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.

Absolutely not.

Any difference worth representing at the scale of 40K should be allowable by the core list.


Almost all of the (many, many) variant Guard lists the game has had have been garbage anyway...

I'd be happy with just a new Astra Militarum Codex. It was pretty much borked from the start of 8th Edition, either too powerful in some regards and while lacking in others. The constant changes to things like Commissars made it worse in terms of Codex Confidence. It survived as a CP battery for Knights for a while. Now it doesn't even do that.

I like the idea of the AM as a monolithic entity built on STCs but with local flavour. They need refreshed core infantry models much more than they need supplements.

Now, perhaps the Tempestors could have their own Supplement or even stand-alone book? Their pages in For the Greater Good were, perhaps, the sleeper hit of the whole PA debacle.

I could probably stomach a Militarum Tempestus Supplement, if it had a few extra units in it and was a playable army in its own right.
But for all the other regiments, no, I don't think there's any real need - they aren't 'special' enough. It's not like they have any different units really.

It would be nice to run proper armoured companies again too. They use to have rules in the old imperial armour book and they were always fun.

IMO a supplement with say a dozen sections covering different storied and "types" Guard regiments would IMO be awesome - so high tech ones, primative ones, gene enhanced ones, Drop troops, exotic cavalry, cybered up ones, etc etc - all present in the lore but sadly less and less likely to be in the game.

Guard suffer from the increasingly awful no model no rules - this coupled with the vast disparity of resources constantly allocated to variations of Marines by two entire companies (GW and FW) means its very unlikely. Guard are also going to get hit with the fething stupid rules for options in the last few codexes.

So unless GW bothers to make Guard with different equipment, armour etc they are not going to do rules - hell even the elite well equipped guards of a Rogue Trader they just gave standard guard stats to in a way that Marines simply would not have done.

I kind of like the idea of it more so a lore book with many different examples of regiments and possibly ways to paint, convert and all sorts of stuff combined with some model releases. Though that maybe what I think in a codex, but I find the codex lacking with fluff.

It would be nice, but we all know only marines will get those.

 Kcalehc wrote:
I could probably stomach a Militarum Tempestus Supplement, if it had a few extra units in it and was a playable army in its own right.
But for all the other regiments, no, I don't think there's any real need - they aren't 'special' enough. It's not like they have any different units really.

There really is no need for a Tempestus supplement at this juncture. They just need better rules for being incorporated into Guard armies.

Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

 Gert wrote:
Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

While I don't like the idea of supplements for Guard, saying they don't have the depth seems a bit off base. Up until about 2 years ago, GW sold the unique models for every regiment in the book before removing all except for Steel Legion, Cadian, Catachan, and Scions. Yes they are essentially the same unit, but considering Space Marine chapters got entire codexes based on a slightly different Tactical Marine kit, i see the lack of depth/variety argument as somewhat weak.

 Gert wrote:
Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

I mean you're entitled to be wrong if you want, but I don't really see why you'd bother.

There have been MANY 'supplement' equivalent books for guard over the last 20 years. Codex Catachan jungle fighters (2001), Codex Armageddon had the steel legion supplement in it (2000), Codex Eye of Terror had the Cadian Supplement in it (2003), Forgeworld released the Elysian drop troops and the Death Korps of Krieg as army lists in their various Imperial Armour books.


Guard regiments are sometimes even MORE varied that space marines, because unlike the marines, they don't have a codex that dictates how they are put together. They rely on local manufacturing, whatever vehicles they can produce and train in the fighting styles of their homeworld. Dan Abnett described vitrian dragoons with very different armour and weaponry. And there are many more.


GW keeps adding artificial variety to marine chapters to justify their separation. Only the space wolves originally had unique units. In 2nd ed the Dark angels and blood angels were almost ultramarines, despite having their own codexes.

This turned into a long post but I hope the system can manage it.

soviet13 wrote:GW - please don't do this.

Make some more models for them though, that'd be great.

Yours,

The rest of the hobby

More models would be great but more rules so that conversion-minded people can create their own versions would also be good.

BlackoCatto wrote:

soviet13 wrote:
GW - please don't do this.

Make some more models for them though, that'd be great.

Yours,

The rest of the hobby

40k is not a hobby. It is a game made by GW that resides within the hobby known as wargaming and modeling.

I for one would like supplements for Guard, right after of course a decent codex release and new model lines and updates, joining a decent size boat of armies that require such for the edition such as Eldar.

Pyroalchi wrote:While I too would really appreciate the regiments to be fleshed out more (names characters, more fluff) I would prefer this to happen in a single book. I don't think any of the regiments has enough material to really fill a book in its own and I hope they don't end up with as many special rules as Marines. So a maybe 40% thicker codex should be enough to contain substantial more fluff and one or two named characters for each known and a handful of new Regiments

While its true that the AM at present is under developed compared to, say, Space Marines I think that codex supplements could be a way to allow for an increased development of the AM. As I recall most development of the AM has come through campaign supplements that gave us both Steel Legions and Cadians. With codex supplements there would be an oppertunity to greatly expand on things in regards to fluff and characters for the AM. While I am mostly a cautious person, I blieve that sometimes bold action is necessary to break a stalemate. Otherwise the AM might be trapped in the "Hell of Under-Developed 40k Factions" for all eternity.

Let us break these chains.

Cybtroll wrote:I can far more easily play with random opponents with kitbashed kits, converted models and such, rather than with house rules (ESPECIALLY if I made them only for my army).

So, no. The rest of the hobby disagrees

More rules could also work, but no, the rest of the hobby does neither agree not disagree with me. As with all large groupings of people the opinions of those part of the group differ on various subjects.

BlackoCatto wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
While I too would really appreciate the regiments to be fleshed out more (names characters, more fluff) I would prefer this to happen in a single book. I don't think any of the regiments has enough material to really fill a book in its own and I hope they don't end up with as many special rules as Marines. So a maybe 40% thicker codex should be enough to contain substantial more fluff and one or two named characters for each known and a handful of new Regiments

Catachans did and the book included rules for jungle fighting.

Exactly! And while a new and larger codex would be useful I think that supplements would be necessary to raise the development of the AM regiments to a higher standard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Absolutely fething not. It was already bad enough they appeased the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves whiners and we have a bloated codex with 10 supplements. Now you want the same thing for another codex?

Totally. Why would I allow Space Marines, and to a degree Chaos Marines, get all the goodies while the rest are shut out?

vipoid wrote:Silly guard players.

