist would be needed to establish that the civilian ordos do in fact no longer exist.

I'd say the current fluff is written with all things ever published in mind and the actual image is what was picked from this. Whatever was put to the side, is put there for a reason.
I think the question is not if something was part of the actual publications of GW, its about the reliability of fluff once
published and never used again. Because there is no reason to "forget" a concept like Gue'vesa " accidentally ".
But GW exactly stopped to use Gue'vesa. Used them early on in codex and IA and left them behind later on purpose. Because the image they wanted to transport was different from what they began with.
Take Nimbosa or Zeist for example. Only Tau there with their major allies ( kroot,vespids ).

There are plenty of Imperial Guard regiments that have been mentioned once or twice and either been forgotten or never mentioned again. Take the Savlar Chem Dogs for Armageddon Ork Hunters. You can't successfully argue that these bits of background info no longer exist because the newer codicies make no mention of them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I am arguing for personal choice and you are arguing in favor of official ruling?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal preference is your own thing, but when you start arguing your case on a board like this you need way more than what you've offered (which isn't much) to back up your personal opinion.

Lynata wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
Does it need a contradiction to let things sink to the bottom of the background?

In my personal opinion, yes.

ok

Lynata wrote:From the Witch Hunters Codex Designer Notes, as printed in WD292:
"With this Codex, we've aimed to remain faithful to the rich history of the Sisters of Battle and the Ecclesiarchy, but we've also aimed to move the story on – not by contradicting anything previously published but by expanding the background in directions not yet explored."

These are witch hunters codex aims. So what was the expansion of the background like in the following WD dex?
Did it felt like a loss? Did they keep the rich background? Or was it cut, because "wasting" precious pages of WD was unacceptable? I know they stuffed the BA also temporary in a WD. Its a good example how far GW is willing to shrink the background and as we have seen with BA, things may change.

Lynata wrote:
If this connection still exists in 5E, I'm not sure. The new Grey Knights Codex seems to contradict it when it says that the GK are now the go-to force for all Inquisitors, basically releasing the Sisters from their bond and allowing the Deathwatch to fade away onto the pile of cool discarded ideas.

But if there is pile of cool discarded ideas, why can't other ideas get discarded silently?

Lynata wrote:As a sidenote, if there are no Non-Militant Orders, where does the Hospitaller come from that you can field in the Sororitas Command Squad?

They come from the "i ll give you FNP save club"..

Consider this:
The command squad has only a few lines about its members and the Hospitaller has a bit more background than just a "oh and if you enlist these you get USR x " to it and the non-militant aren't mentioned at all in the fluff section of the WD 'expansion of established fluff'. I'd say 1 or 2 advertisements less and the non-militant could be in. But we can't have that, reducing 'content' ....can't we? ( don't mention the latest WD )

So actually for all these not aware of C: witchhunters your non-militant come out of nowhere and those who are not
Hospitaller or Dialogi are "new". Talking of the present here and treating the background like the only source was the current SoB dex in WD. Why am I going for this? Because there is always new aspirants to the game and we shouldn't assume everything from 25 years is still valid and has to be accepted until GW performs a excommunicate diabolicus on it. Its nice to know it all ( most likely impossible ) but it shouldn't be neccessary to find out about fluff from 10 years ago just to have a halfway decent image of anything in the background. And WH was 4th ed and maybe not on the shelves everywhere, like they had usually almost none of the sisters available.

Hazardous Harry wrote: So sure, you could have the view that in your personal version of 40k Gue'vesa don't exist, you could say the same for the Tallarn or Adeptus Arbites.

Could you please find worse examples than Arbites and Tallarns?
Tallarns out perform Gue'vesa at fluff so hard, no one would remember those helpers ever existed if there was a fluff competition. You know, Tallarns are in every IG dex, not as a sidenote, not as a secondary thought but really fleshed out. Like Arbites, who got BL to support them, Models from GW to buy, etc etc.
How can one compare one of the wellknown sources of IG Regiments with something that showed up just once in a CA article and never had models or conversion bitz offers? Really, get something believable.
Legio Cybernetica for example...

