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.

 Manchu wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The AdMech really, really needs their own codex.

Yes indeed. I often wonder why they don't have one. Is GW shy about doing another Imperial dex (or any further dexes at all)? Or maybe they're worried that AdMech armies won't support enough color schemes? They'd certainly be fun to convert, a lot like orks in that respect.

On the plus side, they have the beginnings of an army list in HH Volume 1 Betrayal.

Really? Another reason to check that out. And yes I do think it's because thy are reluctant to release another human codex. I don't agree with that of course the Mechanicum is barely human.

Personally I beleive should they ever release a 'dex it will be as revelatory as the Inquistion RPG back in the day. I think they will revel there are Puritan and Radical Tech-Priests too. Puritans would immediately destroy Alien technology as is Mechanicus law while Radicals beleive it should be "studied". Knowledge is Knowledge after all. Not to mention the split on whether The Emperor really is the Omnisiah.

Yes, you can find skitarii and other AdMech goodness in there.

I think the radical/puritan distinction only exists within the Inquisition. No one else is allowed to even begin asking those kind of questions. Outside the inquisition, you are either loyal or a heretic.

The AdMech doesn't seem to have much room for doctrinal divergence on issues of what to do with alien tech. Instead, I think (but cannot immediately recall a source) that they have certain authorized Tech Priests, probably vetted for orthodoxy and hard-wired for technical purity, look over Necron and Eldar junk.

If you're just a low ranking TechPriest, you're probably not allowed to even look at such things much less touch them. Then again, I'm sure they don't let novices work with anything as complicated as a DVD player, that's how precious tech is.

Well yes the Puritans are the ones in charge. All the low ranking guys are only aware of the official line.

Regardless, every codex faction has to have some kind of scenario where the faction fights itself. This seems to be the best way to introduce it.

Wait, why does the Guard fight itself?

Why doesn't it? Check out some Gaunts Ghosts. One of their most heroic actions was against other Imperial Guard.

No really, non-rhetorically, what's the beef there?

Pride, Gaunt was attacked by a man which dad he had revenged his own daddy upon.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
Pride, Gaunt was attacked by a man which dad he had revenged his own daddy upon.

No, you're thinking of a duel. The Tanith also fought the Volpone because the Volpone believed/were told they were traitors. (I think, it's been a while.)

Anyway just look at the timeline in the rulebook. It's replete with Imperial civil wars. Sometimes sectors even go to war with each other.

You are half-right. The Ghosts were attacked, by the Jantice Patricians a regiment of bluebloods, led by a son Gaunt had earlier killed in a duel for sacrificing his father. Then they attacked the Ghosts due to the son of the man Gaunt had earlier killed having a score to settle. It ended with Gaunt winning yet another duel after he explained the facts during the duel to the lad. Then the regiment likely was expunged or something, I'm a bit fuzzy about their fate, but Gaunt is a lenient man, so not something too harsh I suspect since he is Sharpe in space.

Ya, and later on weren't those Patricians massacred by the Vitrian Dragoons? Like I said it's been a while. Anyway, the point is normal human on normal human violence is the most common type of human violence.

If you were trying to be argumentative Manchu, you shold have gone with the Sisters of Battle.

Halfright again, the Vitrian Dragoons were the allies of the Ghosts, during that fight. But yeah human on human violence dwarfes any other kind of violence.

No, I just wondered why loyalist Guard would fight loyalist Guard and frankly the Gaunt example sounds kind of contrived or at least very, very circumstantial. I was wondering more about big issue stuff, like how the DA will not tolerate anyone getting between them and the Fallen. I guess with most Imp factions, it has to come down to some misunderstanding/lack of communication.

"The lieutenant said your regiment turned from the Emperor."

"That's what our lieutenant said about your regiment?"

"Us? Disloyal? That's just what a traitor would say!"

That's the siege of Vraks for you Manchu.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
That's the siege of Vraks for you Manchu.

Ya, and that killed like 12 million people. Most minor arguements in the grim darkness of the 41st millineum kill a couple million people.

Vraks rebelled. And eventually fell to Chaos right?

Yep, but many of the defenders thought for the longest time they were fighting for the light of the Emperor.

 Manchu wrote:
Vraks rebelled. And eventually fell to Chaos right?