Supplements aren't for NPC factions.

Play Marines or GTFO.

Those are fighting words, mate.

waefre_1 wrote:Ehhh...
On the one hand, if supplements are the way GW is going, it would only be fair to give them to all factions.
On the other hand, I'd rather we not have any supplements at all. Also, I could easily see GW giving us one or two supplements, getting mountains of pushback, and cancelling the rest (leaving us half finished and other factions not touched to begin with). Even if all goes well, the sheer amount of bloat fairness would entail would likely be a detriment to the hobby.
On the other other hand, we already had a lot of that stuff back in the 3.5e/5e codices, and I desperately miss it. If GW were somewhat lazy and just copy and pasted that stuff over (doing the enough to make the rules applicable to 9e), we would have a 9e codex truly worth buying.
On the other other other hand, this would be the same GW that saw all the old regiment kits and damn near everything Forgeworld made rules for, and thought "Nah, we'll give 'em a copy-pasted 30k vehicle and an MRAP. Oh, and they can keep one (1) Infantry Squad from the regiments.". They've had years to work on updating or replacing any of the stuff we lost, and the most we've had to show for it are some one-off characters. I sincerely doubt GW would care enough to do the supplements justice.

Maybe and maybe not. I don't expect miracles but I do hope for a good and solid addition. Some stuff in these proposed supplements would no dout be bad or even suck, just as some things would be good or even very good. But it would allow for more development and without a word count that prevents new fluff and mechanics to be introduced.

mrFickle wrote:Problem is GW have proved the core codex and supplements system works and makes me it easier to roll out models and rule books. They will be ok the hook for a long time now for not providing the same offering for other races or factions. In many instances you wouldn’t need to deliver many new models to accompany a new rule set.

Supplements for guard regiments, ork klans, hive fleets, why not?

Karol wrote:Too easy to 3ed party. There is probably a higher chance of seeing electro priest and adeptus mechanicus sub sects getting extra faction rules, then IG getting them.

Unless GW has a whole new and wierd model lines hidden for IG somewhere.

Supplements for the AdMech would also be cool.

Cynista wrote:Not really that relevant but I don't know why GW don't vastly expand their range and diversity of upgrade sprues for basically every faction, but especially Guard. It's pretty much DLC for your mini's. People LOVE buying DLC

Especially if they want to keep doing codex supplements. The two go hand in hand business wise

Hellebore wrote:The problem with this conversation is that GW does this with marines and THEN people form opinions about whether they should or shouldn't exist.

But at this point marines already have them, so any argument for other armies NOT to have them isn't some call for balance in the game as it is cutting off the chance that NON marine armies get the treatment that marines do.

So, for good or ill, I will ALWAYS advocate for other factions to get this treatment.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The last thing this game needs is more books that will be invalidated via FAQs and errata within 2 months.

That's on GW's poor planning. I stick to my guns here.

greatbigtree wrote:I would rather not have to buy a “main faction” book and then a supplement. If the supplement is “necessary”, then just fold the core book into each supplement. Like, sell the Cadian book with the basic stuff in it, plus the special rules.

Copy / paste the majority of the book, bump up the Str stat of each Infantryman, and make the Catachan book, with their special rules.

Supplements are like DLC, right? It’s not like the base game couldn’t have included it. They just want to wring some more money out of you down the line, when you’re bored of what you have. So they ding you for two books, instead of one... and instead of putting all the DLC in the main book, you buy two, three, four pieces of DLC unless you wait for the Codex of the Year edition that comes with all the DLC expansions... right before the sequel is released.

I despise the concept of paid DLC (Free fixes for gameplay, or free content addition is cool by me). So I hope to not have to buy more than one Codex-equivalent rule source.

Well, I'm a Paradox fan, so I am rather happy to get DLCs for a game where I feel the core game was interesting enough to shell out more money on it. If I didn't like the core game, then I won't get the DLCs.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Gurkhal wrote:
This is just me venting a bit. I don't expect anything to come from this but it feels better having written and posted this.

But please, GW, give us Astra Militarum codex supplements for all the different named regiment types; Krieg, Steel Legions, Cadians etc. that are mentioned and have a major presence on the 40k stage.

I will admit that my main interest for this for the Warhammer 40k RPGs but maybe some Imperial Guard players would also appreciate it.

As a guard player, please don't. The last thing I need is more random books. I already hate what they've done with space marines, I dont want to deal with that for all my armies.

You won't have too. Only for the ones that you want the supplements for.

bat702 wrote:We really dont need a supplement codex, but we really really need a new astra-militarum codex, and hopefully this codex will have a bunch of cool stuff for different factions of guard

A better core codex would be nice, but I think that with the ammount of basic stuff that needs to go in there you won't have much space left for new fluff, characters, units and ideas.

kurhanik wrote:Yeah...no thanks on this. I'd rather one book that can cover everything and to have the diversity of the guard be represented with new kits for the varied regiments, rather than full blown supplement books per each regiment. You don't need a full supplement to give a couple pages of fluff, a special rule or two, and maybe 1 unique unit (named characters, Kasrkin, etc).

Its rather: "Yes, please, can I have another one, sir?". See my comments above for why I think that supplements might be necessary to get the AM out of its hole.

AngryAngel80 wrote:I'd love more depth for guard, but hate how much more it would cost. Though that said, everyone and their extended family would complain, only marines are allowed a million books and eating up years of release time book after book and kit after kit.

I think you have about as much chance of that as GW dialing back marine support.

Good to imagine though.

Yeah, probably that chance. But a man can dream, can't he?

Sentineil wrote:As a guard player, the more diversity and options we get the better, but, I don't think we're at a supplement level yet.

I'd love to see the different regiments get more unique rules and play styles in the codex, and then maybe down the line expand them into their own supplement

For now, I'd just be happy to get a 9th Codex that keeps the fun of The Greater Good supplement and the relatively decent internal balance of the 8th codex.

Spoletta wrote:The supplements had nothing to do with actual faction diversity, and everything to do with commercial issues.

Space marines as a whole were too big of a faction in terms of player count to correctly manage staggered releases.

The supplements take that player base and split into into 10 full fledged factions, each of them with a player count similar to a chaos/xeno faction.

AM don't have issues with player base, so they will not receive supplements.

Didn't know about this. Thanks for the info although I am pretty sure that each Space Marine faction won't be as large as all the rest.

