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.

We also have the US Special Forces in Anganisatn.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, my dragoons will be sad if they have no rules...

Also anybody worried about the future of Marbo? I have never seen so many conversions in my life, everybody seems to have one and everybody loves making him and so forth. I hope he remains in the next codex because he is one of those characters everyone goes creative on and it adds to variation.

Lack of variation (anyone else sick of seeing cadian after cadian in one of the most diverse armies in the game?) is a huge killer for me, Im so over seeing cadians (and Death Corps for that matter) everywhere and really wish people would get creative with their guard. So hopefully they have doctrines to really help people branch out a bit more.

Same with the cavalry, I think having horses really emphasizes the variatey of the imperial guard.

In regards to special characters I also hope (unlikely) they release "unamed characters" so you have to give the character a name and background, along with your model version. Just something to add more to variation and so on.

I can hope...

You are sick of seeing DKoK armies? I have only ever seen the models once in my life, and that was when I visited Warhammer World.

Also the plastic Cadians aren't just cadians. They have the standard uniforms and equipment of the Guard, so have some imagination and paint and convert them as another regiment.

I still want to make a giant dirt bike army of Guardsmen for apocalypse. I don't mind if ratlings are cut (Still trash even in range edition) and I want to put a Lord Commissar onto a bike duel wielding plasma pistols while leaping into the air.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Chances are Marbo, Straken and Harker will not be in the codex, but rather in Codex: Catachans, or the Catachan 122nd supplement or the like.

Oh well, They should release a supplement "Custom Regiment" style thing, where the book has examples of famous regiments rules (and some characters) and then the rules for making your own regiment. Id buy that immediately. Kinda like what they did with the eldar craftworlds thing ages ago.

Why settle for one book when you can milk it for all that it is worth by.. Oh wait, there are only two regiments out there in GW's eyes.

 Bonde wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, my dragoons will be sad if they have no rules...

Also anybody worried about the future of Marbo? I have never seen so many conversions in my life, everybody seems to have one and everybody loves making him and so forth. I hope he remains in the next codex because he is one of those characters everyone goes creative on and it adds to variation.

Lack of variation (anyone else sick of seeing cadian after cadian in one of the most diverse armies in the game?) is a huge killer for me, Im so over seeing cadians (and Death Corps for that matter) everywhere and really wish people would get creative with their guard. So hopefully they have doctrines to really help people branch out a bit more.

Same with the cavalry, I think having horses really emphasizes the variatey of the imperial guard.

In regards to special characters I also hope (unlikely) they release "unamed characters" so you have to give the character a name and background, along with your model version. Just something to add more to variation and so on.

I can hope...

You are sick of seeing DKoK armies? I have only ever seen the models once in my life, and that was when I visited Warhammer World.

Also the plastic Cadians aren't just cadians. They have the standard uniforms and equipment of the Guard, so have some imagination and paint and convert them as another regiment.

There is no standard for the Guard, Each world is different.

http://theimperialpatrol.blogspot.co.nz/p/praetorian-guard-army-in-nut-sell.html This is what I have done instead of cadians, and I have at least 3 other "unique" regiments in the makings too.

So dont get angry, if you like cadians then thats all good, I just wish diversity and variation was emphasized by GW again.

Actually, calling it now, two supplments: Cadian 8th and Catachan 122nd or whatever the one is where Straken belongs to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
There is no standard for the Guard, Each world is different.

http://theimperialpatrol.blogspot.co.nz/p/praetorian-guard-army-in-nut-sell.html This is what I have done instead of cadians, and I have at least 3 other "unique" regiments in the makings too.

So dont get angry, if you like cadians then thats all good, I just wish diversity and variation was emphasized by GW again.

Cadians however are by far and large the most common template for other regiments out there though.

 BrookM wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Chances are Marbo, Straken and Harker will not be in the codex, but rather in Codex: Catachans, or the Catachan 122nd supplement or the like.

Oh well, They should release a supplement "Custom Regiment" style thing, where the book has examples of famous regiments rules (and some characters) and then the rules for making your own regiment. Id buy that immediately. Kinda like what they did with the eldar craftworlds thing ages ago.

