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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Remember, if you're not running one of each weapon in your squads, GW thinks you're having fun the wrong way.

It's one of those weird quasi-real-world-isms that's never worked well in any edition of 40k rules. You could see how it'd work in-universe, with single specialists in each squad responsible for attacking hard targets with meltas or plasmas, and others armed with a grenade launcher or flamers to suppress infantry or entrenched positions, but that's never as good in-game as doubling up on either so your squad actually has an appreciable chance to be good at its role (for most of its history the game didn't even have command point rerolls to tweak the odds of that lone BS 4+ meltagunner actually hitting an enemy Rhino...)

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Remember, if you're not running one of each weapon in your squads, GW thinks you're having fun the wrong way.

It's one of those weird quasi-real-world-isms that's never worked well in any edition of 40k rules. You could see how it'd work in-universe, with single specialists in each squad responsible for attacking hard targets with meltas or plasmas, and others armed with a grenade launcher or flamers to suppress infantry or entrenched positions, but that's never as good in-game as doubling up on either so your squad actually has an appreciable chance to be good at its role (for most of its history the game didn't even have command point rerolls to tweak the odds of that lone BS 4+ meltagunner actually hitting an enemy Rhino...)

I can't tell you the number of times I would deepstrike command and SWS with 4 meltas next to a land raider and not hit.....

General Hobbs wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Remember, if you're not running one of each weapon in your squads, GW thinks you're having fun the wrong way.

It's one of those weird quasi-real-world-isms that's never worked well in any edition of 40k rules. You could see how it'd work in-universe, with single specialists in each squad responsible for attacking hard targets with meltas or plasmas, and others armed with a grenade launcher or flamers to suppress infantry or entrenched positions, but that's never as good in-game as doubling up on either so your squad actually has an appreciable chance to be good at its role (for most of its history the game didn't even have command point rerolls to tweak the odds of that lone BS 4+ meltagunner actually hitting an enemy Rhino...)

I can't tell you the number of times I would deepstrike command and SWS with 4 meltas next to a land raider and not hit.....

The old rule of 3 for guard. If you want something done, take 3 in your list. The first is going to die before it does anything. The second is going to miss. But the third unit. That one will get the job done.

(only half joking)

 Nevelon wrote:
The old rule of 3 for guard. If you want something done, take 3 in your list. The first is going to die before it does anything. The second is going to miss. But the third unit. That one will get the job done.

Kind of explains why I have three companies of Leman Russes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
The old rule of 3 for guard. If you want something done, take 3 in your list. The first is going to die before it does anything. The second is going to miss. But the third unit. That one will get the job done.

Kind of explains why I have three companies of Leman Russes.

The first regiment dies before it does anything...

I noticed in WarCom's army list article that you can take 2 Tank Commanders in a list.

Does the new Guard 'Dex not have the "one commander" rule that every other Codex has been getting?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I noticed in WarCom's army list article that you can take 2 Tank Commanders in a list.

Does the new Guard 'Dex not have the "one commander" rule that every other Codex has been getting?

Those limits have only applied to the highest-tier commander. You can take one chapter master but you can take every single primaris lieutenant variant GW has ever made. Guard can take unlimited tank commanders as second-tier HQs but only one castellan (and named character equivalents).

So the Castellan is their "one per". Isn't the Castellan specifically Cadian?

Also, I can't believe that the new heavy arty platforms are locked at 2 per unit.

Russes? Squadrons of 3! Sentinels? Squadrons of 3! Basilisks? Batteries of 3! Heavy Weapon Squads? 3 Heavy Weapon Teams? But heavier weapon teams? Nope. Locked at 2, because you get 2 on the sprue. And all the special weapons and equipment in squads is free.

I just hate modern GW...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the Castellan is their "one per". Isn't the Castellan specifically Cadian?

And named equivalents. Straken is a "castellan" and subject to the same rule.

(Not that being Cadian really matters anymore outside of stratagem keywords.)

 Platuan4th wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


He doesn't have to, the setting of the game is still officially some point in M41 thanks to convoluted retcons and warp-<removed>.

Not only is that NOT true, there's literally a new dating system for events relative to the Rift opening that place them in M42. The retcon was only in relation to how long after the end of M41 everything takes places(~25 years vs the near 100-150 first suggested).