Kanluwen wrote:The reason behind the supplements is a simple one:
Product management. For a long time there would be complaints about things like minor stat differences in the different Marine books, or point differences, etc.

So we go back to the old model(which people whined about GW having gotten rid of in the first place in favor of dedicated codices for Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels!) of main book and supplements. Only real difference is that the supplements aren't $10 paperbacks.


Anyways, back on topic:
Guard supplements, if they happen? Shouldn't be Regiment specific. We don't have enough for any Regiment(maybe Cadians and Catachans?) to really make it work.

The books should be broader. Thematically, we could get a Fortress-world, Deathworld, and Auxilia.

That could work too.

Lord Damocles wrote:Absolutely not.

Any difference worth representing at the scale of 40K should be allowable by the core list.


Almost all of the (many, many) variant Guard lists the game has had have been garbage anyway...

Then why not change that and make the variant AM lists into something else than garbage?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:I'd be happy with just a new Astra Militarum Codex. It was pretty much borked from the start of 8th Edition, either too powerful in some regards and while lacking in others. The constant changes to things like Commissars made it worse in terms of Codex Confidence. It survived as a CP battery for Knights for a while. Now it doesn't even do that.

I like the idea of the AM as a monolithic entity built on STCs but with local flavour. They need refreshed core infantry models much more than they need supplements.

Now, perhaps the Tempestors could have their own Supplement or even stand-alone book? Their pages in For the Greater Good were, perhaps, the sleeper hit of the whole PA debacle.

The AM as a monolithic entity is something totally new to me. And I disagree with that opinion.

Sentineil wrote:It would be nice to run proper armoured companies again too. They use to have rules in the old imperial armour book and they were always fun.

Mr Morden wrote:IMO a supplement with say a dozen sections covering different storied and "types" Guard regiments would IMO be awesome - so high tech ones, primative ones, gene enhanced ones, Drop troops, exotic cavalry, cybered up ones, etc etc - all present in the lore but sadly less and less likely to be in the game.

Guard suffer from the increasingly awful no model no rules - this coupled with the vast disparity of resources constantly allocated to variations of Marines by two entire companies (GW and FW) means its very unlikely. Guard are also going to get hit with the fething stupid rules for options in the last few codexes.

So unless GW bothers to make Guard with different equipment, armour etc they are not going to do rules - hell even the elite well equipped guards of a Rogue Trader they just gave standard guard stats to in a way that Marines simply would not have done.

Either a supplement for alternative ways to build a regiment or a core book with such and supplements for more famous regiments could work wonders for me.

BlackoCatto wrote:I kind of like the idea of it more so a lore book with many different examples of regiments and possibly ways to paint, convert and all sorts of stuff combined with some model releases. Though that maybe what I think in a codex, but I find the codex lacking with fluff.

Vector Strike wrote:It would be nice, but we all know only marines will get those.

Yeah, probably.

Gert wrote:Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

And with codex supplements maybe the AM can break out of the under developed pit they are in and get new stuff for their lore? Sometimes bold action is required to break a negative stalemate or a locked system.

kurhanik wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

While I don't like the idea of supplements for Guard, saying they don't have the depth seems a bit off base. Up until about 2 years ago, GW sold the unique models for every regiment in the book before removing all except for Steel Legion, Cadian, Catachan, and Scions. Yes they are essentially the same unit, but considering Space Marine chapters got entire codexes based on a slightly different Tactical Marine kit, i see the lack of depth/variety argument as somewhat weak.

Hellebore wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

I mean you're entitled to be wrong if you want, but I don't really see why you'd bother.

There have been MANY 'supplement' equivalent books for guard over the last 20 years. Codex Catachan jungle fighters (2001), Codex Armageddon had the steel legion supplement in it (2000), Codex Eye of Terror had the Cadian Supplement in it (2003), Forgeworld released the Elysian drop troops and the Death Korps of Krieg as army lists in their various Imperial Armour books.


Guard regiments are sometimes even MORE varied that space marines, because unlike the marines, they don't have a codex that dictates how they are put together. They rely on local manufacturing, whatever vehicles they can produce and train in the fighting styles of their homeworld. Dan Abnett described vitrian dragoons with very different armour and weaponry. And there are many more.


GW keeps adding artificial variety to marine chapters to justify their separation. Only the space wolves originally had unique units. In 2nd ed the Dark angels and blood angels were almost ultramarines, despite having their own codexes.

 Gert wrote:
There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone.

We have:
Creed (Cadian)
Kell (Cadian)
Pask (Cadian)
Straken (Catachan)
Harker (Catachan)
Sly Marbo (Catachan)
Yarrick (Steel Legion)
Nork Deddog (Auxilia)

We had:
Lord Commander Solar Macharius (Generic)
Colonel Schaeffer and his Last Chancers (twelve characters all told, bespoke)
Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt (Tanith)
Captain Mogul Kamir (Attilan Rough Riders)
Captain Chenkov (Valhallan)
Captain Al'Rahem (Tallarn)
Sergeant Bastonne (Cadian)
Stumper Muckstart (Auxilia)

So that's 8, plus 8ish more (depending on how you count the Last Chancers). Note that this is just from the base codices - we've had more characters from FW/campaign books/specialist games, both now and in the past.

Also, a character being officially dead or missing hasn't really meant much in the past for GW (see the old Von Carsteins - you even had two separate profiles for Mannfred so you could play him at different points in his unlife).

Also also, why would Harker being an Elite choice mean anything? Does him not being an HQ make him not a character?

Also also also, this completely ignores that GW can make more characters if they want to. If they decide to make supplement for one of the regiments, but don't feel they have the "unit or character depth" to do so as they stand now, they can make more units/characters to correct that.

Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long....
TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

Why would that justify keeping the Guard as mere faceless peasants? Why not expand them to give them flavor and variation? As has been pointed out many, many times, Space Marines only have the variance they do because GW has chosen to do that for them. There's literally nothing keeping GW from giving that same attention to other factions. Talking about Guard as "peasants" just sounds like you're looking for an excuse as to why other people can't have fun, interesting armies.

As well if you go further back, Guard had even more characters, one of which was a tank commander whom put speakers on to his tank to shout orders and play hymnals.

