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.

"The most diverse fighting force in the galaxy."

NO YOU CAN'T SAY YOUR CADIANS ARE MORDIAN TRAINED, THEY'RE PAINTED LIKE CADIA!

I can see some points of this whole argument in which bringing Cadian tanks, with Vahallan conscripts, and whatever other IG Alphabet soup lists some douche nozzles may want to cook up with for a WAAC list, but when you start saying someone is a power gamer for wanting to run their Cadians or whatever as a different regime when its pretty explicit in the fluff as well; I don't know what to tell you.

How about you just agree to disagree and not play these people instead of impose your will upon them? Simple. Everyone's happy.

Asmodios wrote:

Most likely most people simply won't want to play you because clearly you're only interested in power gaming and outside a tournament setting probably won't have much fun playing you. A Cadia painted army or Steel legion painted army that clearly uses those colors were intended to be used for that planet and is now being cheery picked to gain a slight statistical advantage in a game. I don't play board games to win at all costs or power game so wouldn't want to play against someone changing an army just to gain an advantage (no different from a black templar player saying that these are now raven guard because there better). A player with that mindset is going to lead to an unfun game and thus a waste of time for me. Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

Yes, because if they're green and tan then taking the steel legion doctrine to make them good at jumping back into transports is totally WAAC but if they're painted some other color then it's totally cool.

Maybe they're just picking the doctrine that fits their particular regiment's skill set the best? Perhaps being less of a judgemental ass would be an idea?

Do you also flip out if someone picks a different warlord trait but uses the same model? I mean, that warlord hasn't just learned a new special skill since the last game, right? What a horrible power gamer.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
"The most diverse fighting force in the galaxy."

NO YOU CAN'T SAY YOUR CADIANS ARE MORDIAN TRAINED, THEY'RE PAINTED LIKE CADIA!

I can see some points of this whole argument in which bringing Cadian tanks, with Vahallan conscripts, and whatever other IG Alphabet soup lists some douche nozzles may want to cook up with for a WAAC list, but when you start saying someone is a power gamer for wanting to run their Cadians or whatever as a different regime when its pretty explicit in the fluff as well; I don't know what to tell you.

How about you just agree to disagree and not play these people instead of impose your will upon them? Simple. Everyone's happy.

How is not wanting to play someone who is clearly power gaming (literally no different than having a full painted Dark angels army and saying "these are salamanders now because they are better") imposing my will? Imposing my will would be not allowing that person to play in a store or kicking them out. I simply don't want to play against someone with that mindset. If you get that upset about people not wanting to play you then don't clearly run the most powerful version of a regiment or a chapter even though they are built and painted as a different one .

Asmodios wrote:

Dont have to read a mind when you painted an army a specific theme and have now changed it the second a new codex is released to gain a specific statistical advantage. There is no mind reading, no pre conceved notions or anything like that. They simply painted an army to match a specific one in a book and now are switching it purley based on statistics..... its the definition of power gaming.

Heaven forbid that people make choices in army composition that are intended to make an army that functions well. How terrible of them.

Presumably you'd also refuse to play someone that pulled some guns off a model to replace them with ones that are better under the new edition's rules? Or swapped models between squads for more effective composition? Or, in fact, varied their army composition in any way intended to improve it under the new rules. That's all about trying to gain a specific statistical advantage. I guess the only valid army construction method is to select units and upgrades at random?

I think that's pretty much what was said. I played steel legion guard since the days the models launched, before that, armored fist squads. My models where steel legion through thick and thin. I could of played them in another setting and made up some story to power game but why would I,

It's terribly unfluffy, unfun and power gamer-ish. If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me. If your idea of competition is relying on dice rolls and skewed lists to win, I already feel like the gap in what you consider skill and contest is so sepearated from reality we don't need to be competing anyway lol.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:


I can see some points of this whole argument in which bringing Cadian tanks, with Vahallan conscripts, and whatever other IG Alphabet soup lists some douche nozzles may want to cook up with for a WAAC list, but when you start saying someone is a power gamer for wanting to run their Cadians or whatever as a different regime when its pretty explicit in the fluff as well; I don't know what to tell you.

Honestly, I wouldn't even mind people using a vehicle detachment from one world and an infantry detachment from another, especially in a larger game. That happens a ton in the background, and honestly is more fluffy than having tanks and infantry from the same regiment; that's a big no-no in the Imperium, after all (Horus is why we can't have nice things!)

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

That I play for the fun, friendships and enjoyment? I save my try face for something that doesn't come down to bad rolls and tailored lists.

 Spinner wrote:

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:


I can see some points of this whole argument in which bringing Cadian tanks, with Vahallan conscripts, and whatever other IG Alphabet soup lists some douche nozzles may want to cook up with for a WAAC list, but when you start saying someone is a power gamer for wanting to run their Cadians or whatever as a different regime when its pretty explicit in the fluff as well; I don't know what to tell you.

