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.

Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

 sfshilo wrote:
Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

But they can be, that’s my point from earlier. An Armageddon man or woman can reasonably take off his clothes and put Cadian style armor on and operate the same way as before. You’re assigning an extrinsic quality as if it were intrinsic in nature. It’s not. There is precedent for non cadians being issued cadian gear, and unless you can provide a list of every regiment in the imperium, what they are equipped with, and their combat doctrine, then there is no way to substantiate your claims while leaving plausibility for someone claiming otherwise. Also it’s not like combat doctrines are exclusive to each world, I mean is it really that shocking that a regiment equiped with cadian gear may like being mechanized in a similar format to the steel legion? Also considering your stance was done after seeing the rules would you have been fine to use different regiment rules if they were bad? If so that seems contrary to the spirit I think this game should have.

If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like, as long as you're not switching it up every game for no narrative reason.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

 sfshilo wrote:
Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

I hope I never end up being so particular about a game that I'd be upset my opponent showed up with a fully painted army and had the gall to explain the custom fluff for their uniquely painted Cadian models that were using a not Cadian doctrine.

 sfshilo wrote:
Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

But they may well be a mechanized regiment who have also mastered the skill of embarking a Chimera.

 sfshilo wrote:
Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

I dunno man, being annoyed at GW for screwing up balance is one thing, but don't take it out on other players. Even I'm not upset enough about it for that to seem fair.

Remember, the true enemy is not the player across from you, but the eternal money devouring monster known only as GW.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

How dare you want ultramarines to be played as ultramarines, jetpacks to be jetpacks, and Cavalry to Cavalry.

Asmodios wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

How dare you want ultramarines to be played as ultramarines, jetpacks to be jetpacks, and Cavalry to Cavalry.

There’s a difference between saying “these guys don’t have jet packs so how can they fly?” And “these guys don’t have gas masks and British pattern trench coats so how can they use mechanized armor like these other guys?”.

Space Marines are different, I don’t have a bunch of time right now but one is an elite unit that has armor specifically forged for them and painted for them in a way the billions of mass produced armor and guns being issued to the guard is not (Vostroya non-withstanding). Now if they applied regimental patches/markings and copied a Cadian regiment banner that is known to extreme detail than I concede, but them having Cadian style camo or armor is not the same thing as Space Marines nor does it violate WYSIWYG which the jet pack example does.

R0bcrt wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

How dare you want ultramarines to be played as ultramarines, jetpacks to be jetpacks, and Cavalry to Cavalry.

There’s a difference between saying “these guys don’t have jet packs so how can they fly?” And “these guys don’t have gas masks and British pattern trench coats so how can they use mechanized armor like these other guys?”.

Space Marines are different, I don’t have a bunch of time right now but one is an elite unit that has armor specifically forged for them and painted for them in a way the billions of mass produced armor and guns being issued to the guard is not (Vostroya non-withstanding). Now if they applied regimental patches/markings and copied a Cadian regiment banner that is known to extreme detail than I concede, but them having Cadian style camo or armor is not the same thing as Space Marines nor does it violate WYSIWYG which the jet pack example does.

We actually agree then if you read the incredibly long thread people have been saying that, for example, Cadians painted Cadian colors with Cadian transfers should be played as Cadia. But that was apparently an extreme position and why I now find this thread so funny :p

Asmodios wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

How dare you want ultramarines to be played as ultramarines, jetpacks to be jetpacks, and Cavalry to Cavalry.

I know!

Maybe if it wasn't so damn difficult to get IG models of different factions

There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical. There is no confusion, there are plenty of fluffy reasons and previous editions have certainly given plenty of flexibility.

Pull out the 2003 Imperial Guard Codex. Check out the camouflage patterns that could be Cadians acting as any type of Regiment (except DKoK I suppose). Check out the doctrines: they give suggestions for Regiments but they give choice to the player. Check out the incredible diversity. An Imperial Guard player with a fully-painted 2,000 point army has earned the hobby right to call them whatever Regiment he chooses. Its also fine in the game rules.

If I rock up to the table with my 1996 metal Cadians I will play them how I decide. You'll know what you are facing with no confusion or deception. It might change from week to week: who knows? I am not sure how this is a problem.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical.

It's exactly the same problem as an army that looks like this:

Saying that it's actually Dark Angels or Ultramarines.

It's obviously not DA or UM, people should get some gak for saying something that ridiculous.

I don't know why this needs to be said but Space Marines=\=Imperial Guard. The whole chapter proxy thing is a red herring.