I started 40k in 5th ed so that's my benchmark for whether a character exists.
Macharius had a model but no rules from at least 5th ed onwards and has been dead for at least 500 years. Schaeffer and the Last Chancers Al'rahem and Chenkov didn't have rules past 5th and were represented by generic officer models for their regiment. Bastonne had no rules past 5th and I don't think a model ever. Gaunt was a tie-in for the BL series and wasn't even in the 5th ed book. I have never heard of Muckstart, I assume it's a Ratling. It's been made very clear that FW characters for AM are not important enough to warrant miniatures let alone rules as we've seen with the latest index.
Yes GW can add more characters whenever they want I'm sure that would be nice but if you're pulling on characters with no models from a minimum of 4 editions ago to argue that Guard have depth then I'm afraid we're going to disagree. Also, the Von Carsteins are undead, they literally can be killed and brought back at will because they are fancy corpses.

The point about Guard being "well trained" is moot because yes they are well trained compared to a civilian but not a SoB or Astartes. In their own lore, GW constantly hammers down the point that the Guard are the teeming masses of relatively poorly equipped and trained soldiers whose job it is to die en masse to achieve victory. In every codex and BL publication even from Guard perspective they always die in massive numbers.

I'd like to point out that earlier in this thread I suggested a new basic Guard kit along the lines of the Bolt Action model with different head/weapon/arm options with which to make famed regiments. This would cover the biggest names while giving players the option to convert their own regiments. I've been playing guard since 5th and have had a mix of Cadian, Catachan and recently Chaos aligned Guard. Converting miniatures is not that hard and GW has many human-sized kits to draw parts from as well as many 3rd party providers. I'm not saying Guard don't deserve variation, I'm saying that the vast majority of it should be down to the individual so they aren't trapped by the same conventions as SM successors are i.e. BA must be violent but pretty, DA are mysterious.

 Gert wrote:
I started 40k in 5th ed so that's my benchmark for whether a character exists.
Macharius had a model but no rules from at least 5th ed onwards and has been dead for at least 500 years. Schaeffer and the Last Chancers Al'rahem and Chenkov didn't have rules past 5th and were represented by generic officer models for their regiment. Bastonne had no rules past 5th and I don't think a model ever. Gaunt was a tie-in for the BL series and wasn't even in the 5th ed book. I have never heard of Muckstart, I assume it's a Ratling. It's been made very clear that FW characters for AM are not important enough to warrant miniatures let alone rules as we've seen with the latest index.
Yes GW can add more characters whenever they want I'm sure that would be nice but if you're pulling on characters with no models from a minimum of 4 editions ago to argue that Guard have depth then I'm afraid we're going to disagree. Also, the Von Carsteins are undead, they literally can be killed and brought back at will because they are fancy corpses.

The point about Guard being "well trained" is moot because yes they are well trained compared to a civilian but not a SoB or Astartes. In their own lore, GW constantly hammers down the point that the Guard are the teeming masses of relatively poorly equipped and trained soldiers whose job it is to die en masse to achieve victory. In every codex and BL publication even from Guard perspective they always die in massive numbers.

I have three problems with this reasoning. The first is that I don't see why special characters is any form of measurement of an armies depth. It was only briefly in 5th ed that you where required to pick special characters to represent a faction. As an example, for marines that meant you had to take Kayvan Shrike to get any special raven guard rules, for instance. Since then you haven't really been required to pick special characters to get a representative faction army, the keyword system has seen to that. So why are special characters an indication of the depth an army need for supplements? If you're talking about lore depth then the guards have a pretty absurd amount of characters that hasn't gotten models. If you're talking about game depth then in most cases you don't really need special characters, only faction rules.

My second problem is your view that guard can't be well trained. You surely must have read a great deal of GW lore material. On catachan it's a great achievement if a child turn 10 years old. Life is just that tough and breeds impressive soldiers. The same is true for any number of death worlds. Many medieval level tech era worlds also sports very impressive combatants. You point out that guards are inferior to marines. This is true, but frequently planets that marines recruit from also send soldiers to join the guard. Now this is not currently well represented in the game, but your statement was on guards as a whole. If we have lore that claim there are particularly skilled or well trained guards then I don't se a problem with representing that. There's also a great deal of stories that go into the specific specialties of guard regiments. How they excel in certain environments that are particular to their homeworlds, use specific tech or have tactics unique to them. An example is from the book fire cast (missleading title) where a regiment utilizes a force of mechs. The mechs appear to be similar to deff dreads. These where supposedly made up of a noble cast from their homeworld who could afford the machine. Been a while since I read that one though.

My third and final problem is the dead characters argument. We've been shown over and over that death doesn't matter in 40k. Eldrad died but then was (sort of) retconned to being alive. Ghazkull got his head chopped of but got a power boost from it. Cato Sicarius was written out of the fluff but not even killed because maybe he can stick around. Creed was killed but no, he was caught in a pokéball. What I'm pointing to is that 40k characters frequently don't care about death. It's never really been a reason not to use a character and if a character dies it's rarely permanent. More frequently they're just MIA for a little bit. I have a hard time accepting any arguments containing "but that character died". The sole exception to this are some specific 30k cases but let's not go there.

 Gert wrote:
Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

Kasrkin are not the same as Catachan Devils, and neither are the same as Scions.

Catachan Devils are lightly armored, jungle fighting specialists that stand out in a group of jungle fighting specialists. Tended to favor shotguns and traps, but were most notable for their knives.

Kasrkin are heavily armored troops, equipped with hellguns...and that's where the similarity to Scions ends. They don't do "special missions" or "surgical strikes". They're a full part of the regiment they're in providing Cadian Shock Troop regiments with an element that can really get into the thick of it and command staff with a heavy armored bodyguard cadre. There's also full regiments of Kasrkin which get fielded, complete with heavy weapon teams and the like. It was a Big Deal to be a member of a Kasrkin regiment, given that each Kasr(Cadian term for "fortress-city") had a regiment that they raised there. You were marked out for a Kasrkin regiment as early as the Youth Armies(which is where you went before becoming a Whiteshield). It was supposed to be a crazy grueling training regimen just for those Youth Armies, with a lore snippet about a Commissar who had served in the Stormtrooper Regiments finding it surprisingly difficult.

Also, there were more Guard characters way back when...but a lot got axed when the Dark Eldar characters did too, just nobody cared since a chunk were just squad upgrades(Sergeant Bastonne) or had no models.

