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, now your argument is that I'm being a dick if I pass on having a game I know I wouldn't enjoy?

And once again it's not "magically OK" when you use a custom paint job and suddenly not powergaming
It's just not obvious on a glance you are, especially if your entire army is properly one regiment. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I wouldn't know until mid game probably, and at that point I wouldn't quit, I'll just probably not bother playing that guy again.


Powergaming is a scale, both in practice, and in how easy it is not notice in advance.
If I notice it before I even played you once, such as you got your very obviously Black Templar playing as Salamanders, and we ALL know that's strictly a powergaming choice, than you are probably higher on the scale than I'm comfortable with for a casual friday evening relaxing game.
If your models perfectly match your rules, it dosent mean you CAN'T be just as power gaming, it just that I lack the obvious indication.

For example, my buddy started collecting blood ravens.
For now, they got no rules so he's playing whatever marines.
Once they get rules, I'd expect him to play by them, be them weak or overpowered.

So "powergaming" is just anyone that doesn't play by your self-imposed rules.

It's a game, why are some people making it sound like it's repulsive to actually try to win it?

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, now your argument is that I'm being a dick if I pass on having a game I know I wouldn't enjoy?

And once again it's not "magically OK" when you use a custom paint job and suddenly not powergaming
It's just not obvious on a glance you are, especially if your entire army is properly one regiment. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I wouldn't know until mid game probably, and at that point I wouldn't quit, I'll just probably not bother playing that guy again.


Powergaming is a scale, both in practice, and in how easy it is not notice in advance.
If I notice it before I even played you once, such as you got your very obviously Black Templar playing as Salamanders, and we ALL know that's strictly a powergaming choice, than you are probably higher on the scale than I'm comfortable with for a casual friday evening relaxing game.
If your models perfectly match your rules, it dosent mean you CAN'T be just as power gaming, it just that I lack the obvious indication.

For example, my buddy started collecting blood ravens.
For now, they got no rules so he's playing whatever marines.
Once they get rules, I'd expect him to play by them, be them weak or overpowered.

Gaming time is a limited resource, and I understand that we can and do make choices about how we spend that time. If you have played somebody (assuming this is an open games club or store) and you truly did not enjoy the experience then by all means avoid playing that person. If he was a cheat (subtle or not) or was overbearing/swearing etc then I totally get you not wanting to play him again. If its because you lost to a list that you didn't like then perhaps you need to reflect on how you judge your opponents? I realize, though, that there are some lists that are just not a ton of fun to play against (the Assassin list going around for example) and that there are also times you look at a match-up and realize that you have no chance. In the latter case, though, I find its best to tough it out and then analyze my own list to see what I could have done differently.

I certainly prefer playing with and against painted models, and I always play my Dark Angels as Dark Angels. I get that some folks would, given the choice, chose to play against painted models and not play against an army of unpainted plastic. I am not fussed, though, about players who use lists from the same book as alternatives with the same models. Your Ultramarines are Ravenguard this week? Cool! It adds variety at no cost and says nothing about their character. At a tournament you might get docked on the Army score, but play on sir! My Imperial Guard force has a very checkered past - they've been all sorts of unsavoury things.

Cheers

I have a decent sized army of Imperial Guard, pretty much entirely Cadian models because it is the most economically viable and, in my opinion, the best looking regiment. However, I run them as my own regiment, the Tvashtan 422nd. Looking through the new doctrines I do not think that the Cadian ones suit my fluff at all. Tvashtar is a giant volcanic wasteland, so mobile armoured companies are the way they fight. The Cadian rules lead to a very static playstyle, with all of the bonuses to not moving. I have never liked gunline Guard so much as I find it a bit boring. However, the Tallarn rules seem to suit my regimental ideas perfectly, as they are really mobile.

Cadian pattern arms and armour have been described in the fluff as very prolific, available all over the galaxy. So why shouldn't I be able to have my random world equipped with them, using their own combat style which fits closely into the "Tallarn" achetype?