Aaron Dembski-Bowden and other GW officials have literally outright said that its still M41 in the fiction and that is Black Library's own official position on the matter. You can try to argue with "the voice of God", but you'll lose. You seem to have missed one of the key elements of the retcon, as theres a lot more to it htan just the compression of the 100-150 year indomitus crusade into a 25 year span - chiefly the Chronostrife and the discovery that the Imperial Dating System was prone to a margin of error of +/- 1000 years or so, while some people latch onto the idea that this means its actually deep into M42, the actual reason for it is to buy back a few hundred years of time in M41 for the writers so that they aren't all writing events that happen at M42.999. In essence its the 40k version of the Phantom Time Hypothesis. On that note, the reason for the Imperial Dating System being replaced is officially, in-universe, because time throughout the galaxy is no longer flowing in a linear or consistent fashion and the passage of time has gone fully relative from sector to sector, system to system, planet to planet, and even in some cases continent to continent and city to city. Unofficially its because, again, Black Library wanted to buy themselves time to continue writing fiction in M41 without running up against another hard-stop on the calendar.

The fact that people adhere so dogmatically to the idea that its actually M42, especially when actual insiders have very directly stated otherwise, just speaks to the obstinance of peoples beliefs.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The fact that people adhere so dogmatically to the idea that its actually M42, especially when actual insiders have very directly stated otherwise, just speaks to the obstinance of peoples beliefs.

The fact that people still think it's M41, when the fall of Cadia was 999.M41 and it's been at least 100 years since then in the fluff (if not more), says that certain other people are the ones clinging to things dogmatically.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I noticed in WarCom's army list article that you can take 2 Tank Commanders in a list.

Does the new Guard 'Dex not have the "one commander" rule that every other Codex has been getting?

Daemons have no max 1 of something either. Speculation was gd's would get one but nope. Even upgraded gd's you can take as many as slots are.

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I noticed in WarCom's army list article that you can take 2 Tank Commanders in a list.

Does the new Guard 'Dex not have the "one commander" rule that every other Codex has been getting?

Daemons have no max 1 of something either. Speculation was gd's would get one but nope. Even upgraded gd's you can take as many as slots are.

Iirc guard are limited to one castellian/commandant per detachment, command s1uads and tank commanders are not limited. Tank commanders don't get a 3+ BS any more though

tneva82 wrote:
Daemons have no max 1 of something either. Speculation was gd's would get one but nope. Even upgraded gd's you can take as many as slots are.

I'm surprised about the Exalted part of that, but they were never going to limit you to 1 GD per army.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Tank commanders don't get a 3+ BS any more though

But the Valkyrie does, for some incomprehensible reason. **** you GW and this dumpster fire of a codex.

And we thought the Chaos book was inconsistent.

Why couldn't Scions get a little end section with their own regiments (much like Harlis did with the Eldar book) rather than being mushed into the main list?

The Eldar book might be the best Codex in 9th, from a structural standpoint. It should be the blue-print, not the exception.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the Castellan is their "one per". Isn't the Castellan specifically Cadian?

And named equivalents. Straken is a "castellan" and subject to the same rule.

(Not that being Cadian really matters anymore outside of stratagem keywords.)

So it seems Castellan is the trade markable version of General or Senior Officer.

I can live with that.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the Castellan is their "one per". Isn't the Castellan specifically Cadian?

And named equivalents. Straken is a "castellan" and subject to the same rule.

(Not that being Cadian really matters anymore outside of stratagem keywords.)

So it seems Castellan is the trade markable version of General or Senior Officer.

I can live with that.

Wasn't Creed a Castellan since back in 3rd?

Just to squeeze a bit more whine out of this conversation:

The Castellan is another example at how fethed up the Codex is, or as others have pointed out, devoid of any love.

Technically speaking, if you were to create a "your dudes" regiment, the standard Organisation would mean that you create a Colonel in your head canon that is leading the whole thing, as well as some Majors and Lieutnants to hold it all together. You know, just like any BL novel about the topic. But now you are forced with accepting that RAW, either your Colonel is a replacable shmuck that is no better than a Lieutanant or your regiment is lead by a Cadian. Because they did so well while their Planet broke up, that they absolutely need to boss around other Regiments. There is no generic Senior Officer. Or to put it differently, if this was the SM Codex, then there is no entry for a Chapter Master / Captain any more. Your Chapter/Company can only be lead by an Ultramarine Captain or a "Your dudes Chapter" Lieutanant.