Why settle for one book when you can milk it for all that it is worth by.. Oh wait, there are only two regiments out there in GW's eyes.

thats exactly how I feel, Thats why I look at the 2nd or third edition codex for imperial guard where they have 2 whole pages with row after row of different guardsmen (like tonnes) and even had converted ones in the picture section. But those days are gone...

RT Guard all looked the same though. The 'throw a dart at a pile of Osprey books' diversity of regiments came up in 2nd edition.

I think we're less likely than ever to see a 'custom character/regiment creator' at this point.

I'm planning some IG at the moment, probably no more than 1,000 pts, but I'll be using almost no GW parts unless some new kits blow me away. Victoria miniatures, maxmini, blightwheel and puppets war will cover most of what I want to do quite nicely.

 plastictrees wrote:
RT Guard all looked the same though. The 'throw a dart at a pile of Osprey books' diversity of regiments came up in 2nd edition.

I think we're less likely than ever to see a 'custom character/regiment creator' at this point.

I'm planning some IG at the moment, probably no more than 1,000 pts, but I'll be using almost no GW parts unless some new kits blow me away. Victoria miniatures, maxmini, blightwheel and puppets war will cover most of what I want to do quite nicely.

Awesome thats what I like too hear! If you love old style looking men perry miniatures does great plastics. I loved the detail put into those models. My army uses vox casters and plasma guns from GW only.

I cant find a picture of that codex section with the diversity. But its something I miss, along with doctrines.

It's from the 3rd edition codex, the green one.

 Swastakowey wrote:

There is no standard for the Guard, Each world is different.

True but there are standard equipment templates. The M36 lasgun and Guard flak armoured are manufactured throughout the Imperium on tens of thousands of Imperial worlds and form the basic equipment for the majority of IG regiments. In practice this tends to mean that many regiments look the same, which is handy for GW as it means that they can make a 'one size fits all' IG kit.

Personally I won't miss Rough Riders, they have never fitted in the setting and they have never been all that good on the table. I still don;t see whats wrong with Ratlings given how cheap they are.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

There is no standard for the Guard, Each world is different.

True but there are standard equipment templates. The M36 lasgun and Guard flak armoured are manufactured throughout the Imperium on tens of thousands of Imperial worlds and form the basic equipment for the majority of IG regiments. In practice this tends to mean that many regiments look the same, which is handy for GW as it means that they can make a 'one size fits all' IG kit.

Personally I won't miss Rough Riders, they have never fitted in the setting and they have never been all that good on the table. I still don;t see whats wrong with Ratlings given how cheap they are.

I. Disagree.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Guard

Read the first paragraph.

Many may have the cadian uniform but not most. In my opinion most guardsmen probably dont wear armour anyway.

And rough riders add to diversity, allow you to create more themes and so forth but they arent neccissary. But they are a source of awesome conversions so I think they should stay.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Many may have the cadian uniform but not most.

I never said that they did, just that the IG's equipment is mass produced right across the Imperium which creates a certain uniformity.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Many may have the cadian uniform but not most.

I never said that they did, just that the IG's equipment is mass produced right across the Imperium which creates a certain uniformity.

Yes, that degree of uniformity is lasgun, ammo, some vehicles, pouches, grenades, imperial guard primer and bayonets

Its all down to opinion but I see nothing wrong with GW bringing back diversity and so forth, fluffy or not.

Is this a new flyer? If not, what is it?

Isn't that just the Voss Pattern Lightning from FW?


EDIT


Yep, just an alternate view of this, the pic is even on the FW site, not been altered in any way.

It's a rear view of Forge World's Voss pattern Lightning Strike Fighter.

In fact that snapshot is right off of their website.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Its all down to opinion but I see nothing wrong with GW bringing back diversity and so forth, fluffy or not.

They simply can't. In 2nd ed they released 5 distinct metal infantry regiments with about 70-80% of the available equipment options for each, there is no way that they can do the same with plastic kits. The Ig should be highly diverse, it is after all, but I think that in reality the best way to represent this is to allow them a great deal of flexiability in army list selection and equipment options.

A greatcoat/formal IG kit would be welcome but I judge it to be highly unlikely. 3rd party manufacturers and Forgeworld will simply have to take up the slack, like they have been doing.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Its all down to opinion but I see nothing wrong with GW bringing back diversity and so forth, fluffy or not.

