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.

So with all of the cool rules for IG coming out for different Regiments, I had a thought. What if someone wants to play using the Mordian Regiment, yet all their models are Cadian and painted as such. Then they want the tanks, which are in a separate FOC to all be Catachan Regiment, but the too a printed Cadian. I mean I would let this person do that, but they would get an eye roll. However, it is interesting because space marine models really can be any Chapter, even if painted a particular chapter color scheme without to much complaint as long as they don't have a bunch of Chapter specific markings (again I would let you use your Ultramariens as Raven Guard, even if fully painted and displayed as Ultramarines, but you would get an eye roll). But what are people thinking. Do you expect people to have the old metal models to use the Regiment? What if they are Cadian models with some mods and painted in a unique way? Could you use those models as anything? And what about Vehicles in other Detachments using a different Regiment, but painted in such a way that they match the infantry in the other detachment? Since most of the Regiments are in metal what do people think?

Honestly I think an eye roll is too harsh. Mixing and matching detachments and trying out new kinds of armies and making use of "successor Chapters" is exactly what you're supposed to be doing. The rules and fluff strike me as being pretty distinct. There's nothing about Ultramarines models or fluff that screams "these guys are good at falling back while still shooting". If someone wants to take their blue dudes with Ultramarines symbols on them and say "these count as Salamanders", then that's great. It's not like it's immersion-breaking to imagine that Ultramarines shoot and fight a bit better than the vanilla rules would suggest.

Likewise, fluffy Guard fight in mixed armies all the time. But I really don't see the problem with someone saying that their tanks are from a different regiment than their infantry even though all are painted according to the same scheme. Again, it's not like Mordians just obviously have better Overwatch on everything, fluff-wise. It seems perfectly reasonable for a Mordian infantry regiment to be trained in defensive fire while their tank regiment specializes in reloading their artillery quickly (using Catachan rules).

The main thing is just readability. I need to be able to distinguish your regiments mid-game. If all your tanks are Catachans and all your infantry is Mordian, that's fine. But if you have one Leman Russ right next to another, painted the same, and one is Catachan and the other is Cadian, then that's a problem.

I'm a Vostroyan Firstborn player. All my models are Vostroyan (Or support such as the Wyrdvane Psykers) and will be run as such across the board.

If someone wants to run an army like that, with different regimental rules for their already all-painted-like-Cadians force, I would allow it, but they'd have to bring a different detachment for each Regimental rules set and those rules wouldn't interact within the army.

For example, they'd have to bring one detachment for their "Mordian" infantry, a second detachment for their "Catachan" tanks, etc.

I'd allow it, but you'd be starting to tread into TFG territory instead of just playing your army as what it is: Cadians, or whatever regiment it is (Vostroyan Firstborn, in my case). I'd also request that you use no more than two detachments, as that's kind of a standard gaming rule in our club for games ranging from 1000 to 2000 points. Anything 1000 or smaller we typically keep to one detachment. Your mileage may vary.

None of the regimental rules are bad, so far. Each of them are unique, flavorful, and good without seeming overpowered.

I LOVE the Vostroyan rules. Longer range on every weapon I have access to on my guard, including tanks, except for shotguns (Wooo... ) meltaguns, flamers, and pistol weapons? PLUS the ability to shoot while engaged in melee without any penalty with an order that doesn't cost CP? Yes sir, may I have another sir?!

I like the other regimental doctrines that have been shown/teased so far, and people who like and play those forces are happy with their rules as well. It's a win-win in my book.

I look forward to seeing more guard, and more balanced guard, in the near future. Hopefully people who try to cherry pick regiments will be reduced in that somewhat by people only allowing single, or at most, two detachment lists.

Take it easy for now.

-Red__Thirst-

It depends.

If I see someone playing Vostroyan models as Catachan, I'll probably poke fun at them about it.

If I see someone running Catachan models as Vostroyan, same thing. I'll poke a bit of fun.

If I play someone more than once, though, and their <Regiment> changes from game to game I'll probably get a little harsher than poked fun - including accusing them of having no army loyalty! DUN DUN DUNN

That said, I'm not going to tell people to feth off, or curse at them, or anything like that over it.

And I will also note that I won't even judge for the next six months or so, because some people don't get to play often and I think the new regiment rules may take some getting used to for people to figure out what playstyle they want.

