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.

@notprop - I know it was a bit OT, but as the OP I'm not fussed as it's just a minor diversion.

notprop wrote:btw that chap didn't really aim

Yeah, but he would have had another 14 seconds to 'aim' in real life. I use speech marks becuase in essence, the infantry were only ever trained to fire volleys at a range of 50m - as long as your pointing vaguely in the direction of the big blue line of men you're gonna be ok.

You're quite right though, back on-topic if you don't mind me quoting a few points you've made:

notprop wrote:Volley fire might work but again we are probably talking about at least semi-automatic weapons, why would it be necessary? Even WW1 Lee-Enfeild could put down a withering amount of fire at company level (see Mad Minute - 15 rounds a minute per man = machine gun effect).

I am aware of the 'Mad Minute' but volley's really aren't neccassarily about the killing of the enemy troops - more about breaking the enemies morale and hence formation. In a 40K setting, you are right in that it would seem somewhat outdated - especially against fearless creatures such as Orks and Tyranids.

notprops wrote:Napoleonic theme the Officers would have bought and paid for their regiment

If I'm interpreting this correctly, you're a bit off. Whilst Colonels did take an active role in paying and equipping their men initially, the regiments were part of the Royal Household and were raised by Royal Warrant, even as far back as the 1670's. However, in 1727 King George II officially abolished these proprietor-colonelcies. By the Napoleonic era, only the purchasing of commissions within the regiment remained and this didn't have any effect on whether or not it was the colonel's regiment - it was purely an honorific to be the colonel of a regiment as it was usually the Lieutenant colonel who lead them on the field.

To be honest, I knew that the whole tactical concept of ranks and volleys would be null before I started this thread (I was just hoping the more clued up minds would prove me wrong :( ), but I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I can make this regiment seem intriguing and British Army themed without it just seeming like 'Oh look, yet another re-uniformed Cadian regiment'. I will keep the Napoleonic uniforms, but I'm not sure if they will look right on a model level if they fight using modern tactics but wear Napoleonic Uniforms.

Like anything in this hobby, it's your army so you can do what you like with it. Don't worry about and certainly dont be put off by my prattling, I was just bored at work looking for a discussion.

If you don't already have them the 2nd and 3rd edition IG codexes will have the Mordian and Preatorian fluff in it like others suggest. You can extract elements of fluff and look at their regimental rules and go from there.

Now I think on it the forces in Napoleonic forces would be more dependent on arty (and cavalry?); would a Kreig army list be a good framework for your proposed regiment?

Not sure, I don't game so I have no concept of lists and such, but I do like my armies to be as close to (I don't mind a few deviations) the fluff as possible. Hence why I was concerned that the IG don't typically use volleys (or at least it makes no sense for them too), as like I said, it would just mean another re-skinned Cadian regiment. :(

Oh and I was not in any way put off by your 'prattling' - I too was enjoying the rather more scholarly discussion than the 'SPESHH MARINEZ ARE THE BESTEST' that seems to be the meat of quite a lot of the other thread's debates around here Hey, if you're bored then feel free to start discussions of simply contribute ideas as I'm open to suggestions for this force.

I intend to get a fair bit artillery in to complement my forces. I was thinking of converting lighter pieces such as Thudd guns, autocannons, lascannons and such to be mounted on wheeled carriages similar to Napoleonic ones (but more... chunky ), and drawn by Tauros vehicles. They would probably be the 'Horse' Artillery, with heavier units such as Basilisk's and Medusa bombards in the role of conventional Foot Artillery.

I'll have to see about getting those codices just to get some ideas.

I think you're thinking a bit too much about the volley fire, friend. What is it that you want your models to represent? If you're looking for an "Napoleonic"-looking Guard army, and you want your fluff to say that they use volley fire, then that's what they do. It's your army!

If you want the mass ranks of platoon and battalion volley fire, then get an Imperial Guard Platoon - five Infantry Squads - and combine them into a Combined Squad. There. Fifty blokes all moving as one unit and all firing together as one. Volley Fire.

