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.
Ok so I’ll start by saying yes we got screwed with our last codex being valid for about a month before the new edition but we’re gona stick a lid on that and sit on it for the next several years unfortunately but any ways we can dream!
Looking at all the shiny new detachments every one is getting what do you think we’ll get (eventually) and what would you like to see?
A cafian one and a tank company one seem like no brainers just because it’s the guard
But I’d love to see some sort of artillery swigs detachment maybe around the kreige theme, maybe with the ability to call in artillery strikes on a unit of Kreigers when locked in a loosing assault but that removes access to cadian characters.
I’d also love a detachment for an elite airborne type set up where valkyries count as dedicated transports but only aircraft and sentinels can be taken as vehicles and every unit has to be in a call or deep strike im thinking tempestus or Elysian type armies
What about the rest of you what would you like
4th company 3000pts
3rd Navy drop Command 3000pts air cavalry
117th tank company 5500pts
2000pts
I think we'll see a line infantry one, an artillery one, a tank one, a light infantry one, and the existing combined arms one.
I don't think they'll go down a "here's a named regiment" style, but they'll probably go for a "here's a type of regiment designation". There might be a Tempestus detachment, which turns Scions into Battleline, and all the stratagems only work on Scions.
my guess is, 1. mixed regiment 2. totally not cadia 3. totally not krieg 4. totally not catachans 5. tank/vehicle spam 6. if they get a sixth one probably scions
she/her
i have played games of the current edition
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think we'll see a line infantry one, an artillery one, a tank one, a light infantry one, and the existing combined arms one.
I don't think they'll go down a "here's a named regiment" style, but they'll probably go for a "here's a type of regiment designation".
The barometer for the way things go for Guard is if DKoK actually get a range expansion of their own. As it stands, Guard might be a 7 or 8 detachment book. We actually have units with specific name callouts and loadouts, in addition to generics.
There might be a Tempestus detachment, which turns Scions into Battleline, and all the stratagems only work on Scions.
I don't think we'll see Battleline Scions outside of Leontus a Tempestus Command Squad. Or if we do, they would be an actual, distinct unit with a different loadout restrictions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/19 15:24:41
Scions are already Battle Line if you have a Tempestos Command Squad as your Warlord.
I could see them having a Scions Detachment, either with the Tempestos Command Squad having the same rule or just making Scions Battle Line in the detachment. Perhaps remove the bit in the Command Squd about making Scions Battle Line so that Scions could only be Battle Line in the Scions detachment. Stratagems locked to Scions, Valkyries and Taurox Prime would be a good bet.
An artillery-based Detachment would likely be poison for the game. I could see, though, a Steel Legion style one with some Chimera-based Strats, and maybe a Tank Company style one with Leman Russ locked Stratagems.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
I'd be surprised to see an artillery detachment tbh.
The Field Guns aren't really arty, the Basilisk is old, and the only other one is the Wyvern.
The big Regiments will get picked as the inspiration ones. Cadia, Catachan, and Krieg for sure with maybe Armageddon for mechanised style force, a generic tank one and maybe a Tanith inspired one cos the models exist again.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Scions are already Battle Line if you have a Tempestos Command Squad as your Warlord.
Thanks for reminding me that it got pushed off Leontus. Scions are just so...bleh. I don't keep enough track on them. The models haven't aged well and the limited roster is just boring as hell.
I could see them having a Scions Detachment, either with the Tempestos Command Squad having the same rule or just making Scions Battle Line in the detachment. Perhaps remove the bit in the Command Squd about making Scions Battle Line so that Scions could only be Battle Line in the Scions detachment. Stratagems locked to Scions, Valkyries and Taurox Prime would be a good bet.
I maintain that if we're going to see something for Scions, it's going to be tied to a range expansion. Kroot got their own Detachment...but Kroot also have 4 characters(War, Trail, and Flesh Shapers plus the Lone Spear), a reasonable unit that can be Battleline(Carnivores), a Kill Team-based unit that's "Carnivores+"(Farstalkers), and then an additional 3 units(Krootox, Krootox Rampagers, and Kroot Hounds) that could be used to bulk things out further.