Personally, I am going to do some mathhammer and thinking and maybe a couple of weeks of gaming to settle onto a regimental doctrine, and then that will be my regimental doctrine. I'm too deeply in love with the fluff to do anything else. My superheavy tank regiment is the 2nd Concordian and will always be the 2nd Concordian, whichever doctrine they end up with.

I would be fine with it on the caveat that I can tell the Mordian Infantry from the Catachan Infantry (if any). I should not have to stop and ask "are these the Mordian-Cadians or the Catachan-Cadians?"

I'm never going to have a problem with anyone playing Cadians as whatever they want. Most people dislike the metal models, and don't want to field an army of expensive, option-less, mostly OOP tan-painted potatoes just to get the Tallarn rules. The plastic kits are cheaper, available, and up until *just* now had zero rules attached to them.

I pretty much draw the line at one of two things.

1) using another subfaction's rules because their rules are stronger (in the instance of guard because of what I explained before the cadian sculpts are the exception, I would have a problem for instance if I used the Vostroyan sculpts but wanted to get the Catachan rules because they were better, just like someone with clearly painted Ultramarines should probably use UM tactics).

2) mixing and matching for powergame purposes. I treat this basically on par as someone playing your "classic" Guilliman+Conscripts+Celestine+Assbacks+whatever soup list....I'm probably just not gonna play that guy.

I've found subfaction powergaming irritating since 6th, but it's the attitude. There's a difference between someone using particular tactics to try and achieve their army playing the way they want to, and the guy who just primes his marines gray so he can use whatever the strongest CTs are at any given time. it's a level of effort thing.

IF, GW had an entire range of models for each Regiment Doctrine... then I would be strict and say, that model is Valhallan, not Mordian (etc.).

As is. Idgaf as long as they choose a regiment that suits their fluff and sticks with it.

E.g. the Vostroyan fluff suits my regiment because they're elite and had great gear from a nearby forgeworld. The rules suit my army too (yet my models are a mix of Cadians (case of having to) and Steel Legion (because I like them)).

 Otto Weston wrote:
IF, GW had an entire range of models for each Regiment Doctrine... then I would be strict and say, that model is Valhallan, not Mordian (etc.).

As is. Idgaf as long as they choose a regiment that suits their fluff and sticks with it.

E.g. the Vostroyan fluff suits my regiment because they're elite and had great gear from a nearby forgeworld. The rules suit my army too (yet my models are a mix of Cadians (case of having to) and Steel Legion (because I like them)).

See this is fine.

My Superheavy Tank Regiment has to choose between Tallarn, Catachan, Valhallan, or Vostroyan rules, because they each fit the fluff of my regiment rather well. The infantry (what little I have) are merely the household bodyguard of Katerina Malinenko, the Regimental Commander - I am using Solar Auxilia models. They could be anything.

Once I do pick, however, I'm intending to stay that way come hell or high water.

I'm in kind of a rough spot, as I have a platoon of several regiments. This was because with 7th and back, platoons were huge things and could easily blend on the table. Telling my opponent "the Valhallans are one platoon, the catachans another, and the Cadians a 3rd" made it easier for my opponent to tell where one unit began and another ended and also matched my background that they were a bunch of scattered survivors combined into a single catch-all regiment. Now, I lack the numbers to fill a single detachment at much more than 6-700pts per regiment, so I'm probably going to have to run several batallions to field my army "correctly".

I'm going to talk to my friends and see what would be easiest on them, I may pick one tactic and say they all follow it, or I may play each regiment RAW. My local playerbase has a hard enough time understanding what a commissar is compared to guardsmen so odds are I'll have to do the former, but it would be fun to see each regiment type on the table contributing different things to the fight. I just dont want to confuse a player with the classic "these muscley guys get +1 strength but these space Russians cut their battleshock in half and the Cadians get reroll 1's" shenanigans.

That in mind I'd be pretty lenient, as long as you've made an honest effort and keep things consistent. If you're running Cadians as Valhallans, ALL of your Cadians better be Valhallans, and I shouldn't see Creed unless he's proxied as a normal commander. For the most part I think everyone is happy with their traits, odds are if you collected a regiment you wanted to play them like their lore suggested, so most regiment traits shouldn't be a surprise, but I could see someone expecting +1 was their mordians or Carapace options for their vostroyans wanting to try a different trait at least once or twice.

I wouldn't care if someone were using Cadians as different regiments, as long as everything were still pretty much WYSIWYG and they weren't trying to pull any shenanigans like passing units from one detachment off as another mid game or something like that.

