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.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Voss wrote:
The thing about armies is they tend to be uniform.

I don't think that is supposed to be a thing in the Imperial Gu... I mean, Astra Militarium. It is not supposed to look uniform because it is not an actual army but an umbrella organization for a great patchwork of different armies that in turn might have their own uniform looks but there is no faction-wide uniformization other than some weapons and vehicles. In that regard, a Napoleonic general leading WW2 USMC troopers is fitting for the faction and lore because they are from different armies. I think there is even a fluff blurb about it in the codex.

Except that since 3rd Ed, GW has pushed the idea of on the table Guard armies being all from a single regiment to get away from the disorganized mass that was the 2nd Ed idea of every squad/platoon from a different specialist regiment. That this book is trying to move BACK to that paint factory explosion is a bit odd and visually grating for people who want their Guard to be their regiment.

Could you simply just not take the specialized regimental units?

Similarly to if you don't want to run Special Characters, you just don't run Special Characters.

 Rihgu wrote:
Could you simply just not take the specialized regimental units?

Similarly to if you don't want to run Special Characters, you just don't run Special Characters.

Or just run whatever regimental models you actually have as the specialists. Cadian Shock Troopers datasheet would work really well as a traditional mech infantry unit (Armageddon), DKoK kitted out with flamers and bayonets are easily playable as Catachan Jungle Fighters.

Agreed, but the mental book keeping when it comes to special abilities / traits could get confusing for opponents if you have one model type representing different squads. Not that 40k mental book keeping isn't awful enough as it is.

 Insularum wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Could you simply just not take the specialized regimental units?

Similarly to if you don't want to run Special Characters, you just don't run Special Characters.

Or just run whatever regimental models you actually have as the specialists. Cadian Shock Troopers datasheet would work really well as a traditional mech infantry unit (Armageddon), DKoK kitted out with flamers and bayonets are easily playable as Catachan Jungle Fighters.

Yes.

That is the approach I would take. Replace/convert the models for specialised units so that they fit the theme of the overall force. It would bug me if nobody except Attilans had rough riders, nobody except Cadians had shock troops or Kasrkin-style veterans etc. (however they split it up in the new codex). The resulting rag-tag look of a small force of maybe 50 people where every squad came from a different part of the galaxy would annoy me too.

 RegularGuy wrote:
OMG, I just realized they are almkst using a variation of the "vine-o-flague" I've came up with for my tanks!
Probably conicidence, but nice to see

I'm getting more MERDEC vibes from their alternate paint job, personally.

Well, I already have thought on the proxies. Poxwalkers as Dkok, catachans as catachans (have already two kits), cadian-like miniatures as Cst, and if I need more men and women then cultists as regular infantry squad.

I know, these are all very savage proxies, but I wouldn't be very surprised if more Guard players do something remotely similar to have all the "regiments"

 Platuan4th wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Voss wrote:
The thing about armies is they tend to be uniform.

I don't think that is supposed to be a thing in the Imperial Gu... I mean, Astra Militarium. It is not supposed to look uniform because it is not an actual army but an umbrella organization for a great patchwork of different armies that in turn might have their own uniform looks but there is no faction-wide uniformization other than some weapons and vehicles. In that regard, a Napoleonic general leading WW2 USMC troopers is fitting for the faction and lore because they are from different armies. I think there is even a fluff blurb about it in the codex.

Except that since 3rd Ed, GW has pushed the idea of on the table Guard armies being all from a single regiment to get away from the disorganized mass that was the 2nd Ed idea of every squad/platoon from a different specialist regiment. That this book is trying to move BACK to that paint factory explosion is a bit odd and visually grating for people who want their Guard to be their regiment.

AKA were getting bespoke rules to its extreme

 Flinty wrote:
https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/broadsword-superheavy-tank

and good grief the STLs are free...

It has now become my life's work to now get that fabulous model to print on my 3D printer.

I still want a Rogal Dorn tank too, though.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/broadsword-superheavy-tank

and good grief the STLs are free...

It has now become my life's work to now get that fabulous model to print on my 3D printer.

I still want a Rogal Dorn tank too, though.

Here's a shameless plug of my traitor guard blog that has one of these monsters in it, second one coming really soon as it's allready painted.
Takes for-frigging-ever to print though, these boys are massive.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/802748.page

 Dawnbringer wrote:


I agree in relation to real life, but GW helmets have always been balaclava tight, there is no way a SM helmet would fit on any of the helmetless heads. So in that regard the new Cadians look more in line with the rest of the range.