You can actually, viably build Kroot to a 3k list with variety present if you so choose. Pure Scions...nah.
An artillery-based Detachment would likely be poison for the game. I could see, though, a Steel Legion style one with some Chimera-based Strats, and maybe a Tank Company style one with Leman Russ locked Stratagems.
If there's a "Tank Company" styled detachment, I'd expect it to be more reminiscent of the old "Armoured Battlegroup" army list that FW did:
Tanks might be the focus, but infantry are there too...just mounted in Chimeras.
With that said, the detachments I think are coming?
-Combined Regiment gets a glow-up, to showcase that the "Combined" part of it is referring to the different elements of the Guard working in tandem.
-Cadian themed regiment. Strats are generic enough, but like the Vanguard Spearhead there's an "extra" perk tied to the units being targeted having the Cadian keyword.
-Death Korps themed regiment; again generic but with an added "perk" for the targets being DKoK.
-Veteran themed regiment; heavy on infantry based units for strats with perks for the "named world" units.
-Armoured Battlegroup styled detachment. Vehicles get the focus here.
-"Commissar In Charge" themed detachment. AKA the "Human Wave" detachment.
-Scion detachment, but only if they genuinely are changing the way Scions function. Otherwise I could see the Scions being pointed towards the Veteran regiment.
Have any of the other Codexes (outside of Dark Angels because that's a supplement and breaks the rules) had subfaction specific detachments though?
They're all inspired by background examples but you don't get benefits for specifically taking say a Salamanders character in the Salamanders inspired detachment.
they wouldn't be "the cadian detachment" or "the catachan detachment" but instead "the born soldiers detachment" and "the deathworld veterans" detachment where like, we all know what it means, but it's not linked to anything specific
she/her
i have played games of the current edition
Gert wrote: Have any of the other Codexes (outside of Dark Angels because that's a supplement and breaks the rules) had subfaction specific detachments though?
They're all inspired by background examples but you don't get benefits for specifically taking say a Salamanders character in the Salamanders inspired detachment.
The Vanguard Spearhead, arguably, since Phobos is treated as a "subfaction" for all intents and purposes.
This is, partly, why I'm thinking that we would see subfaction specifics in the Guard book and why I said the bit about how/what DKoK get is the barometer.
"Cadian" is a keyword shared by 3 Cadian units: Castellan, Command Squad, and Shock Troops.
Weirdly Ursula Creed and the Kasrkin don't have it, but the lore we're getting on Kasrkin right now has them starting to recruit non-Cadians to build up new Regiments worth of Kasrkin...so who knows where that's going.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/05/19 16:31:15
The Vanguard Spearhead, arguably, since Phobos is treated as a "subfaction" for all intents and purposes.
None of those are a subfaction. Subfactions are things like Ultramarines, Cadians, Bad Moonz, or Farsight Enclaves.
You've described detachments that buff certain playstyles and unit combos. "Cadian" is not a unit type in the same way Kroot or Skitarii are so if a detachment were to benefit Cadian models, it would benefit three units, two of which are Characters.
The Vanguard Spearhead, arguably, since Phobos is treated as a "subfaction" for all intents and purposes.
None of those are a subfaction. Subfactions are things like Ultramarines, Cadians, Bad Moonz, or Farsight Enclaves. You've described detachments that buff certain playstyles and unit combos.
You disagreeing with what is being treated as a "subfaction" doesn't change it. Cult Mechanicus, Legio Cybernetica, Cadian, Skitarii, Phobos and Gravis, Kroot are all effectively being treated as a subfaction.
The faction keywords for this edition are a joke anyways. When talking about Orks and Marines, they should have just been keywords.
"Cadian" is not a unit type in the same way Kroot or Skitarii are so if a detachment were to benefit Cadian models, it would benefit three units, two of which are Characters.