That alone is giving me the shivers, especially since I can remember very well what an armory is and that it used to be a character driven story.

Whilst it silly that the castellan is identified as Cadian, does it actually matter? I don't quite understand whether the regiment designations actually do anything or are they just fluff...

From a count as perspective is doesn't matter. Same as that your dudes might all be classified as Cadian Shock troops, because you want to run them without HW. This is more on a principle level of how messed up NMNR is. Give for example that they stop producing the old Cadian Infantry kit, the general Infantry Squad will cease to exist. Then your entire Regiment can only be Cadian, Krieg or Catachan (if they too don't get just discontinued at one time). Tbh, there isn't a general Command Squad article on the GW page, so the future looks like that there will only be Cadian Command Squads at one point at this rate.

 GiToRaZor wrote:
From a count as perspective is doesn't matter. Same as that your dudes might all be classified as Cadian Shock troops, because you want to run them without HW. This is more on a principle level of how messed up NMNR is. Give for example that they stop producing the old Cadian Infantry kit, the general Infantry Squad will cease to exist. Then your entire Regiment can only be Cadian, Krieg or Catachan (if they too don't get just discontinued at one time). Tbh, there isn't a general Command Squad article on the GW page, so the future looks like that there will only be Cadian Command Squads at one point at this rate.

I really don't understand this. It's a name, you can model it how you like, it can have any appearance as long as it's clear what it looks like, the GW shelf model is a "Cadian Castellan" if you took a permanent marker and crossed out Cadian and wrote "my dudes" on the packet/in your book, what are you losing exactly? You act like the defacto infantry squad haven't been cadian shock troops for the last however many years.

Dudeface wrote:
I really don't understand this. It's a name, you can model it how you like, it can have any appearance as long as it's clear what it looks like, the GW shelf model is a "Cadian Castellan" if you took a permanent marker and crossed out Cadian and wrote "my dudes" on the packet/in your book, what are you losing exactly? You act like the defacto infantry squad haven't been cadian shock troops for the last however many years.

I'll eloborate. Firstly, from my point of view there is nothing wrong using "count as" to play your army the way you want it, based on rules that are currently available. I can still remember the Bols articles, where Goatboay would play SW or BA on paper but had actual CSM models, because from his point of view, their rules matched the feel of the CSM better than their actual codex. (And if that is already not a glaring issue about a Codex, but I'll leave that point for now) If that doesn't ring a bell, ask the people about what they think of everything conting as Accursed Weapons.

Hence, if you play your "own dudes" regiment, I am 100% on board with using whatever rules you find applicable. Heck, I'll wholeheartedly support house rules (Our ork boys have 2W e.g.). The issue is just, where is this heading to? Here a crass overexageration:

Imagine said BA army of modelled WE models entering a tournament, but it is a GW one, will they even accept the entry? How far will they push the rule that your model needs to be the one that is supplied with the rules? What if Codex CSM and WE gets discontinued? Should we simply tell people to use Codex SM? (Remember I said, crass examples to illustrate the point)
In this case, technically, assuming they discontinue the rules for the Infantry Squad and Command Squad they could bar anyone from fielding their army, even it is 100% GW produced ("Sorry, but that Vostroyan Colonel is not a Cadian Castelan model, bye bye")

What is actually stopping them from simply discontinuing Codex IG altogether? They might just call it Codex: Cadia and be done with it. Of course, no real consequences over a friendly game over beer and pretzels, but if they do that, why even bother with the background for the other regiments anymore? They could just write down, that "there are 15 trillion Cadians in the Imperium of man, but sometimes someone from a different planet shows up, they are considered one step away from abhumans".

To wrap this up, of course I don't have a current insolvable issue. But I do see this as a very glaring issue when it comes to the direction that this is going. And yes, I am a fluff bunny and I don't tink that is anything to be ashamed of. After all, without the background, WH40K would simply vanish as the overcomplicated expensive mess that it actually is.

 GiToRaZor wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I really don't understand this. It's a name, you can model it how you like, it can have any appearance as long as it's clear what it looks like, the GW shelf model is a "Cadian Castellan" if you took a permanent marker and crossed out Cadian and wrote "my dudes" on the packet/in your book, what are you losing exactly? You act like the defacto infantry squad haven't been cadian shock troops for the last however many years.