I have seen Chaos Space Marines Khornate armies using Space Wolves rules back in 6th and 7th because the Space Wolves rules where much better to represent Khorne Chaos Space marines than the own Chaos Space Marines codex.

And I never had a problem with remembering that the CSM in Juggernauts of Khorne where Thunderwolves, the Possesed where Wulfen, etc...

John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

Now I agree, running painted Blood Angels and Dark Angels would be off-putting. On a visual scale, though, there is much greater difference between Blood Angels and Dark Angels as compared to the difference between two Imperial Guard regiments, never mind that they are different armies from different books. Going through my various Imperial Guard Codex they offer many difference paint schemes for the various Regiments. Add in the fluff and comparing the big four Space Marine armies and the many Imperial Guard regiments is not very useful.

Having said all that, if I am running Valhallans at a Grand Tournament then I will expect to get docked a few marks on army composition if I have Cadian models (unless I am a wizard with the paint and bases), just like I will expect to get docked for not being the best painter! Different setting, though, than a game at the club or the FLGS.

I haven't decided which doctrines to run. My collection has four base models: metal Cadians, metal Catachans, plastic Cadians and plastic Catachans. They all have a similar Feldgrau scheme except the Veteran Squad. I'll call them what I want and it will be clear to my opponent what he is facing.

I've always hated playing against Guard armies, so I should be bias, but Guard players have been forced in the Cadian line for years, with very limited choice. I've seen one Vostoyan force in the last decade, and everything else has been Cadians.

Personally, I would have created a custom Regiment anyway.
I had bought Catachan heads to swap on Cadian bodies for a cool Bandana swat soldier look years ago, but it never got started... Still have 20 Catachan heads. So just like homebrew Space Marines can pick what they like, so can the Guard and noone would bat an eye.

If you want to use your Cadians as Catachans, or Mordians, or whatever, do it. There used to be a little blurb in older codexes that actually encouraged this. These regiments are named, sure, but at this point as ling as you're consistent with your KEYWORDS, whatever.

My CSM army is my most completed. My Shooty Night Lords army would probably be better as Alpha Legion, and my Nurgle Oblits would probably be better off as Slaanesh Oblits... But I've picked a theme and I'm sticking with it, even if its a hinderence.... But I dont expect my opponent to.

well until IG gets plastic mordians, steel legion, vostroyan, etc... I think the crowd that argues that cadians models should be using cadia traits has some valid points. But seeing as GW has neglected guard regiments for some time now I'm gonna side with the guard players on this one. Maybe put some differences like a different paint scheme on their models or at least paint like a color stripe on their bases to note which detachment they belong to.

I have possibly an unusual way of viewing the issue.

I currently have Catachans and I will use their doctrine and nothing else. Doing so encourages me to paint, model and collect miniatures. I love building armies, so this is good.

I know one day I will do Vostroyans .... love those mini's. One of the many rewards associated with finishing that particular project will be the use of the Vostroyan doctrine. Until I have done so I won't. In the meantime, I'm hardly going to get bored using my Catachans, Marines, or Chaos.

But I certainly wouldn't refuse to play someone who views things differently.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

OK, dude, go look at my gallery and plog and see for yourself.

Go on, take your time...

I own roughly 200 GW Citadel metal Imperial Guardsmen alone, mostly Tallarn, but with a smattering of metal Cadians and Regimental models. I have a couple dozen GW Imperial Guard vehicles. I have no problem whastoever finding an "official" GW Imperial Guard army of a wide variety of configurations. And I can add to that with my allied Knight, Sisters, Inquisition forces, etc. ALL using the official GW models.

I don't have to worry about 3rd party Guard armies at all.

That said, if the player were cool, unlike you, I'd probably let it slide. But if he were some kind of tool, then no.

And even if he were cool, if he started about playing a full iconography BA army as DA or UM, you bet I'd be giving him gak about it.

Asmodios wrote:

We actually agree then if you read the incredibly long thread people have been saying that, for example, Cadians painted Cadian colors with Cadian transfers should be played as Cadia. But that was apparently an extreme position and why I now find this thread so funny :p

You keep saying "Cadian colors" but the fluff is very clear that guard are whatever colour is appropriate to the environment. Cadians might be all kinds of other colours and non-Cadians can be green/tan. If you want to get fussy over the fluff and "immersion" then the colour is irrelevant.

ArbitorIan wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?

And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.

Unless they use 3rd party conversions, which look nothing like the 'proper' model. Or paint the 'proper' model pink with purple polka-dots. Then there's no confusion. Sorry, as someone who truly didn't care about winning or losing but just playing a game, its just comes across as rationalization. So you care about winning, there's nothing wrong with that. Other than being associated with those filthy evil WAAC players, who are at least honest about it.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical. There is no confusion, there are plenty of fluffy reasons and previous editions have certainly given plenty of flexibility.