On the other hand, if they wanted to go all out with unique units and wargear options available to only one regiment then they should just bite the bullet and model them that way. That's my opinion, anyway.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'm in kind of a rough spot, as I have a platoon of several regiments. This was because with 7th and back, platoons were huge things and could easily blend on the table. Telling my opponent "the Valhallans are one platoon, the catachans another, and the Cadians a 3rd" made it easier for my opponent to tell where one unit began and another ended and also matched my background that they were a bunch of scattered survivors combined into a single catch-all regiment. Now, I lack the numbers to fill a single detachment at much more than 6-700pts per regiment, so I'm probably going to have to run several batallions to field my army "correctly".

I'm going to talk to my friends and see what would be easiest on them, I may pick one tactic and say they all follow it, or I may play each regiment RAW. My local playerbase has a hard enough time understanding what a commissar is compared to guardsmen so odds are I'll have to do the former, but it would be fun to see each regiment type on the table contributing different things to the fight. I just dont want to confuse a player with the classic "these muscley guys get +1 strength but these space Russians cut their battleshock in half and the Cadians get reroll 1's" shenanigans.

That in mind I'd be pretty lenient, as long as you've made an honest effort and keep things consistent. If you're running Cadians as Valhallans, ALL of your Cadians better be Valhallans, and I shouldn't see Creed unless he's proxied as a normal commander. For the most part I think everyone is happy with their traits, odds are if you collected a regiment you wanted to play them like their lore suggested, so most regiment traits shouldn't be a surprise, but I could see someone expecting +1 was their mordians or Carapace options for their vostroyans wanting to try a different trait at least once or twice.

If your platoons were 3 squads each, just run them as their separate battalion detachments.

This is kind of why, like i brought up about Space Marine Chapter Tactics and Legion rules, it's better if they just gave the traits nondescript names and say that "An example of this would be Valhallans" or something along those lines. You really should just pick the rule that matches your army rather than because of the paint or model.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when you hold people to keeping the same rules as the models, is that it favors models that don't have rules, because they can mix and match at will.

For example, I have a Praetorian army, which means I can literally pick and choose what regiment I am. (Currently catachan, because Harker is crazy good).

I'm not going to judge a person that has Vostroyans, because he liked those models, but wants to use Mordian doctrines.

One neat idea that I just thought of reading about Polonius's Praetorians:

What if Games Workshop, at some later date with a Chapter Approved, or something, either make even more regimental doctrines (Praetorians, Lucky 13s, Tanith 1st, 1st Koenig, just to name a few mentioned in the fluff that they could expand)?

Or even came out with a DIY regimental doctrines thing? Even if it's just for narrative play, that'd be cool.

I think it's silly to punish someone for wanting to play different chapter or regiment tactics. I never mind SM players counting as whatever chapter they want to call it, but then again I'm more of a casual player and would probably never goto a tournament.

That said, guard was my first army and the Cadian models, although boring to a lot of people, I enjoy the whole starship troopers aesthetic.

I think the fact that no one could quite foresee them turning IG into the new SM with all the chapter like tactics they will now have, and the fact that most of these models may be metal (eww) or OOP, It wouldn't bother me if someone counted their catachans as vostroyans for all I care.

I think they should have stayed away from explicitly naming these as regiments. Should have just been "Line infantry" or "Guerilla fighters". Stuff like that.

I personally like to use my own chapter/regiment/Hive fleet/Dyanisty/ect...

This way I just pick the effect I want for mine...

That said If I wanted to use multiple regiments I would for sure paint them differently so people can tell one from the other.

Just like I tell anyone who uses proxies, as long as you know and remember what is what, I trust you to it.

As long as you can tell what each units regiment is, that is fine.

The fact is that GW has no cheap models for half of the regiments so I will not fault someone for doing Cadians painted as Mordians.

Personally I would love to see some snow camo pattern Cadians for Valhallas, jungle camo for catachans, drab black and silver for Steel Legion etc. But I wouldn't expect it.

It's a game to have fun. Some of you guys take this way too seriously. Lighten up. Let people use what rules with what models they want.

Or don't play them. I'm sure they won't mind.

As with everything in this game, it comes down to intent. Are you trying out a new army? Are you feeling out regiments to determine which one you like. Are you doing a narrative game based around a regiment which you don't have models for...sure, whatever.