It's about preserving the proportions. Star Wars Storm Troopers (who have to be played by real actors in real suits) look like bobble heads because the full face helmet has to be huge to accommodate the head.

But for miniatures, animation or video games you can have incredible TARDIS helmets that fit over the head like a ski mask.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
So, with combat patrols being 'roughly' 25 power level, in addition then looking at certain combat patrol boxes, such as GSC and sisters in regards to how many models are in the set.

Spoiler:

I think the army box set will actually be the combat patrol

It's bound to be mostly the combat patrol, but I think it could in full, or with the field ordinance battery removed and a chimera or other tank added.

If Votann is any indication, the combat patrol will be the box minus one unit of guardsmen and either they drop the sentinel or swap of the command squad for another HQ model.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm holding out hope that it will include Kasrkin or a Heavy Squad in lieu of the second squad

99% chance that there isn't a second squad at all. Just like how the Votann CP is 10 Hearthkyn but the launch box was 20.

Right, that's what I was referring to.

The combat patrol loses the Einhyr Champion and second set of Warriors but gains the Beserks.

TheGoodGerman wrote:

 Insularum wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Could you simply just not take the specialized regimental units?

Similarly to if you don't want to run Special Characters, you just don't run Special Characters.

Or just run whatever regimental models you actually have as the specialists. Cadian Shock Troopers datasheet would work really well as a traditional mech infantry unit (Armageddon), DKoK kitted out with flamers and bayonets are easily playable as Catachan Jungle Fighters.

Yes.

That is the approach I would take. Replace/convert the models for specialised units so that they fit the theme of the overall force. It would bug me if nobody except Attilans had rough riders, nobody except Cadians had shock troops or Kasrkin-style veterans etc. (however they split it up in the new codex). The resulting rag-tag look of a small force of maybe 50 people where every squad came from a different part of the galaxy would annoy me too.

I'm actually embracing the approach of multi-regiment units for my guard... I have my 327th Krieg for my main bulk, which is effectively my main and favourite regiments. That does not stop me liking other regiments though, and I don't need to have multiple similar guard armies with the aesthetics being the only difference. So my Krieg are one of the regiments that happened to be in the Armageddon system now lore wise, and in such a messy, gargantuan war, it is inevitable they would cross paths or be on joint operations with other regiments.

This now means I am adding in a squad of savlar chem dogs (catachan), maybe some Ork hunters for fun, a steel legion squad with chimera and already painted up armoured sentinels (as Krieg wouldn't usually have sentinels).... It just opens up some fun modelling and painting chances without them being a bit of a faux par of having a mismatched force like it would have been from 3rd edition onwards.

I'm sure it would have smoothed a lot of ruffled feathers if they had merely given each regiment generic names, instead of fluff names. Shock troops, deathworld troops, jump troops etc etc

 RustyNumber wrote:
I'm sure it would have smoothed a lot of ruffled feathers if they had merely given each regiment generic names, instead of fluff names. Shock troops, deathworld troops, jump troops etc etc

Do Guard need Aspect Warriors?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
I'm sure it would have smoothed a lot of ruffled feathers if they had merely given each regiment generic names, instead of fluff names. Shock troops, deathworld troops, jump troops etc etc

Do Guard need Aspect Warriors?

If they can make 16 different kinds of chaos cultist for Warcry, they can make like 3 more base regiment troop boxes for Astra Militarum in 40k...

drbored wrote:
If they can make 16 different kinds of chaos cultist for Warcry, they can make like 3 more base regiment troop boxes for Astra Militarum in 40k...

That... doesn't track with any real logic.

Warcry is a game about gangs. They're all difference forces because you pick and play one of them at a time. How does that suddenly create a need/excuse/justification for Imperial Guard Aspect Warriors?

Yeah, Warcry in AoS is more like if they included the different Necromunda gangs as specific units in the Guard book.

Guard just need a single vet unit with special ability choices to represent all these new units. The better example is that there aren't 5 flavors of Chosen to the base Chaos Warriors.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Guard just need a single vet unit with special ability choices to represent all these new units. The better example is that there aren't 5 flavors of Chosen to the base Chaos Warriors.

Exactly.