They simply can't. In 2nd ed they released 5 distinct metal infantry regiments with about 70-80% of the available equipment options for each, there is no way that they can do the same with plastic kits.

A greatcoat/formal IG kit would be welcome but I judge it to be highly unlikely. 3rd party manufacturers and Forgeworld will simply have to take up the slack, like they have been doing.

Not just in models, what I meant earlier was an emphasis on diversity, so regimental rules and so forth, to try encourage people to make their guardsmen unique. But they dont do that, its all cadian all the time (mostly anyways), so if they made rules and customizable bits and bobs in the codex then people might start converting more (a simple head swap looks great for example). Its rules I am more after rather than models.


Edit for new text from the above...

"The Ig should be highly diverse, it is after all, but I think that in reality the best way to represent this is to allow them a great deal of flexiability in army list selection and equipment options."

Exactly what i mean

At least fix my typo

I suspect that doctrines will make a reappearance in the new dex but it probably will be only minor variations. I don't think that my axe wielding techno barbarians will ever see a 40k table again :(

One thing that I really (really) want from the new codex is the option to give squad Sgts lasguns again........

 Palindrome wrote:
At least fix my typo

I suspect that doctrines will make a reappearance in the new dex but it probably will be only minor variations. I don't think that my axe wielding techno barbarians will ever see a 40k table again :(

One thing that I really (really) want from the new codex is the option to give squad Sgts lasguns again........

Thats something a minor doctrine rule could fix, imagine doctrines for feral worlds and so forth, It may increase GW fantasy sales...

My praetorians for example will fight strictly in a tight 2 rank gunline. Last edition I could get a bonus for doing that, now all I get are more casualties haha. Its just little rules like close order drill that can make a guard army look so different on the feild and its something I long for. (although I doubt many people will use close order drill but still)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes, I can see Rough Riders getting removed from the Guard completely. That means the legacy of the Rough Riders will rest with the only remaining in-print Rough Rider rules, written by yours truly for Only War (naturally!).

In that case, GG. I hope you made them awesome and badass !

He did. I'm GMing for a squad that rides giant dog-badgers into battle.

I'm not sold on "these entries are going away", honestly. I mean, Tyranids lost what, Mycetic Spores and a couple of special characters? That does suck, but as I understand it the Spore got dropped to keep third-party people from filling in the gratuitous lack of model, and the special characters get shuffled around anyway, don't they? For that matter, is it even a rumor, or is it just people getting nervous in this thread?

And I know it'd be incredibly niche and something nobody really asked for, but I'd be kinda excited to have Vets be able to assault out of transports. I tend to strap mine with meltabombs and point them at the closest giant bug in any case, that'd be a nice little bonus. It wouldn't make up for losing the extra special weapon, but oh well. They'll still have a place in my lists if that's all that happened.

 Spinner wrote:
He did. I'm GMing for a squad that rides giant dog-badgers into battle.

Woah. Dog-badgers are almost as awesome as weremole ! Congrats !
Are there rules to play weremoles riding dog-badgers ?

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bonde wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, my dragoons will be sad if they have no rules...

Also anybody worried about the future of Marbo? I have never seen so many conversions in my life, everybody seems to have one and everybody loves making him and so forth. I hope he remains in the next codex because he is one of those characters everyone goes creative on and it adds to variation.

Lack of variation (anyone else sick of seeing cadian after cadian in one of the most diverse armies in the game?) is a huge killer for me, Im so over seeing cadians (and Death Corps for that matter) everywhere and really wish people would get creative with their guard. So hopefully they have doctrines to really help people branch out a bit more.

Same with the cavalry, I think having horses really emphasizes the variatey of the imperial guard.

In regards to special characters I also hope (unlikely) they release "unamed characters" so you have to give the character a name and background, along with your model version. Just something to add more to variation and so on.

I can hope...

You are sick of seeing DKoK armies? I have only ever seen the models once in my life, and that was when I visited Warhammer World.

Also the plastic Cadians aren't just cadians. They have the standard uniforms and equipment of the Guard, so have some imagination and paint and convert them as another regiment.

There is no standard for the Guard, Each world is different.

http://theimperialpatrol.blogspot.co.nz/p/praetorian-guard-army-in-nut-sell.html This is what I have done instead of cadians, and I have at least 3 other "unique" regiments in the makings too.