It's more of a unit type than "Atalan" and yet we're getting a whole detachment themed around them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/19 16:42:50
Kanluwen wrote: You disagreeing with what is being treated as a "subfaction" doesn't change it. Cult Mechanicus, Legio Cybernetica, Cadian, Skitarii, Phobos and Gravis, Kroot are all effectively being treated as a subfaction.
"Effectively being treated as" and "are" is not the same thing. Subfaction rules were the likes of Chapter Tactics, Septs, or Orders. Skitarii are not a subfaction. You are just straight up wrong here my guy.
It's more of a unit type than "Atalan" and yet we're getting a whole detachment themed around them.
Was this discussed on the latest stream because I can't find this anywhere.
And also, there are as many Atalan generic units as there are total Cadian units and they have a specific playstyle to them unlike Cadians because you can't build a playstyle on two named Characters and a single generic unit.
Kanluwen wrote: You disagreeing with what is being treated as a "subfaction" doesn't change it. Cult Mechanicus, Legio Cybernetica, Cadian, Skitarii, Phobos and Gravis, Kroot are all effectively being treated as a subfaction.
"Effectively being treated as" and "are" is not the same thing.
I never said they were. I said that keywords are being treated effectively as subfactions.
Subfaction rules were the likes of Chapter Tactics, Septs, or Orders.
Or Doctrina Imperatives and Canticles of the Omnissiah.
Y'know, the two army rules that were then brought into the "combined" codex and had constant FAQs as to what did or didn't get affected by them until they just dumped the Skitarii one onto everyone and put the Cult Mechanicus one onto Cawl?
Skitarii are not a subfaction. You are just straight up wrong here my guy.
By your logic, no army except for Loyalist Space Marines(excepting Grey Knights) has subfactions this edition.
I cannot find any other factions that actually have rules tied to "subfactions" with the exceptions of Adeptus Astartes...and even that is simply to tell you that you cannot mix Chapters.
It's more of a unit type than "Atalan" and yet we're getting a whole detachment themed around them.
Was this discussed on the latest stream because I can't find this anywhere.
It's discussed in the video detailing the GSC codex from yesterday. Around 2:17, they mention an "Outrider Force" themed around the bikes.
And also, there are as many Atalan generic units as there are total Cadian units
There's 0 units with the "Atalan" keyword separated out from their name.
There are 3 units with the "Cadian" keyword separated out from their name.
and they have a specific playstyle to them unlike Cadians because you can't build a playstyle on two named Characters and a single generic unit.
Two faction keyworded characters(the Cadian Castellan and Cadian Command Squad) and a single Battleline unit(Cadian Shock Troopers) with a different loadout than the generic version(the Infantry Squad) can actually lead you to a different playstyle.
Now, I'd certainly be down to argue that there should be more Cadian keyworded units. Kasrkin and Heavy Weapon Squads, for example, since y'know..."it's what the box is called"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/05/19 17:22:23
Kanluwen wrote: By your logic, no army except for Loyalist Space Marines(excepting Grey Knights) has subfactions this edition.
I cannot find any other factions that actually have rules tied to "subfactions" with the exceptions of Adeptus Astartes...and even that is simply to tell you that you cannot mix Chapters.
Literally yes. GW got rid of subfactions for 10th. Detachments are themed around background concepts or specific parts of an army. This does not make them subfactions.
Literally yes. GW got rid of subfactions for 10th.
No, they really didn't. They just altered where the keyword sits(for anyone not Marines, it sits under the general keywords if they have one) and what it affects(usually pinging off of a Detachment's rules, but also affecting who can join the unit or how they interact with other abilities).
Detachments are themed around background concepts or specific parts of an army.
Cool, so remind me what that specific keyword would be called? Why is it that it only twigs off "Skitarii", "Kroot", "Legio Cybernetica", "Phobos", or "Cult Mechanicus" units?
This does not make them subfactions.
You literally referred to Farsight Enclaves as a "subfaction" earlier. Dude doesn't even have his own factional keyword anymore, instead just has a rule disallowing you from taking Ethereals in a detachment including him.
