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.

My biggest take away were they were a restricted guard regiment with a rubbish regimental trait, no specific orders, strats, etc.

A custom mechanic for a chaos horde army would be easy: 'Blessings of the dark gods.' Depending on the overall strength the designers want, invoke per turn or per unit for the obvious bonuses (attacking, one of the many, many forms of damage resistance, bad leadership buff, etc). Double down with some form of sacrifice mechanic to make the bonuses better (doesn't have to be their own sacrifice either could be wounds to a unit, or achieving objectives (Tzeentch), killing enemies AND losing models (Khorne), passing morale tests (nurgle- enduring the suffering, essentially), etc.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Eh, not really. GSC is xenos, IG is loyalist. A traitor Guard codex would be limited to chaos and would open a lot of options for chaos forces. Also, theyre supposed to be the most common chaos faction to run into in the lore as far as a proper army is concerned. Only cultists are more common than traitor guard proper and I think itd be a no brainer to have cultists included with a renegade/traitor IG force. The fact that traitor IG is still not a plastic army when GSC has its own plastic range is pretty baffling to me. If we were in the days of 6th-7th where you could ally IG with chaos Id understanding not needing a traitor guard book, but as 9th sits it really should be the next new army to be released.

Sell a couple of chaos vehicle upgrade sprues, make some traitor infantry upgrade sprues and 80-90% of the guard codex is good to go. You just add a few new units like a darkmech priest, some sort of daemon engine/tank, and something fun like possessed ogryns and beastmen.

Ok, but how are they going to play differently? That's what my point was in that bit you replied to.
How would a Traitor Guard/R&H army work mechanically in a way that is different from both GSC and AM? GSC has Cult Ambush and Crossfire mechanics that encourage you to take lots of cheap chaff to surround your enemies and they feature a lot of buffing units that act as lynchpins of the Cult, such as the Nexos and Magus, alongside more combat-oriented "assassin" units, like the Kelermorph or Sanctus.
AM is all about having lots of things, whether it be infantry, tanks, or artillery. Strategies (from my experience) revolve around superior firepower and having enough bodies to take a hit and still keep going.
What would Traitor Guard/R&H do that wouldn't just be copies or an inferior mix of either of these Codexes?

Depends on how "different" you want it. Didn't you play R&H in 7th? Was it different enough for you? If not, what would you change? If it was, why don't you think they can do that again?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Depends on how "different" you want it. Didn't you play R&H in 7th? Was it different enough for you? If not, what would you change? If it was, why don't you think they can do that again?

It's less an issue with how things used to be a more an issue with how things are now as back when R&H (the generic one found in IA13, not Servants of Slaughert/Decay) had an army list the Demagogue Devotions were essentially paid Regimental Traits. However, these Devotions would do more than just special rules, they would often unlock units for an army, which is cool and thematic but generally, I don't subscribe to the idea.
If I adapted them for 9th, they would be the 6 Subfactions each army gets as standard in a Codex (to be clear I'm not saying this should be what they are, just something similar):


The biggest issue would be army-wide rules.
Something like Uncertain Worth can be massively harsh on a player and it is a colossal pain to keep track of each unit's individual Ld values.
Covenants, IMO, should follow the Mark route, which while unpopular would at least present consistency across the forces of Chaos.
Maybe something like:
Fanatic Hatred - When a model with the <Cult> Keyword is removed as a casualty, it may make a single attack with one of its weapons against an enemy unit within Engagement Range.
I'm trying to be very very basic with these rules because that is exactly what GW would do.

I don't have a whole lot of answers because honestly I'm content using AM and am looking forward to the new GSC Codex. That being said, I do think people need to temper their ambitions and expectations with regards to any sort of LatD Codex because it is 100% not going to be what you think it will be.

 Gert wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Depends on how "different" you want it. Didn't you play R&H in 7th? Was it different enough for you? If not, what would you change? If it was, why don't you think they can do that again?