Don't forget, the Platoon Commander has the "First rank FIRE!, second rank FIRE!" order that he can give to a unit. That order is intended to represent volley fire.

It's your army, warpig. make your own fluff up. Why do you think a volley-firing Guard unit wouldn't work?

I've got a plan to make an English Civil War Imperial Guard army in the future, and the tactics of Pike and Musket aren't going to stop me.

Crack on and have fun, mate.

Cheers Tower, and I think I remember that you were going to do a ECW IG army as I was talking to you about it - Laspikes if I remember. I may reconcile myself and have it just with the uniforms changed. Having looked at the Vostroyans I don't see why I can't have fancy uniforms and dispense with volleys in favour of modern tactics. Like I say, the rules aren't so much the limiting factor, just trying to get my own head around the fluff I envisage going along with them. Anyway, sound advice mate, thanks a bunch! And as I said before - keep me posted if you get round to that ECW regiment, I'm itching to see how that would turn out.

No worries, mate.

Yeah, 'the plan', such as it is, is to kit bash Cadians with Empire Spearmen and Hand Gunners from WHF. The 'pikemen' will have las-pike (purely cosmetic, they'll count-as lasguns), and the 'musketeers' will be armed with lasguns; probably try and make the handguns (muskets) of the Empire hand gunners look more lasguns-ish.



Also, why do you need to 'dispense' with volley tactics? As I say, you can use Combined Squads, also, who's to say they're not Light Troops? They could be skirmishers deployed in open order.

Ah, the thing is they won't be light troops - I intend for my light troops to be converted Elysian Drop Troops, painted and GS'ed in the Green/Black of the 95th/60th Rifles (Rifle Brigade would probably have been easier to type there ).

I said I'd dispense with volley tactics, just because the majority of replies to this thread indicate volley tactics are severely outdated in terms of both 40K fluff and the 40K battlefield. Hence, because I'm a stickler for fluff, and because I want this army to take a kind of practical slant (Fancy, uniforms, but still with all the equipment of an effective formation), I seem to think volley's now won't be appropriate. Ugh, I don't know.

There's no real standardization of training in the IG. While the Cadians and the Catachans are the "default" images for the IG, the IG also sends men into battle dressed in animal skins and wielding stone clubs and spears.

So if you want to field them like a 18th century army with volleys of fire, say they are equipped with laslocks.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@purplefood - I'm not sure why all the British themed regiments within 40K, the Praetorians, the Pyran Dragoons etc. are all based on the worst aspects of Britain. It's quite perplexing as Great Britain has an illustrious and proud military history that really isn't rivaled by anybody - apart from, arguably, the French, who have just as long and proud a military history (Although we British do have a habit of kicking their )

Welcome to 40k. It's grim, and also dark. Almost seems like there was a word for it.... Seriously, though, everything in 40k is about the worst aspects of humanity. I mean, one of the primary inspirations for the Imperium is freaking Nazi Germany. The Imperium is far more horrific than the Empire in Star Wars, but they're not the bad guys because everyone else is worse.

Yeah, I've totally got the Grimdark aspect of it and I can appreciate that to some extent all of the Imperium focuses on the worser aspects of Humanity.

All I meant is that, when you see how diverse the IG is, you've got, Tallarns who are noted for desert warfare like fething Space Bedouins or Cadians who are arguably the most badass troops in the Imperium, holding up Black Crusade after Black Crusade or the Catachans in which each and every man is a Rambo - all of these regiments are to some extent lauded for their exploits and are based on some historical regiment/character/nation. Then along comes GW and just decides that every British based regiment must be dastardly and even in the general context of grimdark they must be extra-special snowflake grimdark. Which I just find slightly bizarre because there really isn't a great deal of historical basis for this fluff (If I use the Praetorian fluff for an example - which is clearly stated to be based off the later 19th century British empire). It's even stranger considering that GW is a British company - it's almost as if they are afraid to put in a good word for British based aspects of 40K...

Anyway, rant over - I'm really not that annoyed, just slightly perplexed.

.. it's because GW is British. They're poking fun at themselves and the culture that raised them.