If you're just min-maxing every detachment to get the very best combination then you're not a person I'd be playing anyway - so it has little effect on me. Personally I find that limiting oneself to a specific army is part of the fun. It's more interesting to me to suffer the penalties of not cherry-picking a dozen different specialities to benefit from. That's part of the challenge. Same reason I play WYSIWYG regardless if it hinders me against a certain army.

 argonak wrote:
It's a game to have fun. Some of you guys take this way too seriously. Lighten up. Let people use what rules with what models they want.

Or don't play them. I'm sure they won't mind.

Some people are into "historical" accuracy and stuff and will look down on people for having a slightly off colored army because in 1865 they changed the flag color for some reason. people find that fun and you cant put one over the other.

ultimately its who you play with.

put effort into your army and no one will complain. start coming in every day with the same unpainted models but different rules every single time then you will probably start losing people to play with that dont share the same mindset of gaming over models.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This is kind of why, like i brought up about Space Marine Chapter Tactics and Legion rules, it's better if they just gave the traits nondescript names and say that "An example of this would be Valhallans" or something along those lines. You really should just pick the rule that matches your army rather than because of the paint or model.

Exactly.

Kind of like the Doctrine-rules of the olden days. You could collect a Cadian-looking force and then use the exact Doctrine-rules the Catachans use and then name their home world, let's say... Norway.

And it'll be all okay, as long as their weapons are wysiwyg.

RedCommander wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This is kind of why, like i brought up about Space Marine Chapter Tactics and Legion rules, it's better if they just gave the traits nondescript names and say that "An example of this would be Valhallans" or something along those lines. You really should just pick the rule that matches your army rather than because of the paint or model.

Exactly.

Kind of like the Doctrine-rules of the olden days. You could collect a Cadian-looking force and then use the exact Doctrine-rules the Catachans use and then name their home world, let's say... Norway.

And it'll be all okay, as long as their weapons are wysiwyg.

I mean, you're clearly allowed to do exactly this. Just go ahead and pretend that the doctrines have nondescript names if that makes you more comfortable, right?

Dionysodorus wrote:

RedCommander wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This is kind of why, like i brought up about Space Marine Chapter Tactics and Legion rules, it's better if they just gave the traits nondescript names and say that "An example of this would be Valhallans" or something along those lines. You really should just pick the rule that matches your army rather than because of the paint or model.

Exactly.

Kind of like the Doctrine-rules of the olden days. You could collect a Cadian-looking force and then use the exact Doctrine-rules the Catachans use and then name their home world, let's say... Norway.

And it'll be all okay, as long as their weapons are wysiwyg.

I mean, you're clearly allowed to do exactly this. Just go ahead and pretend that the doctrines have nondescript names if that makes you more comfortable, right?

That's what I've been trying to say, but apparently "it's not the same thing." Or something. Honestly, no one cares more about irrelevant details than the people online.

How could anyone possibly be strict about models matching doctrines (as long as it's clear to the opponent what is what) when GW themselves are endorsing totally custom regiments made by kitbashing? Are you not allowed to have doctrines if you have a custom regiment? It's a silly position for anyone to take.

There are doctrines for certain model ranges. There are model ranges to match certain doctrines. This is no different to using your Space Wolves as Iron Hands to gain an advantage.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to play Mordians, buy Mordians, or beautifully convert up your plastics to look like something that feels like it should play as Mordians. Everyone has the internet, third party bits are colossally available for Guard, and an actual box of real life Mordians costs only £2 more than a box of Cadians. It's all about making an effort to play to the fluff.

If you have an army of stock cadians, and you're minmaxing your detachments with different regimental rules to get the juiciest combination of buffs, you're a power gaming dick, and I won't be playing you. What the rules allow you to do is irrelevant - the rules don't force me to play you.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
How could anyone possibly be strict about models matching doctrines (as long as it's clear to the opponent what is what) when GW themselves are endorsing totally custom regiments made by kitbashing? Are you not allowed to have doctrines if you have a custom regiment? It's a silly position for anyone to take.

Yeah, very true.

I use Cadian models (because mini availability is an issue) but my dudes are not from Cadia. So, after I get my Codex, I'm going to take a look at the Regiment-rules and decide which one is the best match for my regiment.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
you're a power gaming dick

They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat. So luckily, I wouldn't want to play you either, because that's just not the kind of people I want in my life, so we're good!