It's less an issue with how things used to be a more an issue with how things are now as back when R&H (the generic one found in IA13, not Servants of Slaughert/Decay) had an army list the Demagogue Devotions were essentially paid Regimental Traits. However, these Devotions would do more than just special rules, they would often unlock units for an army, which is cool and thematic but generally, I don't subscribe to the idea.
If I adapted them for 9th, they would be the 6 Subfactions each army gets as standard in a Codex (to be clear I'm not saying this should be what they are, just something similar):

Spoiler:

Replace the <Cult> Keyword with one of the following if your detachment is Battle-forged:
Witch Cult - <Psyker> units in this detachment may roll an extra dice when taking a Psychic test and discard the highest. Additionally, units with the <Covenant of Khorne> Keyword cannot be taken in this detachment and one Compulsory HQ slot must be filled by a Rogue Witch.
Mutant Uprising - <Cult> units in this detachment cause -1 to the morale of enemy models in Engagement Range.
Revolutionary Horde - <Cult> units in this detachment do not suffer modifiers to morale from damage taken from Shooting attacks. Additionally, for every unit with the <Vehicle> Keyword, 3 units with the <Infantry> Keyword must be taken.
Devoted Congregation - <Cult> units in this detachment may reroll failed To Hit rolls of a 1 in the Combat Phase. Additionally, one Compulsory HQ slot in a Devoted Congregation detachment must be filled by a Heretic Preacher.
Heretek Clan - <Vehicle> units in this detachment treat attacks with an AP of -1 as having AP 0. Additionally, one Compulsory HW slot in a Heretek Clan detachment must be filled by a Heretek Magos.
Traitor Militarum - <Cult> units in this detachment add +1 to their Leadership value and may re-roll failed To Hit rolls when within 6" of a Traitor Militarum Demagogue. Additionally, at least half of a Traitor Militarum's Compulsory Troops slots must be filled by Renegade Militia units.

The biggest issue would be army-wide rules.
Something like Uncertain Worth can be massively harsh on a player and it is a colossal pain to keep track of each unit's individual Ld values.
Covenants, IMO, should follow the Mark route, which while unpopular would at least present consistency across the forces of Chaos.
Maybe something like:
Fanatic Hatred - When a model with the <Cult> Keyword is removed as a casualty, it may make a single attack with one of its weapons against an enemy unit within Engagement Range.
I'm trying to be very very basic with these rules because that is exactly what GW would do.

I don't have a whole lot of answers because honestly I'm content using AM and am looking forward to the new GSC Codex. That being said, I do think people need to temper their ambitions and expectations with regards to any sort of LatD Codex because it is 100% not going to be what you think it will be.

So, it isn't that difficult. You came up with a fairly decent framework yourself. I don't think anyone expects a 1 to 1 copy of the LatD or R&H lists, the game has changed too much since those existed, but they could do a decent set for 9th that works differently enough from Guard and GSC to not be a carbon copy. Just adding strategems, Warlord traits etc to the Legends R&H rules would go a long way. It would be similar to the Guard, but all of the various space marine factions are similar as well, but that's fine as long as there are enough differences between them.

And I still think something like LatD/R&H is on the way. We've both been wondering what CSM need all of those "mortal" units for, afterall, haven't we?

 Gert wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Eh, not really. GSC is xenos, IG is loyalist. A traitor Guard codex would be limited to chaos and would open a lot of options for chaos forces. Also, theyre supposed to be the most common chaos faction to run into in the lore as far as a proper army is concerned. Only cultists are more common than traitor guard proper and I think itd be a no brainer to have cultists included with a renegade/traitor IG force. The fact that traitor IG is still not a plastic army when GSC has its own plastic range is pretty baffling to me. If we were in the days of 6th-7th where you could ally IG with chaos Id understanding not needing a traitor guard book, but as 9th sits it really should be the next new army to be released.