When I say "well trained" it should be taken in the context of the armed forces of the Imperium and even their enemies. Like I said earlier a standard las-man is well trained compared to a PDF trooper or civilian but not compared to a Sororitas or Astartes. There is a place for special forces within the overall Guard structure but it needs to be the Scions or at a push Guard Veterans with the old 5th ed upgrade options. The way GW represents different worlds is through regimental tactics and stratagems. If everyone could take jump troops for basic AM why would Scions or, god-willing, Elysians be special? If loads of specially trained units got added to AM that were better than Infantry and filled the "troop" role then the faction is no longer the AM. It's Scions but with less fancy clothes and indoctrination from childhood.

Special characters are a marker of a faction being important and I feel like it's been like that for some time. They add more to a faction than "This regiment shoots better and wears blue clothes". Named characters give both players and story writers a focal point for either their army or story. A Guard company led by some random colonel isn't as cool as one led by the legendary Creed. A BL novel about Straken is going to sell better than one about Catachan Captain Brian. The Iron Hands were a founding chapter of the Space Marines but didn't get a character until Primaris, so they weren't as popular as the Blood Angels or even the Crimson Fists.
On the whole, being dead thing, yeah GW changes that all the time. But you're not going to see Macharius get up and start walking around half a century after he died. Kell is also very dead, he got cut in half by Abbadon then Cadia blew up.

Gert, your reasoning seems to basically be that Guard shouldn't get more characters/units/regiments/concepts because GW's been slowly stripping characters/units/regiments/concepts away from them. I think that's rather missing the point of the discussion.

Yeah, there probably aren't a lot of people invested in Al-Rahem or Chenkov nowadays, but what else do you expect when they disappeared from the game well over a decade ago?

And if we want to talk regimental tactics and stratagems- where are the rules for the primitive regiments like Kanak Skull-Takers? Or for grenadier regiments, where Stormtroopers deployed on foot or in Chimeras are the basic troops? Or tank companies? Or siege regiments? Or jungle fighters? Or light infantry? Or drop troops? Tanith? Savlar? These all used to have rules, now at best they're 'take more of [x] unit and use [y] doctrine because it's kinda similar'.

Like, the Catachan order to ignore saves with flamers is a poor substitute for the Deathworld Veterans army list. That's the sort of content that a supplement could provide.

If GW can give a Chip Hazzard primaris makeover to that extremely irrelevant imperial fits character that was written in some kind of novel idk , they could make a couple special characters for many factions that REALLY need them like imperial guard (I mean, some of those catachan models could have been special characters had them not be limited miniatures, and it shows that GW knows how to make great looking imperial guard miniatures)

Right now there are 6 main regiments (Cadian, Catachan, Mordian, Armageddon, Valhallan, and Vostroyan) plus the Greater Good which gives custom regiment rules (12 total that can be taken in combinations of 2) and tank aces (6 for MBT's, 3 for support and 3 for super-heavies). As we've seen with SM these rules will undoubtedly be put into the main codex when it's released, likely this year when Covid starts to wind down. The reason the Tanith and Skull Takers don't have rules is that:
A) Their models don't exist or have not existed in the product line for some time.
B) GW can't provide unique rules/units for every noted AM regiment there is. Marines have 13 stock chapter tactic choices, 3 are successors that have named characters and are divergent enough from their parent chapter to warrant their own tactic but comparing Marines with any other factions is like comparing apples to hand grenades.
The fun thing about this hobby is that you can still play these regiments and convert them with the very large product ranges of GW and 3rd party providers. The Skull Takers are based on Chaos Marauders which are still on sale and for surprisingly good value. For the Tanith, green stuff some capes onto Cadians or Catachans, there's even berets from the Scions kit to represent the Scouts,

As for units, GW should give Veterans updated versions of the specialties from the older codexes like Legion Veterans in Horus Heresy and you could create heavily armoured grenadiers or sneaky snipers.

GW should redo the basic infantry units (Infantry squad, heavy weapons, command squad) by giving following the Bolt Action route with head/weapon swaps to show regiment/nationality and it would fix the range issues of being either super old metal models or chunky weird plastic Cadians.

The Tanith boxed set was available up until 2016.

They lost their rules waaaaaaaaaaaay before that. Also, the Bolt Action route really won't be anything other than a half-measure. A Cadian's loadout is different to a Mordian's which is different to a Catachan's.
I've been over this time and time again:
It's not just a different uniform. They're actively wearing different amounts of armor/protection.
Catachans wear just the flak vests and some will have armored puttees wrapped around their shins/boots to protect from deadly foilage.
Cadians wear the flak vests alongside of pauldrons, helmets, armoured puttees, and commonly will have bracers and elbow/kneepads.
Mordians/Praetorians have an 'armoured uniform shirt' which is supposed to be equivalent to just the vest while Valhallans have a longcoat with 'armoured inserts'.
Steel Legion/Death Korps wear a coat over top of their flak armor.
Then you have Vostroyans, who are supposed to be wearing carapace equivalent armor.
And the Tanith and Elysians, both wearing 'lightweight vests' over top of their actual uniforms with helmets, elbow/kneepads, and some small-ish shoulder armor that is part of their webbing.

And then we get into the Veterans...
a lot of what they could do there is also already covered by the shoddy Special Weapon Squads that need to have rules that aren't just 1 SW: 1 Lasgun.

The only other modelling option I can think of is upgrade kits for the Cadian box which I doubt would work well. GW isn't going to redo every single regiment they've ever done and I'd be happily surprised if they redid the 4 main regiments that are stuck OOP. So either little adjustments get made here and there and a middle ground where not everything is perfect but players can still distinctly show what regiment they are is reached OR the only regiments with official releases are Cadians and Catachans.

Veterans and Special Weapons were very different when Vets had their special upgrades. Special Weapons can only take 3 different guns, Veterans could take camo cloaks, explosives and better armour. Add those to some new updates like grav chutes or better combat weapons and you could make them pretty good IMO. Special Weapons are just a holdover from the platoon system that GW moved away from when detachments became the way to make an army.

No, please don't push GW into "giving us" Imperial Guard supplements.

Back in 2nd edition Imperial Guard had flavour. Tallarns, Valhallans, Mordians, Atillans, Catachans, Cadians, and my favourite - Steel Legion (although I'm yet to actually start putting any models together for such an army).

Did they have special rules for all those flavours? No. But they had the models. Which is far more important imho.

These days GW seem to produce a new book every time one of their developers breaks wind. Rule book, codex, supplement, supplement for the supplement, FAQ and errata for everything.

It's just one big hot mess.


I really miss the less complicated days of 40k where all you needed (and had) was the main rulebook (ok the rules were spread over 2 or 3 thinner books) and 1 book for your army!