A separate issue is mixing several regiments into the same army without properly differentiating them from each other. However, I think that you can still get different regiments from the same world using different doctrines. Say, for instance, I formed the Tvashtan 423rd. This regiment was raised quickly and has a large amount of conscripts and hastily constructed vehicles. Therefore, the Valhallan doctrines would suite them perfectly. They have lots of men to thrown at the enemy and their vehicles are more ramshakle, able to take damage but not as maneuverable. As long as the markings are suitably different it should be fine.

So, when making your "Tvashtan" regiment, what symbolism and marking you used for them?
Their own with the 422 and 423 having some differences, even if subtle, or exactly by-the-book cadian that are marked as if they were one unit?

Because the two are miles apart. Even small touches makes a force "your dudes" and are a huge difference when done tastefully.

You are not really running cadian any more are you? You run your own regiment that you named, got a story of sorts for, and (theoretically) made some sort of visual distinction for.

And as mentioned, cadian models in spesific get far more leeway, has the fact collecting anything else IS difficult.
I expect you to do the bare minimum of bothering to keep something akin to a nerrative (a hated word by those who are deep into powergaming and treat models as nothing more than game pieces), not that you keep to the most strict guidelines of having only one eight way.

Basically you can put it down simply as "you don't have to adhere spesifically to X looks to play X-you just need to look the part, but if you look exactly like existing rules Y, use them."

My own TS use castellax achea as helbrutes. Should the achea get 40k rules, I'd use them instead, regardless of if they are better or worse, because I'm not playing the helbrute, I'm playing the achea and the helbrute is the closest thing I got in the rules.

I refuse to accept that someone in the real world would turn down a game because someone's Cadian army is being run as a Valhallan army.

I guess everyone plays the game they want and you have the right to refuse a game, but that's about as petty as I could imagine.

Certainly makes an argument for me to ensure my not-Mordians are visually distinct enough that I'm allowed to run them as different regiments based on the type of force I'm running that day. Not that I'd ever play against someone who would make an issue about something like that.

 Blacksails wrote:
I refuse to accept that someone in the real world would turn down a game because someone's Cadian army is being run as a Valhallan army.

I guess everyone plays the game they want and you have the right to refuse a game, but that's about as petty as I could imagine.

Certainly makes an argument for me to ensure my not-Mordians are visually distinct enough that I'm allowed to run them as different regiments based on the type of force I'm running that day. Not that I'd ever play against someone who would make an issue about something like that.

Like I said before, I would find it distasteful but thats the extent of it.

But lets inject some common sense into this, I only apply this reasoning to armies with the models to actually pull this off, for example, guard do not have the models to make these other regiments properly, so I dont really mind as much, but it would irk me if I see an ultramarines army using Raven Guard just because the trait is better, bbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutttttt, if you are using a home brew army and want to use any chapter trait you want, no problems, I suppose it comes down to this, use the bloody rules for the army you have chosen to play, if for no other reason it stops confusion.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, when making your "Tvashtan" regiment, what symbolism and marking you used for them?
Their own with the 422 and 423 having some differences, even if subtle, or exactly by-the-book cadian that are marked as if they were one unit?

Because the two are miles apart. Even small touches makes a force "your dudes" and are a huge difference when done tastefully.

You are not really running cadian any more are you? You run your own regiment that you named, got a story of sorts for, and (theoretically) made some sort of visual distinction for.

And as mentioned, cadian models in spesific get far more leeway, has the fact collecting anything else IS difficult.
I expect you to do the bare minimum of bothering to keep something akin to a nerrative (a hated word by those who are deep into powergaming and treat models as nothing more than game pieces), not that you keep to the most strict guidelines of having only one eight way.

Basically you can put it down simply as "you don't have to adhere spesifically to X looks to play X-you just need to look the part, but if you look exactly like existing rules Y, use them."

