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.

Whats the point of owning a catchan regiment or a cadian? Or a steel legion to a voystran? Besides the looks they are the SAME rules why? they should each of different attributes or something to make them a tad different! I at least like last codex you could choose doctrines but now they have no flavor. Wondering why GW did this lazy? or another reason?

Because they'd rather focus on producing interests units within the standard codex, then prop up mediocre codex design with special sub-list rules.

The current IG codex has a lot more interesting units, and whole lot more interesting ways to play those units. This is also true for the newest Space Marine and Ork codices, which dropped the special rules for their sub-lists while making the actual basic lists a whole lot of fun.

sebster wrote:Because they'd rather focus on producing interests units within the standard codex, then prop up mediocre codex design with special sub-list rules.

The current IG codex has a lot more interesting units, and whole lot more interesting ways to play those units. This is also true for the newest Space Marine and Ork codices, which dropped the special rules for their sub-lists while making the actual basic lists a whole lot of fun.

Hmm very true makes sense, but could they not do both?

Yeah, I agree with both of you, I wish they'd do both too. Of course, there's still such a limited selection of troops if you are not Cadian or Catachan that it makes it too expensive to play a mass list of Death Korps or Steel Legion even if you wanted too!

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:Hmm very true makes sense, but could they not do both?

It might be that they've assumed special rules for different chapters can overcome boring and limited base rules. It might be that playtesting the various chapter rules takes up so much time they don't properly develop the base rules. I'm not sure.

Like yourself, I would have thought it'd be possible to do both, but based on their past efforts it appears beyond them.

Jihadnik wrote:Yeah, I agree with both of you, I wish they'd do both too. Of course, there's still such a limited selection of troops if you are not Cadian or Catachan that it makes it too expensive to play a mass list of Death Korps or Steel Legion even if you wanted too!

Yeah, I'd think that whether there's special rules for different chapters or not, we'd all win if there was a few more plastic troop sets released.

C'mon, no one has a soft spot for the old Codex: Catachans? It only really worked on tables with heavy jungle terrain, but it was a great concept!

The old IG codex had doctrines, including special sets for the different regiments we have today... I liked 'em, but there was a lot of general hate thrown in their direction, much like the old CSM Legion rules. The popular opinion seems to be that dedicated lists are good (BA,DKoK, etc.) and minor-variant lists are bad.

Jihadnik wrote:Yeah, I agree with both of you, I wish they'd do both too. Of course, there's still such a limited selection of troops if you are not Cadian or Catachan that it makes it too expensive to play a mass list of Death Korps or Steel Legion even if you wanted too!

Yes your right they are more expensive . But if someone put rules that made steel legion different then my Cadian Guard army i would for sure buy them!

It would be awesome to be able to make the Regiment you spent money on actually differ and have some flavor, you would be surprised who would buy it .

I think part of the real reason is that all of the special flavors of guard just aren't as popular as the special flavors of SM. This means that GW probably feels they won't get a good return on an investment in a regiment-specific codex. As a result, we have Codex: Blood Angels and Codex: Space Wolves, but not Codex: Catachans or Codex: Death Corps of Krieg.

That being said, IMO there is enough flexibility in the current IG codex that you can create an army that has good "flavor" for the regiment being represented without having to use a bunch of special rules. For example, you can field a mechanized veterans force for the Armageddon Steel Legion, take an Air Cav army to represent Elysians, etc. This is a good thing IMO, becasue to me one of the big lessons from the previous IG codex is that special rules like the Doctrines don't survive the transition of game editions very well.

^ What he said.

And in addition to his examples:

Tanks and Rough Riders for Tallarns
Masses of infantry and veterans for DKoK
Infantry with light vehicles and heavy weapons for Catachans

As far as I know, Mordians, Vostroyans, and Valhallans are all fairly well-rounded, so those would be even easier lists.

Hmmm makes sense so your guys thoughts are you can make an effective themed regiment from the army list stand point dont need rules for it.

It's all about how you flavor your list.

For example, I'm in the planning stages of a 1500 point IG Armored Cavalry list that could easily pass for a Tallarn AC regiment.

And to add more flavor to you list, you have the special chacracters out there you can use the rules for, but make distinct background stories and/or unique model conversions for.

sebster wrote:Because they'd rather focus on producing interests units within the standard codex, then prop up mediocre codex design with special sub-list rules.

Unless it's a Space Marine sub-list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ruckdog wrote:As a result, we have Codex: Blood Angels and Codex: Space Wolves, but not Codex: Catachans or Codex: Death Corps of Krieg.

Yes, we do have Codex: Death Korps of Krieg.

cadian regiments are well rounded but to make it cadian you would need to add autocannons and GLs but it could be infantry, mech ,armored

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Because they'd rather focus on producing interests units within the standard codex, then prop up mediocre codex design with special sub-list rules.

