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 I've been saying to my brother for a while... it would be cool if they actually put some rules around different guard regiments, so it would be meaningful to take catachans vs cadians etc.

So I see they've done this... sort of? It seems mainly limiting, like a half baked idea. Basically special characters only work with their respective regiments as I am reading it. Infantry has to declare their regiment, but it doesn't do anything (good or bad) directly for them.

Also, officers can only give orders to infantry from their regiment. This just seems wacky. We're all the same army right? This is like saying a general stationed in California cant give orders to an infantry squad based out of Alabama.

Hmmmmmm. What am I missing? Are there any pros to this situation, or should I have been careful what I asked for hah.

I suspect they'll elaborate on this when they do the codexes. Atm it's just a faction/grouping thing.

Seems to me that GW is setting the stage for regiment specific benefits with the release of our codices. Which I think is amazing. It really makes every regiment unique to play & creates an incentive for existing guard players to collect the other regiments. Really hoping we see stuff like chimeras becoming a fast attack slot for Steel Legion or maybe getting access to the rear firing port like we use to have. No idea why it was removed, unless it was for this reason.

even if not, it enables GW to introduce fun new characters that might be broken if employed along side one another that won't be because they won't synergize.

Ugh please no. We need less of those bloody snow flake rules that just leads to chapter hopping with armies without any thought about fluff. Just maximizing stuff you get bonus regardless of is that fluffy army or not.

tneva82 wrote:
Ugh please no. We need less of those bloody snow flake rules that just leads to chapter hopping with armies without any thought about fluff. Just maximizing stuff you get bonus regardless of is that fluffy army or not.

If I am not mistaken, its already done. Isn't Harker's bonuses specific to Catachan armies & Creed's bonuses specific to Cadian armies? As least that is how I understand the regiment keywords work.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ugh please no. We need less of those bloody snow flake rules that just leads to chapter hopping with armies without any thought about fluff. Just maximizing stuff you get bonus regardless of is that fluffy army or not.

If I am not mistaken, its already done. Isn't Harker's bonuses specific to Catachan armies & Creed's bonuses specific to Cadian armies? As least that is how I understand the regiment keywords work.

Yup!
While it sucks in some cases, if later down the road they give rules that manage to lend flavor and a certain playstyle to the regiments without making some just downright better than others I'd be more than willing to accept that I can't use some characters because those character's fluff and rules probably aren't a fit for the regiment anyways.

What would be cool if if we got like a list of 5-10 choices to represent the most common regiment types. I would want a "build your own regiment" table but that would probably get abused so meh. We'll see hownit all pans out but everything does seem like it going the "chapter tactics" route.