Sell a couple of chaos vehicle upgrade sprues, make some traitor infantry upgrade sprues and 80-90% of the guard codex is good to go. You just add a few new units like a darkmech priest, some sort of daemon engine/tank, and something fun like possessed ogryns and beastmen.

Ok, but how are they going to play differently? That's what my point was in that bit you replied to.
How would a Traitor Guard/R&H army work mechanically in a way that is different from both GSC and AM? GSC has Cult Ambush and Crossfire mechanics that encourage you to take lots of cheap chaff to surround your enemies and they feature a lot of buffing units that act as lynchpins of the Cult, such as the Nexos and Magus, alongside more combat-oriented "assassin" units, like the Kelermorph or Sanctus.
AM is all about having lots of things, whether it be infantry, tanks, or artillery. Strategies (from my experience) revolve around superior firepower and having enough bodies to take a hit and still keep going.
What would Traitor Guard/R&H do that wouldn't just be copies or an inferior mix of either of these Codexes?

Then sprinkle in a few chaos marine options like a chaos marine lord, sorceror, possessed, and maybe some of the daemon engines, and you have the makings of a pretty fleshed out codex.

Adding in CSM units doesn't flesh out the Codex, it just adds in stuff that won't interact in any way making them worthless.

what a load of bs, you can take a look at IA13 for how it played and should play, that was plenty its own thing enough to not step on peoples toes.
as seen by your own comment.

Not Online!!! wrote:


what a load of bs, you can take a look at IA13 for how it played and should play, that was plenty its own thing enough to not step on peoples toes.
as seen by your own comment.

While I'm inclined to agree, I do know that a lot of Guard players felt like the R&H list in IA13 invalidated them. A common complaint I heard was "Guard, but better and more customizable." And while it didn't have orders, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


what a load of bs, you can take a look at IA13 for how it played and should play, that was plenty its own thing enough to not step on peoples toes.
as seen by your own comment.

While I'm inclined to agree, I do know that a lot of Guard players felt like the R&H list in IA13 invalidated them. A common complaint I heard was "Guard, but better and more customizable." And while it didn't have orders, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment.

See, but the thing is that the R&H players? They just don't seem to give a flying fig. They knew they had it way too good for what the lists were.

GSC players were a similar lot when it came to the Brood Brothers system and the profiles baked into the book. That they seemed to expect things to remain exactly the same was ludicrous.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


what a load of bs, you can take a look at IA13 for how it played and should play, that was plenty its own thing enough to not step on peoples toes.
as seen by your own comment.

While I'm inclined to agree, I do know that a lot of Guard players felt like the R&H list in IA13 invalidated them. A common complaint I heard was "Guard, but better and more customizable." And while it didn't have orders, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment.

See, but the thing is that the R&H players? They just don't seem to give a flying fig. They knew they had it way too good for what the lists were.

GSC players were a similar lot when it came to the Brood Brothers system and the profiles baked into the book. That they seemed to expect things to remain exactly the same was ludicrous.

Lol envious much? And Way too good? For an expensive book? Sorry that said book unlike guard was written by people that cared and didn't just want leafblower V.xyz



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 morganfreeman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


what a load of bs, you can take a look at IA13 for how it played and should play, that was plenty its own thing enough to not step on peoples toes.
as seen by your own comment.

While I'm inclined to agree, I do know that a lot of Guard players felt like the R&H list in IA13 invalidated them. A common complaint I heard was "Guard, but better and more customizable." And while it didn't have orders, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment.

Inaccurate at best, considering armorvalues , troop stats etc.
Sure you could make a propper pdf and nothing really above that reaching into guard territory but nothing as disciplined as guard and you got heavily taxed for vets so the veteran chaos Style lists played not only differently but where smaller with certain twists on it.

Oh well if your book was expensive, that's totally okay!

That's the kind of posting that made me not feel sympathetic, at all, when the army got dropped.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh well if your book was expensive, that's totally okay!

That's the kind of posting that made me not feel sympathetic, at all, when the army got dropped.