Unless it's a Space Marine sub-list.

You don't understand the difference between a sub-list and a stand alone codex? Really?

The difference is not always there to begin with.

Yes, Blood Angels have a separate book . Bully for them. It was unnecessary, as looking at the lists, at least 22 units are essentially the same unit, not even renamed (if you're lucky they're repriced or have a few different options). They might as well be a sub-list in my eyes. That's 22 out of 30-- now aren't you special?

Yes, Space Wolves have a separate book. Coolio. They're a bit more different from codex Marines, but at least 10 units are nearly identical. Black Templars, 10 units identical (out of 18). Dark Angels, 13 (out of 20), though both of the latter suffer from outdated rules to a varied amount.

So yes. I understand the difference between a sublist and a standalone codex. There isn't very much of one, when looking at fifth edition Marine codices.

I just want Real Rules so I can play my Tanith....

*cries in corner*

Yeah thats my thoughts.

In the end, I just scrapped the single Regiment. Bought some Steel Legion, Cadian, to compliment my Vahallans!

13th Irregulars were born!

Im rather glad they havent started putting out Guard Specific Codexs! I might be nice, but as the Melissa pointed out. You would suffer from an outdated codex. I refuse to play Dark Angels straight out of their Codex just because Games Workshop is to lazy to go back and errate certain things. Like, Space Marine Codex Rhino Entry overwrites every single Rhino entry out there for Imperial Forces.

Case in Point.

Grey Knights are the best Equip Forces of the Imperium. However they are forced to ride in an "old n' busted" version of the Rhinos. shameful.

Good job That's kinda what I'm doing. I plan on using DKoK models for my veterans, and Cadians for my regulars.

Though it's a pain to be able to afford all those models.

In a way GW used to theme Guard. It used to be that you could only buy certain combinations of weapons on the figures. For example I have a large force of Praetorians but not one of them has a plasma gun. You simply couldn't buy one. In fact when there were Mordians and Tallarns and Catachans and Cadians in print each of them was missing one of the following; Plasma gun, Grenade Launcher, Flamer or, meltagun. Also one heavy weapon squad was not available (Missile Launcher, Autocannon, Lascannon, mortar or, Heavy Bolter).
For the record: Cadians were missing Grenade Launchers and Lascannons- Tallarns are missing flamers and both Lascannons and Heavy Bolters- Mordians were missing Plasma gun and Missile Launcher and Autocannon- Valhalans missing Plasma gun and Autocannons and Missile Launchers- Catachans missing Grenade Launcher and Autocannon- Mordians and Valhalans were the only units with mortars*

* All of these statements are based on the 1998 Catalogue

Now you can buy all of the weapons with any unit that GW puts out.

I think it was for simplicity. I liked doctrines though. I have Vostroyans and I try to keep it just Vostroyan w/same paint for vehicles. I do have what I call my Harker's Heroes squad so I can throw in who I want (remnants). With the new codex regiments are really for the painting aspect. Next time the codex is changed they should add in the doctrines and the descriptions of the regiments like they had before. A couple pages on each supported army wouldn't hurt either. A separate codex for each is not needed.

One could say the same for Space Marine codices, too. But arguably the Guard has much more variance (there's far more worlds that produce Guard, and thus far more cultures that produce them).

I think a supplemental codex, "Regiments of Note" or something like that, would be a nice thing for GW or FW to do.. providing alternate army lists and rulesets appropriate for differing famous Guard units.

Alternate lists? Suppliments? Sounds like something ForgeWorld would be perfect at!

Oh wait.

Yes, Forgeworld has two Guard regiment supplements, yet that's only two out of a dozen or so. And they're forgeworld ones so some people continue to insist that Forgeworld, a Games Workshop subsidiary who employs Games Workshop employees are not actually Games Workshop rules.

And in my opinion they're the only two that even begin to be different enough to warrant a codex or supplement of their own.

Almost everything else works just fine if you just flavor your list properly.

Guard works like Guard works like Guard, with two or three notable exceptions.

You mean just like only CSMs and Grey Knights are actually different enough to justify their new codex apart from C:SM?

Oh wait, we have seven Marine codices, not three. My bad...

The difference between Space Wolves and Grey Knights is stark enough to demand seperate codices.

The difference (gameplay-wise) between Vostroyans and Cadians is not.

In my opinion.

SaintHazard wrote:The difference (gameplay-wise) between Vostroyans and Cadians is not.

Only because we don't really know all that much about them in the first place. A book/supplement about Vostroyans would provide plenty of reason why they're different from Cadians, just as the DKoK and Elysian supplements do.

So let's flesh them out. Give us more fluff on Vostroya. More books about Cadia. More supplimental material about Mordia.

Then once I see that they actually fight in very different ways, I'll concede that they need their own codices.

As it stands right now, I don't think they do.