Hazardous Harry wrote: There is no such ambiguity with the existence of the Tallarn, or the Adeptus Arbites, or the Gue'vesa. And you STILL have yet to provide a reason why you think 'Old Fluff =/= Fluff".

When has old fluff started to become actual fluff? Old fluff is called old because.....
Think about it. If it was fluff of the current line of publications, it wouldn't be called old fluff. Sure any type of fluff is and always stays fluff. That doesn't mean the prefix "old" is for nothing.

Hazardous Harry wrote: It would be like quoting a Grey Knights book to point out the Deamonhosts don't exist.

I could quote the ancient pamphlet where Grey Knights were just a squad of Termies, to deepstrike in wherever the demon raised its ugly head. No demonhosts there, just the demons themselves. Sure only a few pages but still..

Seriously, the point isn't if Gue'vesa were part of a publication in the past.
Until you provide something to show their existance in any publication of 5th ed, I am not going to point out any non-existance of even the smallest and most unimportant creature of 40k.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
As it is though the codex actually states that the Kroot and Vespid are certainly not the only alien allies the Tau have.

To be "not the only" covers a lot of possibilities. No indicator any of those are humans.

Hazardous Harry wrote: ... nothing short of a direct statement or implication stating that they did not exist would be needed to establish that the civilian ordos do in fact no longer exist.

BTW, there is a difference between being 'not used' and 'no longer exist' and if you get off of that war-path to paint me as one who tries to throw the less supported into the trashcan of no return, you will see that I didn't claim they
cannot exist anymore but that my statement was we can not be sure if they still exist since their support has been cut .

I'd say the current fluff is written with all things ever published in mind and the actual image is what was picked from this. Whatever was put to the side, is put there for a reason.
I think the question is not if something was part of the actual publications of GW, its about the reliability of fluff once
published and never used again. Because there is no reason to "forget" a concept like Gue'vesa " accidentally ".
But GW exactly stopped to use Gue'vesa. Used them early on in codex and IA and left them behind later on purpose. Because the image they wanted to transport was different from what they began with.
Take Nimbosa or Zeist for example. Only Tau there with their major allies ( kroot,vespids ).

Hazardous Harry wrote: There are plenty of Imperial Guard regiments that have been mentioned once or twice and either been forgotten or never mentioned again. Take the Savlar Chem Dogs for Armageddon Ork Hunters. You can't successfully argue that these bits of background info no longer exist because the newer codicies make no mention of them.

The bits exist, but Regiments get lost or destroyed so I wouldn't expect GW to use the same names when the theme is that no one exactly knows how many regiments exist and where they are actually deployed.
Sorry, IG regiments will never work for what youre arguing for. GW treats most of them like one-use-only.
OtoH, this supports my take, that these are made for a release and not as a eternal part of the background.
Sure you could 'rescue' them from being forgotten and use their themes, but also there will be a lot of changes and no way to use the old CA lists 'as is' if you aim to field them in a 5th or 6th ed game. The whole set up of 'main' codices and sub-codices, codices and CA articles was meant to work in concert. It was never intended to be carried over to every edition afterwards.
The same with the background. Fluff is partially linked throughout codices nowadays, wasn't so in 3rd. Certain fluff bitz get expanded by BL, most of them marine-centric but still you can't ignore the fact they use the background differently than back in the days of codex Tau and IA 3.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Personal preference is your own thing, but when you start arguing your case on a board like this you need way more than what you've offered (which isn't much) to back up your personal opinion.

I need more?
Says Harry ,who had to be poked for days and hours to show me where the plenty of fluff he claimed to exist is and even then cannot provide a single line to prove the existance in the background of this current edition ( 5th ) of 40k in anything more recent than ( was it 9? or 10 ? ) years ago. I think you admit here there is nothing written about them recently and considering the re-boots lately, they are as good as deleted now.

1hadhq wrote:These are witch hunters codex aims. So what was the expansion of the background like in the following WD dex?

In this case you're missing the point. Codex Witch Hunters did not add the things we know from way back in Rogue Trader, because they've already been there. The point was that the designers specifically said that they didn't contradict and invalidate anything.
So why, based on this pretense, should we assume this is different for other Codices, when said contradictions are not even hinted at? Isn't it true that this is nothing but a suspicion of yours without any actual evidence?