If we translated this into Marines, you'd be playing Marines but could take Deathwing Knights, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Sanguinary Guard or Sword Brethren as standard choices.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Guard just need a single vet unit with special ability choices to represent all these new units. The better example is that there aren't 5 flavors of Chosen to the base Chaos Warriors.

Exactly.

If we translated this into Marines, you'd be playing Marines but could take Deathwing Knights, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Sanguinary Guard or Sword Brethren as standard choices.

To be fair those should be generic choices for Marines to begin with. What you're suggesting is mixing Chapter rules in the same detachment, which would be silly.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
To be fair those should be generic choices for Marines to begin with

Why? Not all Marines are the same. Why should the specialists from different Chapters be "generic choices" for Marines?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
To be fair those should be generic choices for Marines to begin with

Why? Not all Marines are the same. Why should the specialists from different Chapters be "generic choices" for Marines?

Because Blood Angels and their Successors are clearly not the only Chapters of the 1000 of them to go "Hey let's use Honor Guard on Jump Packs", or somehow only Black Templars figured out how to stick a Multi-Melta on a floating tank. Making items generic is good, like the Land Raider Crusader being available to any Marine army instead of just Black Templar.

The artifical difference is to sell more codices and nothing less. Out of anyone on this forum, I didn't think you'd fall for that marketing trap. The line of thinking has eventually went into separate codices for no reason (three of the God specific Legions, Harlequins getting a specific codex in 8th, etc.) and overkill on Bespoke rules (AKA if it's a kit it gets different rules), whereas one codex should cover a main army.

Also they made Sword Brethren available to everyone anyway. They're called Vanguard Vets and they're pretty cool.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The artifical difference is to sell more codices and nothing less. Out of anyone on this forum, I didn't think you'd fall for that marketing trap.

1. I don't think the difference is artificial. Differences between factions is good.
2. I don't think it's a marketing trap. I don't think they want their factions to be entirely homogenised.
3. Actual marketing traps - like the separation of Daemons from CSM - are obvious to spot.

Specific details - like MMs on Primaris vehicles - are just the (un)natural result of linear design ethos. BTs get MMs on their floaty tanks because the model team made a specific sprue for them and did it after the tanks were already made for everyone else. If it were a generic sprue, come the next book they'd all get it, but it's not, so either they never get it, or a new sprue gets made for Marines and the cost of all their floaty tanks goes up by 10%.

Lots of strawmanning going on there, but you have quite a lot of it wrong.

Veteren assaults squads pre-date sword brethren. Veteren assault squads had their name changed to vanguard vets, that is all, and at some point after that the options expanded even further in terms of upgrades of weapons.

Sword brethren didn't show up until the 4th edition black templar codex (they are not in codex armageddon - veteran assault squads are in the blood angel codex supplement though) Sword brethren were just the black templars name for veterans, terminator squads were also called sword brethren.

So no, sword brethren were not the archetype for vanguard vets. Space marine veteran (including the precursors to sternguard and vanguard squads) and terminator squads were the archetype for sword brethren. And yes, space marine veteran squads are pretty cool. Interestingly enough, veteran assault squads were locked to blood angels from 2nd edition until 4th/5th edition when they entered the main marine codex (this could be when the name changed to vanguard vets also).

Please don't make up or skew the facts or history of the game to bash GW and people that consume its products. Theres actually plenty of legitimate reasons you could do that, there's no need to make things up.

Just as a last point, certain marine chapters have had their own codex, and their own specific history of specialised squads since second edition. Tradition in the game holds as big a spot for this, rather than it being a marketing trap to make more money.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Lots of strawmanning going on there, but you have quite a lot of it wrong.

Please be clear who you're quoting.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Lots of strawmanning going on there, but you have quite a lot of it wrong.

Please be clear who you're quoting.

EviscerationPlague

RustyNumber wrote:I'm sure it would have smoothed a lot of ruffled feathers if they had merely given each regiment generic names, instead of fluff names. Shock troops, deathworld troops, jump troops etc etc

I'd agree. On the 'Guard Aspect Warriors' idea, I don't think that's a fair equivalent – the distinctions are very minor, and more akin to (say) the different load-outs of heavy weapon squads, or the distinction between ork Sluggas and Shootas than the more fundamental differences in stats, equipment and game role between different Aspect Warriors.