No, a corrupt Cardinal decided it would make an awesome arsenal for his war of faith iirc.

Well, that was only the first thing KC. He then outright rebelled.

Yeah but the case was that many of the grunts turned against the light of the Emperor because their COs turned. And the higher up the command-chain the CO is, the more dangerous is the heresy. That's why commissars supervise them.

What happened to the Commissars at Vraks?

Shot or became enforcers for the ruinous powers I assume. Mostly the former, but some became corrupted as well.

 Manchu wrote:
Well, that was only the first thing KC. He then outright rebelled.

Sort of. It was more like he was declared a rebel. But he's still to blame because he was trying to have an army for the Church which is illegal. The main thing is 99% of people fighting on his side didn't even know they were rebels until later. Have you read it? For me, it is the quintessential 40K story.

 Manchu wrote:
What happened to the Commissars at Vraks?

 Beaviz81 wrote:
Shot or became enforcers for the ruinous powers I assume. Mostly the former, but some became corrupted as well.

Well there you have it -- we're not talking about Loyalist v. Loyalist with Vraks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Well, that was only the first thing KC. He then outright rebelled.

Sort of. It was more like he was declared a rebel.

But if the Inq comes to put you down and you resist -- surely that resistance is simply rebellion? Anyway, I see how the mistake thing could happen. If a regiment just showed up and told the local governor or cardinal "you're out" I think it would be part of that governor or cardinal's duty to the Imperium to say "by whose authority?" But if the regiment can prove they have the proper authority -- well, that's that for you. Unless you are a traitor, in which case your power means more to you than your loyalty.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Have you read it? For me, it is the quintessential 40K story.

No, I have really wanted to ever since reading Dead Men Walking. It's so expensive, though.

 Manchu wrote:
Well there you have it -- we're not talking about Loyalist v. Loyalist with Vraks.

Noooo, as I just said both sides thought they were loyalist. Also, I mentioned in the rulebook there was a border war between two sectors that lasted for like 300 years or something like that. Also, the IG codex is still the best codex to use for rebels too.

Seriously, don't know why you're making an issue of this. Seems totally random.

Any regiment that shoots its Commissars are traitors.

As Beaviz reminded me, the whole point of having Commissars is to maintain loyalty. You can also see in Dead Men Walking, that Commissars are also ambassadors to other regiments. The Commissars from one loyal regiment can evaluate another regiment by meeting with its Commissars. All that you can say is that, if one Commissar accuses another Commissar from another regiment of being a traitor, it would be a very serious issue for the reason that there might be a fight between the two. But surely, this whole issue is part of their training -- they're trained to detect heresy and traitors. Not saying there is no way it could go wrong but it's not like the Munitorum could not foresee and plan around these issues. Again, this is the point of the Commissariat. So the chances of everything breaking down are low. Maybe it happened on Vraks but it doesn't seem so. It seems like a Cardinal riled up the populace and the regiment stationed there turned traitor, shooting their Commissars.

You certainly have a different view of The Imperium than me. Pretty sure there's a thousand internecine conflicts in the empire on any given Sunday. Even if it only goes wrong 1% of the time it's still going wrong a lot.

There are thousands of inter-thingies going on all at once. Many of the stories of Penal Legionaries is about people f.ex. shooting down a fighter with something ground-based, and then discovering they have shot down a friendly. Then Penal Legion next. So in the broad terms Manchu is right, but sure you are right as well KC, but at a more limited level.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Even if it only goes wrong 1% of the time it's still going wrong a lot.

I agree with that, for sure.

Guard on Guard? Black cross AKA friendly fire incidents. We still see them in the 21st century. In Iraq, a US A10 squadron (pretty sure it was an A10 squadron...) strafed a friendly armored company (think it was a Stryker Brigade Combat Team) because they had malfunctioning blue-force tracking systems, and another friendly force had called for air support on "incoming enemy armor".

With regards to other Imperial forces, look at the Soul Drinkers. Ben Counter set a very plausible scenario for an intentional blue-on-blue action with no other option or recourse - and all because of the AdMech, too. (And Tzeentch, if you go that far...)

Yeah and Machu mentioned if two commissars came to blows. That could end ugly. Though I suspect one might take down the other, then the soldiers would take down the taker-downer.

Ciaphas Cain alluded as much, though his POV might not be all that good.