To echo... yeah, there *are* no subfactions any more, not really, not in the way that we knew them in 7th-9th.
Yes, there are some detachments which *focus* on specific flavours of unit, but those tend to be fairly robust armies which don't tend to need a lot of support outside of that "focus". Kroot Hunting Pack only exists *because* there's a fair amount of Kroot units now - it's why we don't have, say, a Gue'vesa detachment or Vespid detachment, because there simply isn't a good unit base for it.
Space Marine Vanguard detachment, likewise, has a LOT of Phobos units to back it up. The various Tyranid detachments divide the Tyranid faction up into unit groupings based on role in the hive fleet, not according to which fleet they belong.
I'm of the opinion that Guard will be divided up based on Regiment type, not Homeworld. So, Infantry, Armoured, Mechanised/Cavalry, Light Infantry/Recon, Scions, I'd bet.
Detachments are themed around background concepts or specific parts of an army.
Cool, so remind me what that specific keyword would be called? Why is it that it only twigs off "Skitarii", "Kroot", "Legio Cybernetica", "Phobos", or "Cult Mechanicus" units?
Honestly? Probably just as simple as <Infantry>, <Vehicle> or <Leman Russ>/<Rogal Dorn>, <Militarum Tempestus>, or <Platoon>. I genuinely don't see them doing much with the <Cadian>, <Catachan> and <DKoK> keywords. I feel fairly confident that GW ONLY have the Cadian/Catachan/Krieg squads around because of NMNR and that it was easier for them to create three different datasheets compared to making one that had to cover all three kits (and the generic kit, which I'm not even sure will still exist as a unit when the Codex drops).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/19 18:10:46
I'm of the opinion that Guard will be divided up based on Regiment type, not Homeworld. So, Infantry, Armoured, Mechanised/Cavalry, Light Infantry/Recon, Scions, I'd bet.
i suspect this is the way it will go to but with each heavily themed towards a regiment without actually making them that homeword specific
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/19 18:17:01
4th company 3000pts
3rd Navy drop Command 3000pts air cavalry
117th tank company 5500pts
2000pts
Sgt_Smudge wrote: To echo... yeah, there *are* no subfactions any more, not really, not in the way that we knew them in 7th-9th.
Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, and Militarum Tempestus were all literally factional keywords. They simply have been shifted from "Faction" to "Keyword".
You and Gert can pretend all you want, but you are wrong.
Yes, there are some detachments which *focus* on specific flavours of unit, but those tend to be fairly robust armies which don't tend to need a lot of support outside of that "focus". Kroot Hunting Pack only exists *because* there's a fair amount of Kroot units now - it's why we don't have, say, a Gue'vesa detachment or Vespid detachment, because there simply isn't a good unit base for it.
We're getting a Brood Brothers detachment in the GSC book. A Gue'vesa Detachment would have been a joke to do, if they wanted to. But they've stayed away from Tau having Gue'vesa for some time.
Why? Who knows.
Space Marine Vanguard detachment, likewise, has a LOT of Phobos units to back it up.
And yet, we've only been seeing people take it to cheese Ultramarines gak.
The various Tyranid detachments divide the Tyranid faction up into unit groupings based on role in the hive fleet, not according to which fleet they belong.
How many of those Tyranid units had specific Hive Fleet names baked into them?
I'm of the opinion that Guard will be divided up based on Regiment type, not Homeworld. So, Infantry, Armoured, Mechanised/Cavalry, Light Infantry/Recon, Scions, I'd bet.
There's nothing to go with Light Infantry/Recon, nothing to go with Mechanised/Cavalry, and Scions are a pathetic waste of space.
If they go your route? The book's going to suck harder than Custodes.
Detachments are themed around background concepts or specific parts of an army.
Cool, so remind me what that specific keyword would be called? Why is it that it only twigs off "Skitarii", "Kroot", "Legio Cybernetica", "Phobos", or "Cult Mechanicus" units?