I'll eloborate. Firstly, from my point of view there is nothing wrong using "count as" to play your army the way you want it, based on rules that are currently available. I can still remember the Bols articles, where Goatboay would play SW or BA on paper but had actual CSM models, because from his point of view, their rules matched the feel of the CSM better than their actual codex. (And if that is already not a glaring issue about a Codex, but I'll leave that point for now) If that doesn't ring a bell, ask the people about what they think of everything conting as Accursed Weapons.

Hence, if you play your "own dudes" regiment, I am 100% on board with using whatever rules you find applicable. Heck, I'll wholeheartedly support house rules (Our ork boys have 2W e.g.). The issue is just, where is this heading to? Here a crass overexageration:

Imagine said BA army of modelled WE models entering a tournament, but it is a GW one, will they even accept the entry? How far will they push the rule that your model needs to be the one that is supplied with the rules? What if Codex CSM and WE gets discontinued? Should we simply tell people to use Codex SM? (Remember I said, crass examples to illustrate the point)
In this case, technically, assuming they discontinue the rules for the Infantry Squad and Command Squad they could bar anyone from fielding their army, even it is 100% GW produced ("Sorry, but that Vostroyan Colonel is not a Cadian Castelan model, bye bye")

What is actually stopping them from simply discontinuing Codex IG altogether? They might just call it Codex: Cadia and be done with it. Of course, no real consequences over a friendly game over beer and pretzels, but if they do that, why even bother with the background for the other regiments anymore? They could just write down, that "there are 15 trillion Cadians in the Imperium of man, but sometimes someone from a different planet shows up, they are considered one step away from abhumans".

To wrap this up, of course I don't have a current insolvable issue. But I do see this as a very glaring issue when it comes to the direction that this is going. And yes, I am a fluff bunny and I don't tink that is anything to be ashamed of. After all, without the background, WH40K would simply vanish as the overcomplicated expensive mess that it actually is.

So to clarify, they can slap the word Cadian on every unit entry and the only thing that changes in any meaningful way is you need extra permission for conversions at events, which is arguably something you should be doing now with custom guard sculpts? I don't see the issue, your guys are your guys, irrespective of the name of the datasheet. You want your Cadian Castellan to actually be a Vostroyan Colonel or whatever, what's stopping you in reality? Why does "Cadian infantry squad" stop them being from another planet? You're a fluff bunny, write your own narrative.

Nothing has changed in any meaningful way and I don't see it as a trend, Cadian has been the "default" for a loooong time, it hasn't stopped anyone yet.

The issue is you shouldn't need to "Counts As" your dudes.

By "loooong time", do you mean at most a couple of years?

Currently, you can buy a Cadian, Tanith, or Catachan command squad.

As recently as the 8th edition codex, you could also purchase a Vostroyan command squad, and Steel Legion, Valhallan, Mordian, and Tallarn officers to build your own command squad.

Cadia has not been a default at any point, only the most common army. It still isn't a default.

What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.

 Haighus wrote:
By "loooong time", do you mean at most a couple of years?

Currently, you can buy a Cadian, Tanith, or Catachan command squad.

As recently as the 8th edition codex, you could also purchase a Vostroyan command squad, and Steel Legion, Valhallan, Mordian, and Tallarn officers to build your own command squad.

Cadia has not been a default at any point, only the most common army. It still isn't a default.

What crew comes with the tanks? Which boxes weren't mail order only? Which kits went into the start collecting etc? Which models are used as the defaults in all their video games?

Dudeface wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
By "loooong time", do you mean at most a couple of years?

Currently, you can buy a Cadian, Tanith, or Catachan command squad.

As recently as the 8th edition codex, you could also purchase a Vostroyan command squad, and Steel Legion, Valhallan, Mordian, and Tallarn officers to build your own command squad.

Cadia has not been a default at any point, only the most common army. It still isn't a default.

What crew comes with the tanks? Which boxes weren't mail order only? Which kits went into the start collecting etc? Which models are used as the defaults in all their video games?

The tanks have generic crews, with the option to build as Cadians. They come with a transfer sheet for all manner of regiments, unlike the Cadian boxes.

Catachans have now moved to online only, so Cadians are the only one in store. I don't think that makes them default though, at least until the new Codex where everything appears to be moving that way. Prior to the 9th box, all core options could be built in plastic without using Cadian models.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why couldn't Scions get a little end section with their own regiments (much like Harlis did with the Eldar book) rather than being mushed into the main list?

That one's easy....so they can sell you a Scions book/supplement later down the line.