So dont get angry, if you like cadians then thats all good, I just wish diversity and variation was emphasized by GW again.

the scotts ones are badass. Agree with you that theyr is not enough variation in the IG infantry.

streetsamurai wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bonde wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, my dragoons will be sad if they have no rules...

Also anybody worried about the future of Marbo? I have never seen so many conversions in my life, everybody seems to have one and everybody loves making him and so forth. I hope he remains in the next codex because he is one of those characters everyone goes creative on and it adds to variation.

Lack of variation (anyone else sick of seeing cadian after cadian in one of the most diverse armies in the game?) is a huge killer for me, Im so over seeing cadians (and Death Corps for that matter) everywhere and really wish people would get creative with their guard. So hopefully they have doctrines to really help people branch out a bit more.

Same with the cavalry, I think having horses really emphasizes the variatey of the imperial guard.

In regards to special characters I also hope (unlikely) they release "unamed characters" so you have to give the character a name and background, along with your model version. Just something to add more to variation and so on.

I can hope...

You are sick of seeing DKoK armies? I have only ever seen the models once in my life, and that was when I visited Warhammer World.

Also the plastic Cadians aren't just cadians. They have the standard uniforms and equipment of the Guard, so have some imagination and paint and convert them as another regiment.

There is no standard for the Guard, Each world is different.

http://theimperialpatrol.blogspot.co.nz/p/praetorian-guard-army-in-nut-sell.html This is what I have done instead of cadians, and I have at least 3 other "unique" regiments in the makings too.

So dont get angry, if you like cadians then thats all good, I just wish diversity and variation was emphasized by GW again.

the scotts ones are badass. Agree with you that theyr is not enough variation in the IG infantry.

Thanks, Ill be honest I paid someone to paint those but still Im very glad to have them.

imagine, the day when no 20 Guard armies are alike... that will be the day I actually go "good work GW, good work". Until then I will make do.

I think that the problems are also the player. It's really easy to come with an unique looking regiment, yet few persons do it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Are there rules to play weremoles riding dog-badgers ?

Given that a "weremole" would just be a person crossed with a mole, I'd say they probably could ride steeds. They wouldn't be able to see much though.

streetsamurai wrote:
I think that the problems are also the player. It's really easy to come with an unique looking regiment, yet few persons do it.

True but there is no real motivation to do it. Also when people say Imperial guard most people think "cadians". And i can see why, because its all GW promotes and so on. There are kids who ask what faction Im playing when I use my guard and I have to take like 10 minutes expolaining why they are guard and not some illegal models or race they have never seen. I think it has a lot to do with Cadians being the "poster boys" I guess... but it seems the future of the guard is all cadian... :( with a few Catachans sprinkled in.

It will be cool to get this codex. I been eyeing the Vostroyans for a long time. Although, i will have to take a power tool to the hat. The rest of the mini i like. I do like the the looks of the Cadians, too. The rough rider minis needed to be dropped years ago. Not well done and...well...this is not the forum.

Well that's the problem with the whole doctrine thing, as well as the variety of regiments.

GW almost outright forbids conversions at this point. They still allow conversions to a degree, but they'll only showcase 100% GW parts, which leaves you with half fantasy empire IG, space marine scout kitbash IG, Tau kitbash IG, and... that's about it.

I have a feeling for us to see any chance on a return of doctrines and the "limitless types of regiments" being represented in rules, GW would have to relax it's stance on 3rd party bits. Many of the most iconic regiments can not be made any other way, and as we saw with the chapterhouse ordeal, GW would rather pull it's own teeth out than allow bitz companies to market conversion parts.

As much as I hate to say it, I would almost bet money that the next codex will focus even more heavily on Cadians (and maybe Catachans) than the last one. There will undoubtedly be mentions to the ranges covered by Forgeworld as well, but that will be about it.

If they allow doctrines back in, people would be expected to represent their "doctrines" through conversions. Even simple ones like allowing your regiment to take camo cloaks standard (to represent Tanith) or allowing all guardsmen to swap out las rifles for CCW/Pistol would require massive amounts of conversions that GW kits just don't provide. And rather than release bits kits or add the necessary parts, GW will probably just stay with what they already make, so that 3rd party companies can't get increased business. After all, if they don't make a camo cloak part, that money is just going to a "competitor" that can make the bit instead.