Honestly?
So deflection, k.
Probably just as simple as <Infantry>, <Vehicle> or <Leman Russ>/<Rogal Dorn>, <Militarum Tempestus>, or <Platoon>. I genuinely don't see them doing much with the <Cadian>, <Catachan> and <DKoK> keywords.
You'll notice that I said earlier nothing about Catachans and that DKoK would be dependent upon how much gets added to them.
So again: Why do these detachments twig off of those specific keywords, of which 3 were subfaction keywords before?
I feel fairly confident that GW ONLY have the Cadian/Catachan/Krieg squads around because of NMNR
LOL, NMNR doesn't even allow for you to build what's in the frigging kits for most of the new Guard range. No vox-caster option for the Heavy Weapons Squad, no Kasrkin Sergeant with Hellgun(despite it literally being an option for Kill-Team, in the instructions for the kit, and buildable out of the kit), no lasgun for Cadian Shock Troop Sergeants(the Cadian Upgrade Frame includes one specifically for the Sergeant model, FYI), no option for a Rogal Dorn Tank Commander(the Tank Commander figure from the Cadian upgrade frame fits the Rogal Dorn).
and that it was easier for them to create three different datasheets compared to making one that had to cover all three kits (and the generic kit, which I'm not even sure will still exist as a unit when the Codex drops).
How many times do we need to have this discussion, Smudge?
There is not a "generic kit". There hasn't been one on sale for the Guard proper, in the 20+ years that I've played them, which included every single option to match the unit.
The absolute closest was the stupid Brood-Brothers kit, which included a Heavy Weapons Team but didn't include the missing Special Weapons(Sniper Rifle, Plasma Gun, Melta Gun, Bolter for sergeant) that the Cadian frame added before they dumped the kit for the new one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
goundry wrote: damn i opened a can of subfaction flavoured worms with this one lol
Nah, there's a crowd of people who like to comment on Guard related things while having zero meaningful knowledge of the faction.
i suspect this is the way it will go to but with each heavily themed towards a regiment without actually making them that homeword specific
They can do both, y'know. Since there's so few "homeworld specific" units out there...there is nothing stopping them from picking one out(IF this is the case, it's likely to be Cadians since there are as I mentioned units actually with a Cadian keyword in addition to "Cadian" being in their name) to give a more themed detachment with enhancements tied to them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/05/19 18:46:51
Kanluwen wrote: Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, and Militarum Tempestus were all literally factional keywords. They simply have been shifted from "Faction" to "Keyword".
You and Gert can pretend all you want, but you are wrong.
"This army that used to be separate isn't separate anymore but that makes it a subfaction because I said so". Lmao OK Kan. Sure it does buddy.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: To echo... yeah, there *are* no subfactions any more, not really, not in the way that we knew them in 7th-9th.
Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, and Militarum Tempestus were all literally factional keywords. They simply have been shifted from "Faction" to "Keyword".
You and Gert can pretend all you want, but you are wrong.
"Were" is the operative word there. Whatever they are now, they aren't fulfilling the same role.
You *really* ought to calm down talking about this. You *consistently* kick off to even slight disagreement on this topic, and it makes discussing this frankly impossible with your constant militancy.
I don't even care that much on this topic, and I'm just calling out the trends that I'm seeing GW taking.
Space Marine Vanguard detachment, likewise, has a LOT of Phobos units to back it up.
And yet, we've only been seeing people take it to cheese Ultramarines gak.
Which I've consistently maintained has been a problem - the abilities granted by the main detachment trait should have only applied to Phobos and Tacticus units, and Blade Driven Deep only applied to Phobos and Tacticus units. It shouldn't work like it does, but the concept is clear to see.
The various Tyranid detachments divide the Tyranid faction up into unit groupings based on role in the hive fleet, not according to which fleet they belong.
How many of those Tyranid units had specific Hive Fleet names baked into them?
Have you considered the context about why those Guard units *have* those names baked in? It's likely because of NMNR.