My own TS use castellax achea as helbrutes. Should the achea get 40k rules, I'd use them instead, regardless of if they are better or worse, because I'm not playing the helbrute, I'm playing the achea and the helbrute is the closest thing I got in the rules.

Exactly this ^
lets use a really easy example. You buy a bunch of Ultra mariens because you like the roman look but you make them your own and have unique markings across your army (let's say it's some red dragon used). It's clear to me that these aren't and were never intended to be ultra mariens so when you say they fight like Black templars that's cool to me I have no problem with that because no roman looking space mariens with dragons as a marking have their own book. But let's say you have a fully painted Minotaur army (never seen one in person but would love to) and they get a new codex in a week. Those Minotaurs will fight as per their official rule book now dictates.

Once again I understand that this is 100% my choice and there's no reason you can't take your Black Templar army and use it as a stand in for the new FOTM every time you play. I just don't want to play against it for the three reasons I listed before
1.preceved reasons for the change
2.immersion into the game
3. Playing the rules as written

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I suppose I'm more curious as to why it's a big deal to someone, if an unrelated person to them is "refusing" to play another player. How does this impact you?

Is this going to become another "think of the community!" argument? Because there isn't a GW gaming community, never has been. There's a heap of sub-sects of types of gamers who happen to play the same game. As we discussed in the "perfect zone" for playing 40K, the game is entirely dependent on who you're gaming with.

I attended an Apocalypse game yesterday. They had 13 players and wanted a 14th, but I didn't feel like playing, so I refused. Am I somehow ruining the community or breaking peoples hearts because I chose not to participate in something I didn't think I'd enjoy? No. I'm an adult and can make decisions of my own.

What does it matter if someone won't play another player? You could avoid playing someone because of their body-odour, choice of t-shirts, political affiliation, height, type of shoes they wear, gender etc....who cares? It's a hobby. Play it however you wish. If you want to cheese out as hard as possible, sure, go nuts - find someone who enjoys that type of game and have at it.

If you want to play only painted models, go nuts, do your thing. If you want to push armless grey plastic around and your opponent is game - go for it. But don't pretend to criticize someone because they want something different out of the game than you. We're not vikings, you don't come in and challenge someone and they HAVE to play you in a game of 40K, lol.

This is, I suppose, the beauty of the internet. We have the luxury of being outraged over the gaming habits of someone we don't know, likely on the other side of the planet. Genius.

There is indeed a GW gaming community. Its a big tent, but its still a community. I have travelled the world and played 40K while doing so. Not everybody sees the game exactly the same way, but most can find a way to get a game in against somebody else with a 40K army.

There is a world of difference between you declining a large Apocalypse Game because you were not feeling it and somebody refusing a game against somebody else at 40K Night because they don't like the guy's army. Surely you realize that, just like you realize that declining a game because of somebody's gender, height etc, etc is ridiculous. Declining a game because you have played that person and found them to be overbearing/cheating etc is a different story.

We're not arguing whether something is ridiculous or not. We're arguing why Person A's opinion about what Person B does matters. I'm a big believer in doing what you want (even if that includes being an donkey-cave). You'll pay for the decisions you make (either in the positive or the negative). The only say you get is when said person does something that impacts you. This is not the case here on an internet forum. As is usual for an internet forum, we state opinions as facts and don't ever clarify a statement with "Well, I believe that's a poor way to handle..." instead it's "You're a crazy idiot, and that's madness!".

Does this 12 page discussion just really boil down to the question:
'do you have a way that a player looking at the table can tell that Unit A of Detachment X is different from Unit B of Detachment Y?'.

And this can be applied to everyone, AdMech, marines, Choas, etc. If there's a way to differentiate detachments on the table what's the issue?

BroodSpawn wrote:
Does this 12 page discussion just really boil down to the question:
'do you have a way that a player looking at the table can tell that Unit A of Detachment X is different from Unit B of Detachment Y?'.