Honestly, I wouldn't even mind people using a vehicle detachment from one world and an infantry detachment from another, especially in a larger game. That happens a ton in the background, and honestly is more fluffy than having tanks and infantry from the same regiment; that's a big no-no in the Imperium, after all (Horus is why we can't have nice things!)

Fortunately, my infantry are all converted, nothing has a mark trying it to one of the standard worlds and my tanks are marked with a different regiment number to my infantry and transports. This means I can power game all I want with the regimental bonuses and the fluff bunnies will be fine with it, apparently.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

I'm not sure if you are trying to obfuscate the issue or you are just ignorant. All anyone is saying is if you come out with a very specific theme(cadian, pask, colors, transfers) etc, and they are magically now jungle fighters, it's apparent what you are doing. If it was a space marine chapter of bright red jump pack assault troops who are magically now no longer blood angels just ultramarines, it's obvious what you are doing. You are someone who will ignore hundreds of dollars and massive amount of time for a slight statistical advantage. People like that tend to not
Make for very fun opponents. I would love to hear the back story on your custom regiment, admire new color schemes, etc

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

I'm not sure if you are trying to obfuscate the issue or you are just ignorant. All anyone is saying is if you come out with a very specific theme(cadian, pask, colors, transfers) etc, and they are magically now jungle fighters, it's apparent what you are doing. If it was a space marine chapter of bright red jump pack assault troops who are magically now no longer blood angels just ultramarines, it's obvious what you are doing. You are someone who will ignore hundreds of dollars and massive amount of time for a slight statistical advantage. People like that tend to not
Make for very fun opponents.

So there's no possibility that someone with, for example, an infantry squads and chimera heavy army (definitely not powergaming there) might want to pick steel legion because it makes sense for a regiment with that specialization?

You also keep referencing colors - cadians will be whatever colors are appropriate to the environment, as will other regiments. You can't look at the colors to determine if they're supposed to be cadian or not.

I mean, it's the most diverse fighting force in the history of ever. Not just by drawing from a ton of different planets, but also with what's on those planets. I have no problems believing that a Cadian mechanized regiment would have the Steel Legion doctrine, for example, or a desperate Mordian-led PDF could use the Valhallan doctrine to keep sending waves of troops at the enemy; heck, the Tallarn doctrine seems pretty good at representing a Catachan ambush!

Don't change it mid-battle, and if you're running multiple detachments with different doctrines, have some way to differentiate them. That's all I ask.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

Yup, if you have a differently painted army then you make the fluff it's that easy run them as whatever you want. Just like painting Orange SM with custom marking you choose exactly what they line up with. But when you pick a specific SM chapter or IG regiment from the lore and paint it that way then yes you should play them as they appear in the codex and switching it to gain an advantage is clearly power gaming and i dont want to be a part of that.

You don't have much choice whether its OOP models, metal models with mono-poses, or you can buy 2-3 boxes of bits you'll need to convert the regiment you want to run.

Or, you can use the plastic Cadian models present, not have to go broke and/or insane working on conversions or buying OOP models, and come up with a custom regiment backstory.

All of this and you've only been given notice barely a week ago.

I guess I just better trash all the Cadian models I've been collecting because I want to try to run them as a Valhallan force. Regardless of the fact I may like the look of Cadia over some of the other historical copies of IG regiments.

But then again, I'm not bothered by my friend showing up with his blood angels and wanting to run them that game as a different chapter. This is the most expensive game of toy soldiers imaginable, I understand people don't have the financial means of collecting 3 different SM chapters, how could you expect someone to realistically kit bash one of the most expensive armies to collect as it is?

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

Yup, if you have a differently painted army then you make the fluff it's that easy run them as whatever you want. Just like painting Orange SM with custom marking you choose exactly what they line up with. But when you pick a specific SM chapter or IG regiment from the lore and paint it that way then yes you should play them as they appear in the codex and switching it to gain an advantage is clearly power gaming and i dont want to be a part of that.

Again - IG use camoflague. They are whatever colors is appropriate to the environment. Being green and tan doesn't mean they're cadian, being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't.

If you're going to get stroppy about the crunch not matching the fluff at least get the fluff right.

I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
You don't have much choice whether its OOP models, metal models with mono-poses, or you can buy 2-3 boxes of bits you'll need to convert the regiment you want to run.

Or, you can use the plastic Cadian models present, not have to go broke and/or insane working on conversions or buying OOP models, and come up with a custom regiment backstory.

All of this and you've only been given notice barely a week ago.

I guess I just better trash all the Cadian models I've been collecting because I want to try to run them as a Valhallan force. Regardless of the fact I may like the look of Cadia over some of the other historical copies of IG regiments.

But then again, I'm not bothered by my friend showing up with his blood angels and wanting to run them that game as a different chapter. This is the most expensive game of toy soldiers imaginable, I understand people don't have the financial means of collecting 3 different SM chapters, how could you expect someone to realistically kit bash one of the most expensive armies to collect as it is?