A naming scheme that didn't mention particular Regiments/Worlds would have achieved the same result – greater variety and granularity in the troops choice – without implying that (say) only Catachans ever think of taking two flamers or booby traps. The colour text could then say that (say) Catachans and Drookians and Hunirs take 'X' troop type almost exclusively. You'd have something like 'pioneers' or 'sappers' or 'combat engineers' or whatever for the ability to have an extra special weapon in place of a heavy weapon etc.

I think the main reason GW didn't take that route is simply commercial – there's no disjunct between 'Cadian' in the army list entry and 'Cadian' written on the box; whereas it requires more engagement to understand that the boxes labelled a box labelled 'Catachan Jungle Fighters', 'Death Korps of Krieg' or 'Cadian Shock Troops' can all be infantry/pioneers/combat engineers etc. That's a real consideration if your key demographic is 12–14 year olds and their parents.

+++

Either way, I'm glad that there will still be options and variety in the Troops section of the Codex, particularly if we're losing Conscripts and Veterans – and I would point out that both of those removed troops choices are exactly the sort of generic terms suggested above...

+++

On a related note, I think it's all a bit hypothetical anyway, given the familiarity and history of the Imperial Guard as a converter-friendly army choice. If you like a hotch-potch look, with Catachans, Cadians and Attilans all in the same force, more power to you. If you prefer a more uniform look, I don't for a second think anyone is going to object to kitbashed or converted (say) Cadian Rough Riders in the same way they would (say) Dark Reapers with power swords and banshee masks.

 Apologist wrote:

RustyNumber wrote:I'm sure it would have smoothed a lot of ruffled feathers if they had merely given each regiment generic names, instead of fluff names. Shock troops, deathworld troops, jump troops etc etc

I'd agree. On the 'Guard Aspect Warriors' idea, I don't think that's a fair equivalent – the distinctions are very minor, and more akin to (say) the different load-outs of heavy weapon squads, or the distinction between ork Sluggas and Shootas than the more fundamental differences in stats, equipment and game role between different Aspect Warriors.

A naming scheme that didn't mention particular Regiments/Worlds would have achieved the same result – greater variety and granularity in the troops choice – without implying that (say) only Catachans ever think of taking two flamers or booby traps. The colour text could then say that (say) Catachans and Drookians and Hunirs take 'X' troop type almost exclusively. You'd have something like 'pioneers' or 'sappers' or 'combat engineers' or whatever for the ability to have an extra special weapon in place of a heavy weapon etc.

I think the main reason GW didn't take that route is simply commercial – there's no disjunct between 'Cadian' in the army list entry and 'Cadian' written on the box; whereas it requires more engagement to understand that the boxes labelled a box labelled 'Catachan Jungle Fighters', 'Death Korps of Krieg' or 'Cadian Shock Troops' can all be infantry/pioneers/combat engineers etc. That's a real consideration if your key demographic is 12–14 year olds and their parents.

+++

Either way, I'm glad that there will still be options and variety in the Troops section of the Codex, particularly if we're losing Conscripts and Veterans – and I would point out that both of those removed troops choices are exactly the sort of generic terms suggested above...

+++

On a related note, I think it's all a bit hypothetical anyway, given the familiarity and history of the Imperial Guard as a converter-friendly army choice. If you like a hotch-potch look, with Catachans, Cadians and Attilans all in the same force, more power to you. If you prefer a more uniform look, I don't for a second think anyone is going to object to kitbashed or converted (say) Cadian Rough Riders in the same way they would (say) Dark Reapers with power swords and banshee masks.

I'm with you on this one, it's just a unit name, paint and model them how they like to match your army or be diverse as needed.

I'm still annoyed that we get our first guardsman with demo charge in what? 20+ years? In plastic to boot, and they remove special weapon squads (yes, I know the demo charge had already gone).

Always liked the idea of a combat engineer squad moving up to place a demo charge.

Missed opportunity to make a cool special weapon squad kit with some nice options to build them as combat engineers or recon troopers. There have been flavourful rules for special weapon squads before, like the D99 sniper squads with the spotter scopes increasing the sniper rifles to 60" range. Have a kit with 6 bodies, 3 of each special weapon, a demo charge, spotter scopes, camo cloaks, and some other equipment to beef up other weapon options for the lasgun guardsmen to carry.

But we got a new plastic sentinel to replace the great existing plastic sentinel I guess.