And this can be applied to everyone, AdMech, marines, Choas, etc. If there's a way to differentiate detachments on the table what's the issue?

12 pages is nothing. Wait until another FW book comes out and we get a 76 page FW legality thread.

BroodSpawn wrote:
Does this 12 page discussion just really boil down to the question:
'do you have a way that a player looking at the table can tell that Unit A of Detachment X is different from Unit B of Detachment Y?'.

And this can be applied to everyone, AdMech, marines, Choas, etc. If there's a way to differentiate detachments on the table what's the issue?

No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

I'm still here, sitting, not understanding why the only reason someone would switch chapter/regiment/legion tactics is because they are min/maxing, and not because maybe after 2-3 months playing with the exact same rules they want a little of variation in their game without needing to buy a whole new army.

I'm the only one that gets bored pretty fast playing the same list with the same bonuses and rules month after month? The way I solved that problem was basically having a ton of units from the same army so I could change my list all the time with pretty strong themes so every game feel I'm having a total different experience. Like, a full boar cavalry with boar chariots greenskin army. A Goblin horde with trolls, etc...

But if GW offers me another layer of rules to add spicy and variation to my games, the hell I'm gonna take it.
This "You should pick a rules-bonus and STICK to it NO MATTER WHAT", with all the "I'll be OK if they use another bonus but only if they stick to it" is making me confused.
Did really people enjoy playing the same list, with the same bonuses, month after month?

Pretty much, that's what I've gathered.

Its either a purely aesthetic fluff issue or you're surely a powergamer for wanting to try something other than what your army is painted up as.

No chance in hell you aren't, even if you choose to gimp yourself in the process and play a less powerful regiment.

PLus, for people arguing that "If you have cadian models you should be played as Cadians"





Learn your fluff!

 Purifier wrote:

BroodSpawn wrote:
Does this 12 page discussion just really boil down to the question:
'do you have a way that a player looking at the table can tell that Unit A of Detachment X is different from Unit B of Detachment Y?'.

And this can be applied to everyone, AdMech, marines, Choas, etc. If there's a way to differentiate detachments on the table what's the issue?

No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

But neither of these options really answer the question about strictness, just about how far along the spectrum of being TFG someone is? I'm honestly confused at this point because, well, I take the fairly sensible approach* that as long as something can be easily identified on the table then it shouldn't be an issue no matter what rules you play.

I mean if people are having this much... fun... think of the discussion that's gonna happen when the 'Nids get Hive Fleets?

*Personal opinion I know, sensibility is in the eye of the individual

 Galas wrote:
PLus, for people arguing that "If you have cadian models you should be played as Cadians"





Learn your fluff!

This is great - it clarifies a lot:

- If you want to run a regiment using your own fluff, but looking like Cadians, then that's because Cadian equipment, TACTICS and TRAINING have been emulated on many many worlds. Thus, presumably, the Snowhounds use Cadian tactics and training? I mean that's literally what it says on that page.

- If you want to run Mordians, depicted right there in the picture, you can convert them out of existing plastics to LOOK like Mordians.

- If you convert them out of existing plastics to look like something totally different (like the Savlar or Ventrillians there) I guess you can pick whatever you want.

GW, siding with what I've been saying all along - that clear, unconfusing appearance is everything. If they look like Cadians, they play like Cadians. If you want them to play like Mordians, convert them to look like Mordians. If they look like a unique regiment, there's no chance for confusion so pick whatever tactics you want! I wonder if Armageddon Ork Hunters are meant to be run as Catachans, which would work because they totally look right for that and there's no chance of confusing them for Steel Legion.