At least tell me that you've *considered* that this could be a reason why GW have formatted those squads in that way?
I'm of the opinion that Guard will be divided up based on Regiment type, not Homeworld. So, Infantry, Armoured, Mechanised/Cavalry, Light Infantry/Recon, Scions, I'd bet.
There's nothing to go with Light Infantry/Recon, nothing to go with Mechanised/Cavalry, and Scions are a pathetic waste of space.
Light Infantry/Recon can function like how Vanguard does for Space Marines - <Infantry> and <Sentinel> units gain stealth based bonuses. They already have the units there for it.
Mechanised/Cavalry works like the Skysplinter Dark Elder detachment - units might get bonuses to attacking at things in close quarters and stratagems that affect <Mounted> units or <Infantry> disembarking. Guardsmen have transports. They have cavalry.
Like it or not, Scions exist, and GW have found design space for them before. I think we're more likely to see a Scion detachment than a Cadian one.
If they go your route? The book's going to suck harder than Custodes.
We'll just wait and see. But I genuinely do see them doing that. And I suggest that you consider and prepare for that possibility.
Kanluwen wrote: Cool, so remind me what that specific keyword would be called? Why is it that it only twigs off "Skitarii", "Kroot", "Legio Cybernetica", "Phobos", or "Cult Mechanicus" units?
Honestly?
So deflection, k.
No? This is what I mean by your aggressive posturing. I'm answering your question genuinely, highlighting where you might be mistaken and pointing out things you might have overlooked in an *honest* and *earnest* manner, and you are incapable of responding without aggression. Seriously, take a breath.
Probably just as simple as <Infantry>, <Vehicle> or <Leman Russ>/<Rogal Dorn>, <Militarum Tempestus>, or <Platoon>. I genuinely don't see them doing much with the <Cadian>, <Catachan> and <DKoK> keywords.
You'll notice that I said earlier nothing about Catachans and that DKoK would be dependent upon how much gets added to them.
So again: Why do these detachments twig off of those specific keywords, of which 3 were subfaction keywords before?
Because those are less "subfactions" and more like "wholesale different unit aesthetic/classification/battlefield role".
"Cadian", "Catachan" and "Krieg" affect a single unit (except Cadian, which doesn't even include Kasrkin!) I genuinely believe that they ONLY exist in that designation because of NMNR.
Again, let's go back to my comment though, before we discard that entirely.
Why *can't* GW use <Platoon>, <Squadron> and <Militarum Tempestus> to build their detachments around? Am I missing something?
I feel fairly confident that GW ONLY have the Cadian/Catachan/Krieg squads around because of NMNR
LOL, NMNR doesn't even allow for you to build what's in the frigging kits for most of the new Guard range.
Yes, *exactly* - they're aggressively pruning back options, and you think that them having three Infantry Squad kits with different weapon options that just happen to correspond to what's largely exactly in their model kits isn't a part of NMNR?
and that it was easier for them to create three different datasheets compared to making one that had to cover all three kits (and the generic kit, which I'm not even sure will still exist as a unit when the Codex drops).
How many times do we need to have this discussion, Smudge?
*We* haven't had this discussion. You've had it with other people.
There is not a "generic kit". There hasn't been one on sale for the Guard proper, in the 20+ years that I've played them, which included every single option to match the unit.
You know what we all mean. Stop being obtuse. The "Cadian" kit (before the current one) functionally *WAS* the generic kit. Yes, it only had two flamers and two grenade launchers and two chainswords and two laspistols and enough lasguns for every model, instead of *every possible option*, but it functionally WAS the generic kit.
If you can't accept that, then you're simply not arguing in any faith.
Nah, there's a crowd of people who like to comment on Guard related things while having zero meaningful knowledge of the faction.
Playing guard for over a decade is "zero meaningful knowledge"?
Sorry, I wasn't aware you were the authority on this subject.
They can do both, y'know. Since there's so few "homeworld specific" units out there...there is nothing stopping them from picking one out(IF this is the case, it's likely to be Cadians since there are as I mentioned units actually with a Cadian keyword in addition to "Cadian" being in their name) to give a more themed detachment with enhancements tied to them.
