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.

Apologies if this has been done before.


Browsing through my AM codex I can't help but think GW missed a trick with a regiment specific type rule for the lowly guardsmen.

Nothing game breaking but something along the lines of how chapter tactics work for S.M. So +1 T for Catachans as an Example? Cadians have stubborn or preferred enemy Chaos?

That sort of thing. What do you think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know my Catachans used to have their own codex so I'm probably clutching at straws here

People have asked for this for a while or a return to the doctrines system. It would go a long way in adding flavor to IG.

Done correctly, it would be cool to see.

Fingers crossed they do . It would add so much flavour and help differentiate the many regiments at the Imperiums disposal

Doctrines were my favorite aspect of playing Guard during 3rd and 4th edition.

Now it's just what kinda vets do I want? I'm not complaining, but when I just see list after list of Demo-Vets over and over, it kinda bums me out. Hell, the last list I played with was all demo vets, but I also put in some CCS's to allow for it to Look like a platoon of vets.

Well, its incredibly unlikely IG would get anything like that. If the current trend continues (a big if, given GW's only consistency is their inconsistency), IG will get some sort of mega formation like the Decurion. If I was a gambling man (I'm not), I'd bet the whole formation would get some bonus to orders, then there'd be smaller formations for more specific styles. An armoured formation might get a boost in the shape of re-rolling wounds, or something.

I'd prefer a doctrines system, one with a bonus and a setback and/or limitations, but GW is heading in the direction of handing out free buffs via formations.

The fundamental issue with 'Regiment Tactics' is that with Space Marines, every Chapter currently in service can trace its lineage and tactical doctrine to one of nine Legions, each with idiosyncratic traits, while IG as a whole covers everything from savages with spears and ordered troops with muskets to elite, well equipped veteran forces airdropping into battle and dedicated cityfighters, via mass armour formations and infantry wave assaults. There is simply so much to cover that you'd need pages and pages of minor buffs.

That said, the 4th Ed Doctrine system was good enough, and would be welcome back any time with a few tweaks, but as said it seems this is not a style GW would pursue without restrictive and overblown Formations ect.

Sadly I wasn't around in the days of 3rd or 4th, only started in early 6th so I never got to experience this "doctrine system" first hand.

@Paradigm - I can see what you mean. I suppose it is easier to break down SM to a small number of founding chapters. But in a way you could do that with the "main" known Imperial worlds that supply regiments - Cadia, Catachan, Tallarn, Krieg (already quite fluffy n individual through Forgeworld), Vostroyan, Valhallan, Armageddon, Mordian, Tanith, Elysian, Praetoria.....I've no doubt missed a few, but I've only listed 11, that's not many more "well known" to add on, could even add a combined style doctrine?

I don't think it should be a carbon copy of Codex:SM, but something to give individuality to IG infantries would be awesome

What would make sense is rather than have tactics for individual regiments, but rather style of regiments:

Drop Troops, Shock Troops, Siege Regiment, Light Infantry, Mechanised, Human Wave

Almost every famous IG regiment fits in one of those formats, and while special rules for all of them would be nice, a more generic system would be more practical to implement and be good for homebrew regiments.

Bring back DOCTRINES!!!!

@MajorStoffer - I agree with the premise that the above would be easier to introduce but I don't see it as being much of a change to what we have now. Don't get me wrong, AM is nowhere near neglected to the extent of numerous other armies, but I just think it's a shame they dont cater more to the individuality of (at least the main) regiment types. I know they hark back to a previous era, but GW still sell distinctively different regiments - Cadian, Tallarn, Mordian etc etc. In the fluff of the codex it even emphasises the differences of their fighting styles from one another, I just wish they at least tried to transfer this onto the Table top in some way. Visually of course there is a difference, I just wish this was reflected in some "simple" rule changes/additions too. A friend of mine plays Orkz and he often laments for a different clan type set up similar to what I wish for with IG

another idea, and one GW could easily do is to put out differnt orders for differnt regiment types

Formations would be a pretty easy way to bring back those Doctrine bonuses.

Formations would also help GW sell more models too."Win win". I like the different orders idea. There's so many "small tweaks" they could implement that would add that individual feel. Heck they could even just release a new supplement-codex for A.M with regiment specific bonuses and penalties

+1 for bringing back doctrines!!! would make IG, IG again tbh. Some formations we can use outside of APOC would be nice aswell, things similar to what other armies are getting... Then you could choose the way you want your guard to be! even more than with regiment tactics for example!!

@aronthomas17 - I bet it would be even more helpful and useful for someone like yourself who's beginning to build their IG force too (going by your sig). There are some formations such as Steel Host (sanctus etc), but nowhere enough to what there could be to add flavour. I suppose I am lucky with Vet Sergeant upgrades with Catachans in comparison to some who have 0 "regiment-specific-like" twists to their force.

Did GW ever say why they removed doctrins from the IG codex ?

Exactly!!! It would be super helpful having little bonuses to make my small ig force have some advantages, when numbers are maybe abit limited for me!!

Makumba wrote:
Did GW ever say why they removed doctrins from the IG codex ?

As far as I know no reason was given. However, I think the reason both Doctrines and the build-your-own Chapter Tactics were dropped between 4th and 5th was that the system was very easy to game/exploit. Both were based on a series of buffs and corresponding rebuffs/restrictions, but often had no effect when actually building an army.

For example (don't recall if this was an actual one, but it gets the point across), if SM could take a CT that made Bikers Troops, the drawback would be something like disallowing slower units like Dreadnoughts. This is perfectly sensible and, in the case of the White Scars, very fluffy, as they have no/very few Dreads. However, if you weren't planning on taking Dreads anyway, then you basically get the buff while ignoring the drawback. Same with IG, some Doctrines disallowed Ogryn/Ratlings, which is all well and good until you get to the player who didn't want to use those anyway, so now gets a free buff.

You could argue that this is no different to Formations now (if you were taking those units anyway, might as well take the free bonus), though. This is part of the reason I'm not a huge fan of Formnations in their current form, I preferred the old Apoc ones where you'd pay a premium in points to get the Formation Rules.