I like this because it works a bit like the Heresy does - you can take a rite which gives you an all jetbike army in any Legion, but White Scars and Dark Angels have special rites which give them really GOOD jetbike rites. If you want to run Blood Angels Jetbike Company, you don't 'run them as White Scars' - you just take the regular jetbike rite. Because while BA have jetbike formations, they're not as good as WS or DA. This actually gives you more graded levels of unique army - every single jetbike army doesn't just use the same White Scars rules - they all function a bit differently because of their Legion traits.

Similarly, Cadian tactics can be applied to 'hunting and sniping' units like the Snowhounds (or the 'Cadian XXII Rangers' or whatever) but that doesn't mean they suddenly become, say, as good light infantry as Tallarns. They just take the Cadian doctrine as usual, but with a bias towards snipers in the army. This, again, gives more breadth. A Cadian (or Cadian-inspired) Light Infantry company will play differently to a Tallarn one, rather than every single Light Infantry-themed army using the same rules. This is a good thing.

Cadian models mean Cadian tactics. Learn your fluff!!


.

 Galas wrote:
PLus, for people arguing that "If you have cadian models you should be played as Cadians"

Spoiler:

Learn your fluff!

I was honestly flabbergasted to see this topic had gone on for this many pages. But this, in so many words.

Cadian armour is ubiquitous across the Imperium. That's the fluff. Let your opponent know what regiment you're running, and in the case of multiple regiments in one army make the distinction clear, there's no reason to sulk over someone's decades long collection not adhering to the newest codex's smallest detail.

Arb, that's not what they're saying at all. They're saying here's alternate colour schemes for Cadian models (without tying them to a rule set), not that because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules.

It's worth mentioning that in the fluff blurb they mention Cadian TACTICS and TRAINING as well, which will be used by the naysayers to say "look, even GW says Cadian doctrine for cadian models..."

 Galas wrote:
PLus, for people arguing that "If you have cadian models you should be played as Cadians"





Learn your fluff!

This is actually kinda making my point. Right there you have tons of examples of using Cadian style models from all sorts of worlds. Notice that the ones from different worlds look different and or have different marking that makes them not from Cadia. So if you didn't want the to be Cadia guys you shouldn't have painted them the exact colors and symobls of Cadia. If you don't want ultra mariens doing paint them as exactly ultra mariens. If you don't want Salamanders don't paint them exactly as Salamanders. If your regiment does not have a specific codex entry it tells you to pick what applies but when you have X army painted as X army and X army has rules that say how X army fights then use the rules for X army and you will never have an issue.

People seem to be getting the Cadia model confused for what we are saying. I'm saying if you bought the Cadian models and painted them as Cadian you should use those rules. If you have those models but painted them as a world without rules by all means pick the one that fits your fluff. If you buy a generic SM model don't paint it exactly like a blood angel if you don't want it to be one on the board

And when have anyone ever said that "because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules."?

We said, from the first post, you need to at the very least LOOK different.
Guess what a different paint job is doing? LOOKING DIFFERENT.
I've set the bar so low as freaking not outright denoting cadia (with the cadian symbols and whatnot) on the uniform, and somehow even that is too much for you. you need to be the most authentic actual pure cadian in look, but to not play by their rules.
"TheGuardsmen below are made using Cadian Shock Troops range of Citadel Miniatures, with VARIANT COLOR AND ICONOGRAPHY specific to each of their home worlds"
That's EXACTLY what I said I was looking for. not some elaborate conversion or only old metal models at 10$ a piece.

If only there was some sort of other army that had a similar concept for years now, something like marines in space, who has different coloring and iconography for units of different origin and training, despite using the very same models.


Seriously, putting up a picture to "prove me wrong" about having to look different, while the picture is showcasing exactly HOW DIFFERENT THEY LOOK, and referring to the Cadian widespread gear in the very same sentence that mentioned the Cadian tactics being spread in the same way, as if the the two are somehow connected, and the people who supply the gear and training are the same guys.

"Learn your fluff!" you say, armmagedon originating regiments playing like catachan is defiantly a thing, like the ork hunters! I'll prove it by showcasing a picture refering to the ork hunters, who looks nothing like actual steel legion and is in fact converted from catachans to begin with.