1hadhq wrote:Did it felt like a loss? Did they keep the rich background? Or was it cut, because "wasting" precious pages of WD was unacceptable?

I don't think you "cut" background simply by not talking about it. But, just to clarify, you are advocating the idea that anything and everything pre-5E is invalid and should be forgotten because it was "cut"? Because I'm fairly sure I would be able to dig up some major aspect of the fluff that is taken for granted by a lot of people around here, but that was not repeated in one of the 5E Codices.

1hadhq wrote:But if there is pile of cool discarded ideas, why can't other ideas get discarded silently?

Oh, I didn't say that. As I said, it's possible that the Gue'vesa as we know them are on this pile, too. From all I've read in the Tau Empire Codex, however, I see no reason to believe this just yet, because we're still missing the contradiction.

1hadhq wrote:So actually for all these not aware of C: witchhunters your non-militant come out of nowhere and those who are not Hospitaller or Dialogi are "new". Talking of the present here and treating the background like the only source was the current SoB dex in WD.

Ah, but then you'd be making up your own fluff based on individual perception of the little information available. It's not wrong. The same thing can be done for Gue'vesa, though. After all, the most recent Tau Codex still mentions human auxiliaries in the Tau military. It just doesn't tell us much more.

1hadhq wrote:Like Arbites, who got BL to support them, Models from GW to buy, etc etc.

Technically, Gue'vesa have outsourced support and models from GW to buy from as well. Box of Cadians + Kommando Khaki.

It's been waaay more difficult to build squads of Frateris Militia, and just like the Gue'vesa they've been in the rules. In fact, there's a whole range of troops and characters that never had a unique mini sold but were available in the rules ... and the fluff, of course.

1hadhq wrote:When has old fluff started to become actual fluff? Old fluff is called old because.....

Personally, I'd make a difference between "old fluff" and "outdated fluff". Old fluff is called old because few people are aware of it, which is why some players may perceive something differently than others. Old fluff may in some cases be outdated, but its actual status is a matter of contention, because the studio did not yet indicate it actually having been dropped "for reals".

1hadhq wrote:To be "not the only" covers a lot of possibilities. No indicator any of those are humans.

But there is. Survivors of the Crusade are specifically mentioned as members of the Tau military.

Of course, in theory you could now argue that the Codex: Tau Empire isn't 5E and that the Tau don't have any fluff now.

1hadhq wrote:But GW exactly stopped to use Gue'vesa. Used them early on in codex and IA and left them behind later on purpose. Because the image they wanted to transport was different from what they began with.

Maybe. Maybe not. The IG had a number of Codices that didn't even hint at the existence of the Mordians. The Praetorians are no longer mentioned at all, even though they once had their own minis. Does this mean that GW wanted to change the "image they wanted to transport" for the Guard? Was it a conscious choice to leave them out? Or did they maybe just not include them because they aren't as important, yet may still be around?

1hadhq wrote:Fluff is partially linked throughout codices nowadays, wasn't so in 3rd. Certain fluff bitz get expanded by BL, most of them marine-centric but still you can't ignore the fact they use the background differently than back in the days of codex Tau and IA 3.

I don't see what could have changed. Fluff being linked throughout Codices goes way back to 2E, when the C:SoB talks about how the Schola trains the Storm Troopers, or when the IG Codex explained the role Space Marines play for planetary defense. Hell, you even had a friggin' Space Wolf story in the Sisters' book.

As for BL, I wouldn't necessarily say "expanded", as this implies a consistency that does not exist. BL novels integrating seamlessly with studio material or each other seems more like a coincidence based on author awareness, and less on Black Library or GW actually giving a feth about it.

"Sure, editorial prefers it when stuff ties in together, but it’s not a mandate. Everyone views the setting differently, after all."
-- Aaron Dembski-Bowden

At the end, however, I don't think this debate is going anywhere. We've already established two things:
- there is no canon in 40k
- the people in this thread are using different definitions of what constitutes "valid fluff"

So there is no official ruling and our individual interpretations are incompatible. That would seem to be the only thing we can agree on in here. Anything else is just moving in cycles.