Your sympathy is not needed, indeed your opinion not asked considering your own opinions on guard were also not asked for in other threads especially funnily enough at the time not by other guard players

And just because you are envious of another army due to better design doesn't make your "schadenfreude" anything called for,btw News Flash other armies got even worse shafted over time rules and designwise then guard. But sure complain about certain factions stepping on other factions toes.

Yet all you do is moan when either gsc expect a working guard Part via broobrothers as is in their Lore or when r&h players want a working list either

Not Online!!! wrote:

Inaccurate at best, considering armorvalues , troop stats etc.
Sure you could make a propper pdf and nothing really above that reaching into guard territory but nothing as disciplined as guard and you got heavily taxed for vets so the veteran chaos Style lists played not only differently but where smaller with certain twists on it.

Saying they couldn't do anything as "disciplined as guard" is kind of being willfully ignorant though.

Guard, for example, do not give a flying feth about their guardsmen. bs3 vs bs2? 5+ armor save vs - (or +6)? Those things were, and are, functionally useless for guard players. Yet they still had to pay points for them.

R&H could be played as a straight guard army pretty much, in which case yes. The lack of orders, slightly worse equipment, and lack of reliable moral did indeed make them "guard, but more rabble than regiment." The issue for IG players at the time came with their ability to do so much more.

Not having to pay for useless gear on your chaff was huge. R&H could flood the board in a way that Guard, and even Nids, could only dream of if they wanted to. Alternatively they could save points on worthless upgrades on their chaff and invest it into heavy hitters which Guard simply didn't have as options. Things like getting more template tanks / batteries for substantially cheaper (which didn't care about the worse BS - but even if they did, it was insanely cheap to give them guard level shooting skill), building effective melee lists with Renegade Ogryn, or even going vet-heavy with plenty of disciplines to play like vet-heavy guard, but again with cheaper chaff and transports.

Everything Guard could do, R&H could do better with more focused list building via their slew of optional upgrades to put them on "guard" level, meaning they only spent points on the stuff that mattered. And they had numerous options which were potent, or just plain fun, which guard couldn't even dream of.

It was a similar issue to Space Wolves in most iterations of the game. Where they were, in every sense of the word, just "Space Marines +1" because they were better at everything for the same points cost, and also had tactical options which standard marines didn't have.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Inaccurate at best, considering armorvalues , troop stats etc.
Sure you could make a propper pdf and nothing really above that reaching into guard territory but nothing as disciplined as guard and you got heavily taxed for vets so the veteran chaos Style lists played not only differently but where smaller with certain twists on it.

Saying they couldn't do anything as "disciplined as guard" is kind of being willfully ignorant though.

i got the list thank you, no you can't do normal guard level disciplined regiments especially due to a lack of orders and pricing of certain units required for it.

Guard, for example, do not give a flying feth about their guardsmen. bs3 vs bs2? 5+ armor save vs - (or +6)? Those things were, and are, functionally useless for guard players. Yet they still had to pay points for them.

So does everyone else for their infantry. That is a non argument.

R&H could be played as a straight guard army pretty much, in which case yes. The lack of orders, slightly worse equipment, and lack of reliable moral did indeed make them "guard, but more rabble than regiment." The issue for IG players at the time came with their ability to do so much more.

Yes, because as i also stated that the guard dexes have been hilariously bad since 5th designwise. So what, being envious of another faction isn't the right thing to do.

Not having to pay for useless gear on your chaff was huge. R&H could flood the board in a way that Guard, and even Nids, could only dream of if they wanted to. Alternatively they could save points on worthless upgrades on their chaff and invest it into heavy hitters which Guard simply didn't have as options. Things like getting more template tanks / batteries for substantially cheaper (which didn't care about the worse BS - but even if they did, it was insanely cheap to give them guard level shooting skill), building effective melee lists with Renegade Ogryn, or even going vet-heavy with plenty of disciplines to play like vet-heavy guard, but again with cheaper chaff and transports.