I'm getting fussed here the number or people who keep straw-manning me (and my likes) while attacking points we never made and opinions we don't hold, for example:

 Purifier wrote:


No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

Really, "should be ridiculed"? when did anyone say anything even REMOTELY like that?
Yes, we said if you paint, model, and mark one way than play another you are powergaming (because you are) and we are likely to refuse a game, but unless refusing to personally spend time with you is considered ridiculing in your world, you just made up a strawman.
Again.

 BoomWolf wrote:
And when have anyone ever said that "because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules."?

We said, from the first post, you need to at the very least LOOK different.
Guess what a different paint job is doing? LOOKING DIFFERENT.
I've set the bar so low as freaking not outright denoting cadia (with the cadian symbols and whatnot) on the uniform, and somehow even that is too much for you. you need to be the most authentic actual pure cadian in look, but to not play by their rules.
"TheGuardsmen below are made using Cadian Shock Troops range of Citadel Miniatures, with VARIANT COLOR AND ICONOGRAPHY specific to each of their home worlds"
That's EXACTLY what I said I was looking for. not some elaborate conversion or only old metal models at 10$ a piece.

If only there was some sort of other army that had a similar concept for years now, something like marines in space, who has different coloring and iconography for units of different origin and training, despite using the very same models.


Seriously, putting up a picture to "prove me wrong" about having to look different, while the picture is showcasing exactly HOW DIFFERENT THEY LOOK, and referring to the Cadian widespread gear in the very same sentence that mentioned the Cadian tactics being spread in the same way, as if the the two are somehow connected, and the people who supply the gear and training are the same guys.

"Learn your fluff!" you say, armmagedon originating regiments playing like catachan is defiantly a thing, like the ork hunters! I'll prove it by showcasing a picture refering to the ork hunters, who looks nothing like actual steel legion and is in fact converted from catachans to begin with.

I'm getting fussed here the number or people who keep straw-manning me (and my likes) while attacking points we never made and opinions we don't hold, for example:

 Purifier wrote:


No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

Really, "should be ridiculed"? when did anyone say anything even REMOTELY like that?
Yes, we said if you paint, model, and mark one way than play another you are powergaming (because you are) and we are likely to refuse a game, but unless refusing to personally spend time with you is considered ridiculing in your world, you just made up a strawman.
Again.

Yeah I don't get where he was going with that either that picture is a perfect representation of what we have been saying this whole time. That's also why I'm so suprised because literally SM have been doing this for years and over never seen someone trying to play Ultra mariens as blood angels

BroodSpawn wrote:
Arb, that's not what they're saying at all. They're saying here's alternate colour schemes for Cadian models (without tying them to a rule set), not that because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules.

I disagree - it seems they're showing you that many, many units across the galaxy use Cadian tactics, even if they're from a different planet. Thus, giving you the ability to make up your own planet and colour scheme, but consistently tying rules to models.

I made my case very clear in my first response in the thread, but it seems two sides are arguing along different lines without actually addressing each other. A lot of arguments here being made against ghost arguments which were never made prior...(as usual on Dakka it seems)

 ArbitorIan wrote:
y're not as good as WS or DA. This actually gives you more graded levels of unique army - every single jetbike army doesn't just use the same White Scars rules - they all function a bit differently because of their Legion traits.

Similarly, Cadian tactics can be applied to 'hunting and sniping' units like the Snowhounds (or the 'Cadian XXII Rangers' or whatever) but that doesn't mean they suddenly become, say, as good light infantry as Tallarns. They just take the Cadian doctrine as usual, but with a bias towards snipers in the army. This, again, gives more breadth. A Cadian (or Cadian-inspired) Light Infantry company will play differently to a Tallarn one, rather than every single Light Infantry-themed army using the same rules. This is a good thing.