Nobody is asking you to buy a new army just play them the way they are (blood angels are blood angels, not Salamanders because they got a buff). The only reason you would have to "throw away your models" is because you are such a power gamer at heart that you cant take playing a slightly less effective force.

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the most powerful doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

Exactly this.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the best doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

Are you not picking those doctrines for the best statistical advantage? I'm not sure why you are so offended by the power gaming label. Some people play to win, that's fine. I'm not sure I understand why you are wearing it like it's a slur.

By your logic, even if I were to want to run a more mediocre regiment I'm still power gaming.

I don't understand. Why people think that the only reason to switch chapter/regiment/craftworld rules is because you want an statistical advantage?
Don't have you think that maybe that player just want to play a slighly different gameplay stile with the same army, because he is bored after playing the same rules for the 2-6 years that last an edition?
I think is pretty cool that the Imperial Guard Codex allows for so many different play styles in the same army-codex, using the same models but with different rules.
And then people wants to destroy that diversity and ... "fun", because in their minds or you are a pure historic-accurate narrative player or a powergaming/minmaxer-WAAC?
Thats pretty Manichean, guys.

And whats exactly "Ultramarine" about retreating and shoot, and whats exactly Salamander about re-rolling one dice for every unit? Why those totally arbitrary rules are so important that one NEEDS to use the SAME rules for years because thats... "narrative"? What? Thats just personal arbitrary standards that one shouldn't never expect from other people.

GW: "Ey guys here you have a bunch of rules, so you can play the same army in many different ways, so you can have all fun!"
""""Narrative player"""": "Ok guys you have heard GW, we need to pick one of those and stick to it NO MATTER WHAT.
GW: "What? That isn't what I have sa...."
""""Narrative player"""": "Shut up your Powergamer! What, why are you offended that I label you as a power-gamer, you filthy power-gamer, WAAC scum! I'm not insulting you, I'm just describing you"

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the best doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

Are you not picking those doctrines for the best statistical advantage? I'm not sure why you are so offended by the power gaming label. Some people play to win, that's fine. I'm not sure I understand why you are wearing it like it's a slur.

Yep. It's called making a good army and trying to be good at the game. I'm curious why you think that is some kind of sin with regard to the regimental rules but other things are different? Or are you one of those players that throws lists together at random then complains when other people have better armies? (I mean, surely you don't pick units for your army based on trying to obtain an effective composition - that's just trying to get a statistical advantage!)

Of course, I could just be picking the ones that fit my regiments' fluff best and the same is true of the guy that has them painted green/tan. You don't know. But you're prepared to get all judgemental over one of those players but not the other.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the best doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

Are you not picking those doctrines for the best statistical advantage? I'm not sure why you are so offended by the power gaming label. Some people play to win, that's fine. I'm not sure I understand why you are wearing it like it's a slur.

Yep. It's called making a good army and trying to be good at the game. I'm curious why you think that is some kind of sin with regard to the regimental rules but other things are different? Or are you one of those players that throws lists together at random then complains when other people have better armies? (I mean, surely you don't pick units for your army based on trying to obtain an effective composition - that's just trying to get a statistical advantage!)

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the best doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

Are you not picking those doctrines for the best statistical advantage? I'm not sure why you are so offended by the power gaming label. Some people play to win, that's fine. I'm not sure I understand why you are wearing it like it's a slur.

Yep. It's called making a good army and trying to be good at the game. I'm curious why you think that is some kind of sin with regard to the regimental rules but other things are different? Or are you one of those players that throws lists together at random then complains when other people have better armies? (I mean, surely you don't pick units for your army based on trying to obtain an effective composition - that's just trying to get a statistical advantage!)

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

Imperial Soup lists throw fluff out the damn window, two different IG regiments working along side has been a part of the fluff for 20+ years.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
Imperial Soup lists throw fluff out the damn window, two different IG regiments working along side has been a part of the fluff for 20+ years.

I completely agree. I'm not sure where you thought I said otherwise.

Asmodios wrote:

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

 Carl wrote:

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

Both of you are completely missing the point.

You've both said that you're going to get judgemental to the point of refusing to play with someone playing green/tan guard using anything other than cadian doctrines.

How do you know that guy isn't just picking the doctrine that fits his regiment's fluff best? (not least because being green/tan doesn't mean they're cadian and being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't. If you're going to be stroppy about fluff at least get it right.)

How is it even fluffy that every regiment with all of their various specializations should have the exact same skills just because they're from the same planet? Getting judgemental about someone because their fluff doesn't match the fluff you've got in your own head is pretty lame.


You also both seem to believe that there is zero middle ground between picking units at random and being a min-maxing tournament gamer. You're missing out on the best bit of 40K which is somewhere between those two extremes.