Personally what I'd like to see GW do with Imperial Guard (or any faction tbh) is return to those days, but for IG revive some units (rough riders spring to mind) and maybe add something like a motorbike unit, i.e. an outriders unit, kind of like the one in the Genestealer Cults list, but with a more Imperial Guard looking motorbike.

I remember the days when Imperial Guard had Jetbikes and Land Speeders!!

They could do it with just a single book. They could do the same for Space Marines with 1 single book. Because it's the models that give your army flavour, not the rules (which these days seem to be rather cookie cutter).

But they've chosen to fleece gullible gamers. And I say that as a Dark Angels player with over 100 marines painted as Dark Angels!!

 Gert wrote:
When I say "well trained" it should be taken in the context of the armed forces of the Imperium and even their enemies. Like I said earlier a standard las-man is well trained compared to a PDF trooper or civilian but not compared to a Sororitas or Astartes. There is a place for special forces within the overall Guard structure but it needs to be the Scions or at a push Guard Veterans with the old 5th ed upgrade options. The way GW represents different worlds is through regimental tactics and stratagems. If everyone could take jump troops for basic AM why would Scions or, god-willing, Elysians be special? If loads of specially trained units got added to AM that were better than Infantry and filled the "troop" role then the faction is no longer the AM. It's Scions but with less fancy clothes and indoctrination from childhood.

I believe this to be the exact core of the issue. I disagree on the special characters thing as well as the being dead thing. As a side note I honestly feel like GW should kill off at least 2-3 characters for each faction with each update, just to hammer down how deadly 40k is supposed to be. Not gone missing or likely dead either, just stone cold dead on some battlefield. That’s not what I want to write this post about though. The core issue is the identity of AM. The reason people bring up the older editions (most notably 3ed and 4ed) is because AM was something different then. It was a force that was heavily customizable to be an effective fighting force in the lore. I guess the best parallel is the veterans of 5ed. Let’s say I want an imperial guard assault force. I want transports full of tough soldiers all wielding shotguns. In 5ed you could do that. Let’s say I wanted a light scout forced specialized in recon. All of them being veteran scouts using camouflage and sniper rifles. Again 5ed let you do that. That option is no longer available except with serious drawbacks to your CP. that has turned the guard into a much simpler faction, limiting the play styles as well as armies that can be represented. In 3ed and 4ed the options where even more extensive. The stuff you could do was quite ridiculous. This reflected what the AM was supposed to be. Various fighting forces that fights differently, all made up of humans of different heritage. It also was ment to display how vast mankind’s diversity is in terms of planets, cultures and tech. Today everything has been streamlined to infantry/tanks/Scions/Auxileries. The problem is that what AM has changed into is far less then it was, in many cases without even expanding the model range. I remember putting storm bolters on guard sergeants for instance, you certainly won’t see that again! Today’s AM doesn’t represent the lore like the AM of the past did. It doesn’t reflect common sense in warfare either (which is arguable if it ever did). It just represents the models GW hasn’t replaced since back when the army could do far more things.

Bruh.... respect on how much effort you went into here..

It's clear that the flexibility most of us miss COULD theoretically be made to work with just one book. However, I'm not sure GW could do it that way in the current edition- it would just be really inconsistent with the way armies are structured.

Sub-factioning is the model we've got for all armies now; if that kind of diversity is going to find its way back to the guard, it'll be done via sub-factioning, rather than the "build your own" approach. And arguably, that could be done with a single book too.

But IF they decide to go all in, and really flesh out regiments with interesting rules, options, and fluff, and IF they're going to support multiple ranges of regiments... It could work.

It would be a huge investment and a huge risk; I doubt GW will do it.

The only way I see any faction ever getting to the place where they could go to a dex + supplement model would be if GW committed to a persistent edition. If GW did that, they would be able to give EVERY faction the Space Marine treatment without racing the inevitable reset button that is the next edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The last thing this game needs is more books that will be invalidated via FAQs and errata within 2 months.

This is why rules should be fully digital and a card with the unit rules should come in the box. They could then focus on creating really nice, detailed lore books on the different factions. They could allude to all kinds of cool units and things in these books and if they wanted to release them they could easily with a box, rules printed on a nice card, and a digital addition to the faction rules. This would mean that the books could be bought and would be good for years and years. Factions could easily be expanded whenever and it would allow for collectors to buy the books and not be worried about the rules and the rule lawyers could focus on the rules with no need for the lore.

I think Guard could definitely use some new models, both of the 'Imperial Weirdness' type and the 'Other Plastic Regiments' type.

Guard could probably use some new rules. Different types of regiment, armoured companies, shattered remnant formations, etc.

But these should be UNRELATED. I don't want to see plastic Steel Legion who work one way, and plastic Tallarn who work another. I want to have the freedom to pick a regiment kit I like and deploy it as the formation/ruleset I like. Or a mix of regiment kits, even. Codex supplements would prevent that, not help it.

 Argive wrote:

Spoiler:

Gurkhal wrote:
This turned into a long post but I hope the system can manage it.

soviet13 wrote:GW - please don't do this.

Make some more models for them though, that'd be great.

Yours,

The rest of the hobby

More models would be great but more rules so that conversion-minded people can create their own versions would also be good.

BlackoCatto wrote:

soviet13 wrote:
GW - please don't do this.

Make some more models for them though, that'd be great.

Yours,

The rest of the hobby

40k is not a hobby. It is a game made by GW that resides within the hobby known as wargaming and modeling.

I for one would like supplements for Guard, right after of course a decent codex release and new model lines and updates, joining a decent size boat of armies that require such for the edition such as Eldar.

Pyroalchi wrote:While I too would really appreciate the regiments to be fleshed out more (names characters, more fluff) I would prefer this to happen in a single book. I don't think any of the regiments has enough material to really fill a book in its own and I hope they don't end up with as many special rules as Marines. So a maybe 40% thicker codex should be enough to contain substantial more fluff and one or two named characters for each known and a handful of new Regiments

While its true that the AM at present is under developed compared to, say, Space Marines I think that codex supplements could be a way to allow for an increased development of the AM. As I recall most development of the AM has come through campaign supplements that gave us both Steel Legions and Cadians. With codex supplements there would be an oppertunity to greatly expand on things in regards to fluff and characters for the AM. While I am mostly a cautious person, I blieve that sometimes bold action is necessary to break a stalemate. Otherwise the AM might be trapped in the "Hell of Under-Developed 40k Factions" for all eternity.