Pull out the 2003 Imperial Guard Codex. Check out the camouflage patterns that could be Cadians acting as any type of Regiment (except DKoK I suppose). Check out the doctrines: they give suggestions for Regiments but they give choice to the player. Check out the incredible diversity. An Imperial Guard player with a fully-painted 2,000 point army has earned the hobby right to call them whatever Regiment he chooses. Its also fine in the game rules.

If I rock up to the table with my 1996 metal Cadians I will play them how I decide. You'll know what you are facing with no confusion or deception. It might change from week to week: who knows? I am not sure how this is a problem.

Yeah, it's such a ridiculous point to get hung up upon. Unless you're concerned with winning, but don't want to come across that way.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical.

It's exactly the same problem as an army that looks like this:

Saying that it's actually Dark Angels or Ultramarines.

It's obviously not DA or UM, people should get some gak for saying something that ridiculous.

What it's obviously is space marines. Who are painted red. People hung up on the colour scheme should get some gak for saying something that ridiculous.

Galas wrote:I have seen Chaos Space Marines Khornate armies using Space Wolves rules back in 6th and 7th because the Space Wolves rules where much better to represent Khorne Chaos Space marines than the own Chaos Space Marines codex.

And I never had a problem with remembering that the CSM in Juggernauts of Khorne where Thunderwolves, the Possesed where Wulfen, etc...

Most people over the age of 5 don't have a problem remembering what is what.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

We actually agree then if you read the incredibly long thread people have been saying that, for example, Cadians painted Cadian colors with Cadian transfers should be played as Cadia. But that was apparently an extreme position and why I now find this thread so funny :p

You keep saying "Cadian colors" but the fluff is very clear that guard are whatever colour is appropriate to the environment. Cadians might be all kinds of other colours and non-Cadians can be green/tan. If you want to get fussy over the fluff and "immersion" then the colour is irrelevant.

As i said, it boils down to 2 schools of thought. Those looking to play a game, and those looking to win while pretending they're not.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

OK, dude, go look at my gallery and plog and see for yourself.

Go on, take your time...

I own roughly 200 GW Citadel metal Imperial Guardsmen alone, mostly Tallarn, but with a smattering of metal Cadians and Regimental models. I have a couple dozen GW Imperial Guard vehicles. I have no problem whastoever finding an "official" GW Imperial Guard army of a wide variety of configurations. And I can add to that with my allied Knight, Sisters, Inquisition forces, etc. ALL using the official GW models.

I don't have to worry about 3rd party Guard armies at all.

That said, if the player were cool, unlike you, I'd probably let it slide. But if he were some kind of tool, then no.

And even if he were cool, if he started about playing a full iconography BA army as DA or UM, you bet I'd be giving him gak about it.

Awww, I'm not cool? That's a real shame. I ask for consistency in your argument and I'm not cool. And here we go again with the Chapter proxy red herring. I ask you, on what grounds do you not like an army using rules that aren't 100% consistent with how it's painted/what models it uses?

Because I can't see on what reasonable grounds you can deny a guard player from customizing his regiment according to how he conceives his army. If terminology bugs people that much just take some whiteout to the planet specific names and write in generic terms. Instead of Cadians, for example, write in "Line Infantry Regimental Doctrines".

If i wanted to run the Regiment from the cain series, who are Valhallans that act like the Steel Legion would (mechanized infantry), what doctrine should i run them as?

 Crazyterran wrote:
If i wanted to run the Regiment from the cain series, who are Valhallans that act like the Steel Legion would (mechanized infantry), what doctrine should i run them as?

Obviously Vallhallan since it's inconceivable that different regiments from the same world might have different specialisations.

Just look at present day Earth - clearly all companies from all regiments have the exact same skill set.

/sarcasm

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
If i wanted to run the Regiment from the cain series, who are Valhallans that act like the Steel Legion would (mechanized infantry), what doctrine should i run them as?

Obviously Vallhallan since it's inconceivable that different regiments from the same world might have different specialisations.

Just look at present day Earth - clearly all companies from all regiments have the exact same skill set.

/sarcasm

I want Americans who are actually Americans. That's why I demand that those power gaming SEAL players use regular Army doctrines.

Personally I'm just glad that when I started my Guard in 2011 I had the foresight to give them slightly different heads, thus shattering the Cadian look so completely that they can pass for anything they like without being confusing.