Cadian models mean Cadian tactics. Learn your fluff!!


.

Isn't that the point of regimental doctrines? To give different armies rules to represent their fighting styles? I mean, just giving all Cadian armies the same exact rules regardless of their training, equipment or intent seems weird and kind of boring.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's worth mentioning that in the fluff blurb they mention Cadian TACTICS and TRAINING as well, which will be used by the naysayers to say "look, even GW says Cadian doctrine for cadian models..."

They have already done that... the Cadian Patern for weapons and armour is the "basic" in the imperium. 90% of the Imperium Regiments are gonna have Cadian style armour and weapons. That means they use too the same tactics? In many cases, yes, in others, they don't have why.

And Arbitrorian, "Cadian-derived tactics" =/= "They behave exactly the same as Cadians".

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's worth mentioning that in the fluff blurb they mention Cadian TACTICS and TRAINING as well, which will be used by the naysayers to say "look, even GW says Cadian doctrine for cadian models..."

They have already done that... the Cadian Patern for weapons and armour is the "basic" in the imperium. 90% of the Imperium Regiments are gonna have Cadian style armour and weapons. That means they use too the same tactics? In many cases, yes, in others, they don't have why.

And Arbitrorian, "Cadian-derived tactics" =/= "They behave exactly the same as Cadians".

No you misunderstand me.

The blurb you quoted specifically calls out more than equipment and uniforms - it also calls out tactics and training. That's being used against us (so find a new blurb, in other words).

 BoomWolf wrote:
And when have anyone ever said that "because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules."?

One of you specifically said that if you used Cadian models and painted them as Cadians, they had to use Cadian doctrines.

The screenshot from the Codex says many regiments around the galaxy uses Cadian tactics and Cadian-style uniforms, but it doesn't say they have to use both. A regiment from a jungle world could easily use Catachan style uniforms (if you can call being half-naked a uniform) for climate reasons, but they could still be well versed in Cadian tactics and firing discipline. So the Cadian Doctrine will be a better representation of how they fight than the Catachan one.
Another regiment from another world can be equipped with Cadian uniforms, green and tan, but because they love flamers and stuff, the Catachan doctrine will represent them much better. After all, there's nothing that says you have to look like Rambo to use a flamer to its full effect.

Or maybe you could field an actual Cadian regiment with a large contingent of White Shields (the original Conscripts) - then the Valhallan doctrine would fit much better. Do you have to wear a thick winter greatcoat to be an expendable conscript?
And do Valhallans have to view their men as expendable, rather than using another doctrine? If they fight in the snow, they would probably be more mobile in their "natural habitat" than their oponent, so the Tallarn doctrine should fit them well.
Could the Tallarn doctrine also represent a Catachan regiment that used Vietcong-style tunnels to reposition their forces? Absolutely.

Maybe I want to use the Cadian or Catachan doctrines for my armored/mechanized force rather than the Armageddon-doctrine, even if I use Steel Legion miniatures. I focus more on tanks than on mechanized infantry, so it would better fit the character of my army.


And comparing Guard regiments to Space Marine Chapter is just wrong, the Guard is a much larger and more diverse force. Not that I'd have any problems with someone playing an Ultramarine Company that uses another chapter's rules to better represent how they fight either.
WAAC or not - nitpicky rule lawyers are annoying.

Asmodios wrote:
I'm saying if you bought the Cadian models and painted them as Cadian you should use those rules. If you have those models but painted them as a world without rules by all means pick the one that fits your fluff.

And this is why people are not impressed with your position. You're ok with playing an army if it's painted with orange shoulder pads, but if it has Cadian symbols on the shoulder pads instead it's suddenly WAAC POWERGAMING NOOOOOO and you refuse to play. You're obsessing over rivet-counting, and you aren't even getting the fluff right when you do it. You're exactly the kind of person that nobody is going to want to play, smugly refusing games over trivial details and insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards.