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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

He's obviously not capable of comprehending the most basic points we're making:
1. A thing that clearly looks X should play as X.
2. All things that clearly look X should not alternately play as both Y *and* Z

I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

Clearly if you want to be able to swap regiment rules every couple of weeks, you just have to get some Cadian models and paint them a custom color scheme so that you can say "these aren't Cadians, they're generic Guardsman models painted up as the 256th Sirius Surface Assault, Mechanized".

Of course if you try to swap between games you might have some explaining to do, and in a tournament obviously you're locked into whatever you start with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

He's obviously not capable of comprehending the most basic points we're making:
1. A thing that clearly looks X should play as X.
2. All things that clearly look X should not alternately play as both Y *and* Z

I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

Except I disagree on the validity of those points in this context.

Points 1 and 2 only applies to intrinsic values, and what people wear in regards to how they are trained and act are not intrinsically linked, I've exhausted this point continuously. All these guards are equipped with lasguns, flak armor, etc. and they use them appropriately. Catachan strength is not dictated by their rambo uniform nor does having a trench coat and gas mask make you suddenly better at using tanks. Mordians don't have a different gun, it's still a lasgun rules-wise, they are just better at overwatch which any person can train themselves to do regardless of the armor. In addition I've explained at length how in universe any number of regiments can attain said equipment of different regiments in ways that Space Marines would not (well they would but they would alter it because they have the support to do so and the desire to, guard regiments probably don't I suspect), but still act how they did before. You are using a valid argument for a different property- it has more validity for Space Marines yes but it is not a really a completely binary thing for the guard.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

He's obviously not capable of comprehending the most basic points we're making:
1. A thing that clearly looks X should play as X.
2. All things that clearly look X should not alternately play as both Y *and* Z

I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

I know that you're not talking about me, but I have confess that both of your arguments fall flat when discussing Imperial Guard infantry. Regarding the first one, the Codex history shows great variety in uniforms. Regarding your second point, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If it means that I detachments X, Y and Z in a given should look different if they have different rules/abilities then I agree with you. If you mean, however, that I cannot change what the detachments are between games for IG infantry or tanks then I don't agree with you. It links back to your first argument - there is so much variety in uniform schemes/patterns.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


He's obviously not capable of comprehending the most basic points we're making:
1. A thing that clearly looks X should play as X.
2. All things that clearly look X should not alternately play as both Y *and* Z

That is only true if X can never represent Y or Z. That is explicitly not the case with the Imperial Guard, where regiments can be raised from-

I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

Actually, forget it. I forgot I was on Dakka, where debate goes to die.

You can paint any regiment literally any way you like, as different uniforms can be issued for different theatres of war (or indeed the wrong uniform may be issued!). This has been demonstrated throughout the various Guard codexes over the years. So 'icy = Valhallans' isn't even a necessity.



If it's clear enough what your stuff is, you keep track of your own special rules and don't change stuff mid-game, honestly... what is anyone's issue? Other than they like arguing?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

He's obviously not capable of comprehending the most basic points we're making:
1. A thing that clearly looks X should play as X.
2. All things that clearly look X should not alternately play as both Y *and* Z

I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

I understand them well. I just think they're arbitrary and disregard Imperial Guard lore. Not all of X plays as X and some of X can believably take on the attributes of Y and Z within the context of the Imperial Guard. Imperial Guard are NOT the same as the Space Marines! Not all Cadians fight identically. Your points make no sense. They're based on a half-baked understanding of the Imperial Guard lore.

Fuither, your Space Marine comparisons fail harder when you understand that not all Imperial Guard regiments from the same world even look the same. So no. Not all Cadian regiments will look the same, not all of them will fight the same, and they shouldn't all be shoehorned into the same damned box.

I think its a bit unfair to the people who painted their IG up as Cadians or whatever regiment years ago, only to be told they look like Cadians so you can't use the Valhallan tactics when their new book drops in the brand new edition because they either lacked the ability to see into the future, or like the aesthetics of a certain regiment. It would be one thing if they had several books for IG regiments kind of like Space Wolves and Dark Angels are seperate, but then again like mentioned before comparing IG and SM is apples to oranges, and there has only ever been one IG codex afaik.

I'm not talking about being a min-maxing doucher and bringing multiple regiments being represented as the same painted army, just the fact that some people seem so adamant about not letting an IG player choose a SINGLE REGIMENT TRAIT to follow for that game.

I don't know who you guys are playing against, but this is pretty much the reason I stick to my small group of gamers, to avoid gak like this.

I'm really interested in seeing what GW thinks about this subject.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I don't know who you guys are playing against, but this is pretty much the reason I stick to my small group of gamers, to avoid gak like this.

It's the only way to play. Once the game is introduced to joe public, it tends to fall down pretty hard.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I'm really interested in seeing what GW thinks about this subject.

The money *sniffs* MUST FLOW.

Meh, my models, my money. I'll play them with whichever regimental rules I want to play them with. I would certainly keep different regiments and even units marked clearly enough to be able to be regarded as separate, but if I want my army to include 3 different regiments one game and another single regiment the next, then that's what I'll do.

Oddly enough, I am a hypocrite when it comes to marine armies though that are painted as a specific chapter. No idea why, but I admit it. Still wouldn't refuse to play, I just wouldn't like their army.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

Actually, forget it. I forgot I was on Dakka, where debate goes to die.

Given that this is an opinion, and it's asinine that people are telling me I can't have my opinion.

If I don't like proxies, for whatever reason, then I don't have to like them.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

Actually, forget it. I forgot I was on Dakka, where debate goes to die.

Given that this is an opinion, and it's asinine that people are telling me I can't have my opinion.

If I don't like proxies, for whatever reason, then I don't have to like them.

It's not that I don't want you to have an opinion. I respect your stance and at the end of the day we can both agree to love 40k, but I personally see a discrepancy between this stance and what the fluff presents. Combining that and the fact that your opinion in this case does impact others in regards to who you would and wouldn't play, I wanted to engage you/those who felt otherwise in the hopes of swaying your mind/s- that is what discussion forums are for after all haha.

R0bcrt wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

Actually, forget it. I forgot I was on Dakka, where debate goes to die.

Given that this is an opinion, and it's asinine that people are telling me I can't have my opinion.

If I don't like proxies, for whatever reason, then I don't have to like them.

It's not that I don't want you to have an opinion. I respect your stance and at the end of the day we can both agree to love 40k, but I personally see a discrepancy between this stance and what the fluff presents. Combining that and the fact that your opinion in this case does impact others in regards to who you would and wouldn't play, I wanted to engage you/those who felt otherwise in the hopes of swaying your mind/s- that is what discussion forums are for after all haha.

You are giving me and my influence far more credit than I think is deserved. I play a handful of games a year, and more often than not, I'm the IG player, so it's not going to impact more people than you can count on your thumbs, assuming you still have both of yours. My bias against certain sorts of proxy armies will have zero impact at large. Don't sweat it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You are giving me and my influence far more credit than I think is deserved. I play a handful of games a year, and more often than not, I'm the IG player, so it's not going to impact more people than you can count on your thumbs, assuming you still have both of yours. My bias against certain sorts of proxy armies will have zero impact at large. Don't sweat it.

Just curious, i have a full original GW Praetorian Guard army painted in the British Armies finest Redcoat colours. Which doctrine do you think i should use?

Which do you feel fits best?

I'd argue Mordians. Stiff upperlip, firing in ranks. Closest I can think of the mental impression left by the cinematic wonder that is Zulu.

I agree with MDG - Praetorians are Mordians with funny 'ats, so I'd play them as Mordians, preferably against Savage Orks...