Unlike guard R&H however wanted to field troop slots. You could go preciscly one way vet build btw and that vet build was vastly more expensive than even the 8-9th edition hiked priced scions.

Everything Guard could do, R&H could do better with more focused list building via their slew of optional upgrades to put them on "guard" level, meaning they only spent points on the stuff that mattered. And they had numerous options which were potent, or just plain fun, which guard couldn't even dream of.

Again that is not the R&H players fault that is mainline gw not handleing guard propperly and just being envious for the sake of it.

It was a similar issue to Space Wolves in most iterations of the game. Where they were, in every sense of the word, just "Space Marines +1" because they were better at everything for the same points cost, and also had tactical options which standard marines didn't have.

Sure, except that SM players still have it vastly better than literally everyone else, ever checked the csm dexes since 4th onwards? This is what i mean, overblowen envy.
And i get it, GW did a gak job with guard, that doesn't however justify the behaviour torwards factions that are similar or chaotic "mirrors". In optimal circumstances a guard dex would've worked similarly like the R&H list but instead of demagogue devotions you'd have bought a doctrine which would've included Krieg style siege lists, elysian droptroop style lists, regular infantry, mechanised etc. with the rules support and unit customisation to boot.

Bitching however at other players or being just an donkey-cave to those which have their army now legended is a hillarious low mark.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Inaccurate at best, considering armorvalues , troop stats etc.
Sure you could make a propper pdf and nothing really above that reaching into guard territory but nothing as disciplined as guard and you got heavily taxed for vets so the veteran chaos Style lists played not only differently but where smaller with certain twists on it.

Saying they couldn't do anything as "disciplined as guard" is kind of being willfully ignorant though.

Guard, for example, do not give a flying feth about their guardsmen. bs3 vs bs2? 5+ armor save vs - (or +6)? Those things were, and are, functionally useless for guard players. Yet they still had to pay points for them.

R&H could be played as a straight guard army pretty much, in which case yes. The lack of orders, slightly worse equipment, and lack of reliable moral did indeed make them "guard, but more rabble than regiment." The issue for IG players at the time came with their ability to do so much more.

Not having to pay for useless gear on your chaff was huge. R&H could flood the board in a way that Guard, and even Nids, could only dream of if they wanted to. Alternatively they could save points on worthless upgrades on their chaff and invest it into heavy hitters which Guard simply didn't have as options. Things like getting more template tanks / batteries for substantially cheaper (which didn't care about the worse BS - but even if they did, it was insanely cheap to give them guard level shooting skill), building effective melee lists with Renegade Ogryn, or even going vet-heavy with plenty of disciplines to play like vet-heavy guard, but again with cheaper chaff and transports.

Everything Guard could do, R&H could do better with more focused list building via their slew of optional upgrades to put them on "guard" level, meaning they only spent points on the stuff that mattered. And they had numerous options which were potent, or just plain fun, which guard couldn't even dream of.

It was a similar issue to Space Wolves in most iterations of the game. Where they were, in every sense of the word, just "Space Marines +1" because they were better at everything for the same points cost, and also had tactical options which standard marines didn't have.

Might be overstating it a bit, but yes - R&H was a very enjoyable army to play. I liked playing them better far more than Guard.

I found them most effective as allies for CSM. Indirect fire from HWTs is an awful distraction.

Should 9th ed CSM get something equivalent to the Blood Brothers rule, I suspect that's how Guard units would be used. Plugging holes to make other units on the board more effective. The main thing that interests me is how they compare with Cultists. I could see a situation where Guard units are cheaper / more shooty, and possibly have more synergy with Chaos Lords / Dark Apostles.

So, after seeing GSC in play, I definitely have an expectation for Brood Brothers:

outside some real corner cases and basically 'protest' lists, there isn't any reason to use them.
Not having crossfire is just crazy.


If you want a guard army with a GSC theme, just 'counts as' some characters (primus=captain, magus=primaris psyker) and use neophytes as squads, acolytes as veterans or whatever.