Let us break these chains.

Cybtroll wrote:I can far more easily play with random opponents with kitbashed kits, converted models and such, rather than with house rules (ESPECIALLY if I made them only for my army).

So, no. The rest of the hobby disagrees

More rules could also work, but no, the rest of the hobby does neither agree not disagree with me. As with all large groupings of people the opinions of those part of the group differ on various subjects.

BlackoCatto wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
While I too would really appreciate the regiments to be fleshed out more (names characters, more fluff) I would prefer this to happen in a single book. I don't think any of the regiments has enough material to really fill a book in its own and I hope they don't end up with as many special rules as Marines. So a maybe 40% thicker codex should be enough to contain substantial more fluff and one or two named characters for each known and a handful of new Regiments

Catachans did and the book included rules for jungle fighting.

Exactly! And while a new and larger codex would be useful I think that supplements would be necessary to raise the development of the AM regiments to a higher standard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Absolutely fething not. It was already bad enough they appeased the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves whiners and we have a bloated codex with 10 supplements. Now you want the same thing for another codex?

Totally. Why would I allow Space Marines, and to a degree Chaos Marines, get all the goodies while the rest are shut out?

vipoid wrote:Silly guard players.

Supplements aren't for NPC factions.

Play Marines or GTFO.

Those are fighting words, mate.

waefre_1 wrote:Ehhh...
On the one hand, if supplements are the way GW is going, it would only be fair to give them to all factions.
On the other hand, I'd rather we not have any supplements at all. Also, I could easily see GW giving us one or two supplements, getting mountains of pushback, and cancelling the rest (leaving us half finished and other factions not touched to begin with). Even if all goes well, the sheer amount of bloat fairness would entail would likely be a detriment to the hobby.
On the other other hand, we already had a lot of that stuff back in the 3.5e/5e codices, and I desperately miss it. If GW were somewhat lazy and just copy and pasted that stuff over (doing the enough to make the rules applicable to 9e), we would have a 9e codex truly worth buying.
On the other other other hand, this would be the same GW that saw all the old regiment kits and damn near everything Forgeworld made rules for, and thought "Nah, we'll give 'em a copy-pasted 30k vehicle and an MRAP. Oh, and they can keep one (1) Infantry Squad from the regiments.". They've had years to work on updating or replacing any of the stuff we lost, and the most we've had to show for it are some one-off characters. I sincerely doubt GW would care enough to do the supplements justice.

Maybe and maybe not. I don't expect miracles but I do hope for a good and solid addition. Some stuff in these proposed supplements would no dout be bad or even suck, just as some things would be good or even very good. But it would allow for more development and without a word count that prevents new fluff and mechanics to be introduced.

mrFickle wrote:Problem is GW have proved the core codex and supplements system works and makes me it easier to roll out models and rule books. They will be ok the hook for a long time now for not providing the same offering for other races or factions. In many instances you wouldn’t need to deliver many new models to accompany a new rule set.

Supplements for guard regiments, ork klans, hive fleets, why not?

Karol wrote:Too easy to 3ed party. There is probably a higher chance of seeing electro priest and adeptus mechanicus sub sects getting extra faction rules, then IG getting them.

Unless GW has a whole new and wierd model lines hidden for IG somewhere.

Supplements for the AdMech would also be cool.

Cynista wrote:Not really that relevant but I don't know why GW don't vastly expand their range and diversity of upgrade sprues for basically every faction, but especially Guard. It's pretty much DLC for your mini's. People LOVE buying DLC

Especially if they want to keep doing codex supplements. The two go hand in hand business wise

Hellebore wrote:The problem with this conversation is that GW does this with marines and THEN people form opinions about whether they should or shouldn't exist.

But at this point marines already have them, so any argument for other armies NOT to have them isn't some call for balance in the game as it is cutting off the chance that NON marine armies get the treatment that marines do.

So, for good or ill, I will ALWAYS advocate for other factions to get this treatment.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The last thing this game needs is more books that will be invalidated via FAQs and errata within 2 months.

That's on GW's poor planning. I stick to my guns here.

greatbigtree wrote:I would rather not have to buy a “main faction” book and then a supplement. If the supplement is “necessary”, then just fold the core book into each supplement. Like, sell the Cadian book with the basic stuff in it, plus the special rules.

Copy / paste the majority of the book, bump up the Str stat of each Infantryman, and make the Catachan book, with their special rules.

Supplements are like DLC, right? It’s not like the base game couldn’t have included it. They just want to wring some more money out of you down the line, when you’re bored of what you have. So they ding you for two books, instead of one... and instead of putting all the DLC in the main book, you buy two, three, four pieces of DLC unless you wait for the Codex of the Year edition that comes with all the DLC expansions... right before the sequel is released.

I despise the concept of paid DLC (Free fixes for gameplay, or free content addition is cool by me). So I hope to not have to buy more than one Codex-equivalent rule source.

Well, I'm a Paradox fan, so I am rather happy to get DLCs for a game where I feel the core game was interesting enough to shell out more money on it. If I didn't like the core game, then I won't get the DLCs.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Gurkhal wrote:
This is just me venting a bit. I don't expect anything to come from this but it feels better having written and posted this.

But please, GW, give us Astra Militarum codex supplements for all the different named regiment types; Krieg, Steel Legions, Cadians etc. that are mentioned and have a major presence on the 40k stage.

I will admit that my main interest for this for the Warhammer 40k RPGs but maybe some Imperial Guard players would also appreciate it.

As a guard player, please don't. The last thing I need is more random books. I already hate what they've done with space marines, I dont want to deal with that for all my armies.

You won't have too. Only for the ones that you want the supplements for.

bat702 wrote:We really dont need a supplement codex, but we really really need a new astra-militarum codex, and hopefully this codex will have a bunch of cool stuff for different factions of guard

A better core codex would be nice, but I think that with the ammount of basic stuff that needs to go in there you won't have much space left for new fluff, characters, units and ideas.

kurhanik wrote:Yeah...no thanks on this. I'd rather one book that can cover everything and to have the diversity of the guard be represented with new kits for the varied regiments, rather than full blown supplement books per each regiment. You don't need a full supplement to give a couple pages of fluff, a special rule or two, and maybe 1 unique unit (named characters, Kasrkin, etc).

Its rather: "Yes, please, can I have another one, sir?". See my comments above for why I think that supplements might be necessary to get the AM out of its hole.

AngryAngel80 wrote:I'd love more depth for guard, but hate how much more it would cost. Though that said, everyone and their extended family would complain, only marines are allowed a million books and eating up years of release time book after book and kit after kit.

I think you have about as much chance of that as GW dialing back marine support.

Good to imagine though.

Yeah, probably that chance. But a man can dream, can't he?

Sentineil wrote:As a guard player, the more diversity and options we get the better, but, I don't think we're at a supplement level yet.

I'd love to see the different regiments get more unique rules and play styles in the codex, and then maybe down the line expand them into their own supplement

For now, I'd just be happy to get a 9th Codex that keeps the fun of The Greater Good supplement and the relatively decent internal balance of the 8th codex.

Spoletta wrote:The supplements had nothing to do with actual faction diversity, and everything to do with commercial issues.

Space marines as a whole were too big of a faction in terms of player count to correctly manage staggered releases.

The supplements take that player base and split into into 10 full fledged factions, each of them with a player count similar to a chaos/xeno faction.

AM don't have issues with player base, so they will not receive supplements.

Didn't know about this. Thanks for the info although I am pretty sure that each Space Marine faction won't be as large as all the rest.

Kanluwen wrote:The reason behind the supplements is a simple one:
Product management. For a long time there would be complaints about things like minor stat differences in the different Marine books, or point differences, etc.

So we go back to the old model(which people whined about GW having gotten rid of in the first place in favor of dedicated codices for Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels!) of main book and supplements. Only real difference is that the supplements aren't $10 paperbacks.


Anyways, back on topic:
Guard supplements, if they happen? Shouldn't be Regiment specific. We don't have enough for any Regiment(maybe Cadians and Catachans?) to really make it work.

The books should be broader. Thematically, we could get a Fortress-world, Deathworld, and Auxilia.

That could work too.

Lord Damocles wrote:Absolutely not.

Any difference worth representing at the scale of 40K should be allowable by the core list.


Almost all of the (many, many) variant Guard lists the game has had have been garbage anyway...

Then why not change that and make the variant AM lists into something else than garbage?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:I'd be happy with just a new Astra Militarum Codex. It was pretty much borked from the start of 8th Edition, either too powerful in some regards and while lacking in others. The constant changes to things like Commissars made it worse in terms of Codex Confidence. It survived as a CP battery for Knights for a while. Now it doesn't even do that.

I like the idea of the AM as a monolithic entity built on STCs but with local flavour. They need refreshed core infantry models much more than they need supplements.

Now, perhaps the Tempestors could have their own Supplement or even stand-alone book? Their pages in For the Greater Good were, perhaps, the sleeper hit of the whole PA debacle.

The AM as a monolithic entity is something totally new to me. And I disagree with that opinion.

Sentineil wrote:It would be nice to run proper armoured companies again too. They use to have rules in the old imperial armour book and they were always fun.

Mr Morden wrote:IMO a supplement with say a dozen sections covering different storied and "types" Guard regiments would IMO be awesome - so high tech ones, primative ones, gene enhanced ones, Drop troops, exotic cavalry, cybered up ones, etc etc - all present in the lore but sadly less and less likely to be in the game.

Guard suffer from the increasingly awful no model no rules - this coupled with the vast disparity of resources constantly allocated to variations of Marines by two entire companies (GW and FW) means its very unlikely. Guard are also going to get hit with the fething stupid rules for options in the last few codexes.

So unless GW bothers to make Guard with different equipment, armour etc they are not going to do rules - hell even the elite well equipped guards of a Rogue Trader they just gave standard guard stats to in a way that Marines simply would not have done.

Either a supplement for alternative ways to build a regiment or a core book with such and supplements for more famous regiments could work wonders for me.

BlackoCatto wrote:I kind of like the idea of it more so a lore book with many different examples of regiments and possibly ways to paint, convert and all sorts of stuff combined with some model releases. Though that maybe what I think in a codex, but I find the codex lacking with fluff.

Vector Strike wrote:It would be nice, but we all know only marines will get those.

Yeah, probably.

Gert wrote:Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

And with codex supplements maybe the AM can break out of the under developed pit they are in and get new stuff for their lore? Sometimes bold action is required to break a negative stalemate or a locked system.

kurhanik wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

While I don't like the idea of supplements for Guard, saying they don't have the depth seems a bit off base. Up until about 2 years ago, GW sold the unique models for every regiment in the book before removing all except for Steel Legion, Cadian, Catachan, and Scions. Yes they are essentially the same unit, but considering Space Marine chapters got entire codexes based on a slightly different Tactical Marine kit, i see the lack of depth/variety argument as somewhat weak.

Hellebore wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Guard don't have the unit or character depth required for a codex supplement. There are 6 Guard characters, 3 of them are Cadian (1 missing, 1 dead might I add), 2 Catachan (pretty sure Harker is an elite choice anyway) and Yarrick is a commissar that often fights with the Steel Legion but as a commissar can really be assigned to anyone. Kasrkin and Catachan Devils are just Scion locals. Space Marines have so many units that the supplements were needed so the main book wasn't a thousand pages long. When it all comes down to it the Guard are all the same basic structure but with a different culture, Marines are not.

TLDR
Marines are the knights in shining armour with glorious heroes with legendary tales. Guard are the peasants with the pikes and bows praying they don't die and aren't special beyond what language they speak.

I mean you're entitled to be wrong if you want, but I don't really see why you'd bother.

There have been MANY 'supplement' equivalent books for guard over the last 20 years. Codex Catachan jungle fighters (2001), Codex Armageddon had the steel legion supplement in it (2000), Codex Eye of Terror had the Cadian Supplement in it (2003), Forgeworld released the Elysian drop troops and the Death Korps of Krieg as army lists in their various Imperial Armour books.


Guard regiments are sometimes even MORE varied that space marines, because unlike the marines, they don't have a codex that dictates how they are put together. They rely on local manufacturing, whatever vehicles they can produce and train in the fighting styles of their homeworld. Dan Abnett described vitrian dragoons with very different armour and weaponry. And there are many more.


GW keeps adding artificial variety to marine chapters to justify their separation. Only the space wolves originally had unique units. In 2nd ed the Dark angels and blood angels were almost ultramarines, despite having their own codexes.

Bruh.... respect on how much effort you went into here..

Thanks, I was a bit overwhelmed by the responses in the thread and so I decided to to do the most time conservative approach. Maybe I should have written a general response without quotes at all, but this is what I thought would be best at that moment I made my reply.