Like I said - we'll wait and see.
I do have to ask - what will you do if GW *don't* do it like you're claiming?
End of the day, I really don't care all that much. But I *am* very much sick to the teeth of your absolutely atrocious tone and combative attitude. I'm stating my honest *opinions* on where things might be going, as well as providing alternative perspectives for you, but you're proving unwilling to engage in a tone that isn't wrapped in razorwire. I made *one* comment in this thread saying that I didn't agree with how you defined subfactions, and you blew up on me.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/05/19 19:48:04
Sgt_Smudge wrote: "Were" is the operative word there. Whatever they are now, they aren't fulfilling the same role.
Well no gak, because nobody except stupid Space Marines get two faction keywords and that only happens to prevent the Super Friends BS from returning.
You *really* ought to calm down talking about this. You *consistently* kick off to even slight disagreement on this topic, and it makes discussing this frankly impossible with your constant militancy.
You call it militancy, I call it actually giving a crap about my faction.
I don't even care that much on this topic, and I'm just calling out the trends that I'm seeing GW taking.
While ignoring the other trends they established. Skitarii, Legio Cybernetica, Cult Mechanicus, and Kroot all are treated the same way the "Cadian" keyword is on the Shock Troop, Command Squad, and Castellan:
It's a second keyword aside from the name of the unit.
Space Marine Vanguard detachment, likewise, has a LOT of Phobos units to back it up.
And yet, we've only been seeing people take it to cheese Ultramarines gak.
Which I've consistently maintained has been a problem - the abilities granted by the main detachment trait should have only applied to Phobos and Tacticus units, and Blade Driven Deep only applied to Phobos and Tacticus units. It shouldn't work like it does, but the concept is clear to see.
Nah. It shouldn't even apply to Tacitus units if it's supposed to be the "Vanguard Spearhead". Scouts and Phobos only, kthx.
The various Tyranid detachments divide the Tyranid faction up into unit groupings based on role in the hive fleet, not according to which fleet they belong.
How many of those Tyranid units had specific Hive Fleet names baked into them?
Have you considered the context about why those Guard units *have* those names baked in? It's likely because of NMNR.
At least tell me that you've *considered* that this could be a reason why GW have formatted those squads in that way?
And again, you'll notice that I've primarily been speaking about Cadians for a detachment since they have Cadian as a separate keyword with DKoK as an "if they get more" thing.
Light Infantry/Recon can function like how Vanguard does for Space Marines - <Infantry> and <Sentinel> units gain stealth based bonuses. They already have the units there for it.
No, they really don't. We have Scout Sentinels and Catachan Jungle Fighters, that's basically it for things that would fit that "vibe"..
Mechanised/Cavalry works like the Skysplinter Dark Elder detachment - units might get bonuses to attacking at things in close quarters and stratagems that affect <Mounted> units or <Infantry> disembarking. Guardsmen have transports. They have cavalry.
Say "mechanised" only then. There's literally one "cavalry" unit, and that's the Attillan Rough Riders.
Like it or not, Scions exist, and GW have found design space for them before. I think we're more likely to see a Scion detachment than a Cadian one.
If we see a Scion one, then we should see a Cadian one. It's the same number of units, after all.
If they go your route? The book's going to suck harder than Custodes.
We'll just wait and see. But I genuinely do see them doing that. And I suggest that you consider and prepare for that possibility.
Oh I'm prepared for it. Thankfully, I can always play Horus Heresy with Solar Auxilia instead. Or Malifaux, Crisis Protocol, Legion, Shatterpoint or any number of other games where they are not constantly catering to a crowd that can't be bothered to read a frigging book.
Kanluwen wrote: Cool, so remind me what that specific keyword would be called? Why is it that it only twigs off "Skitarii", "Kroot", "Legio Cybernetica", "Phobos", or "Cult Mechanicus" units?
Honestly?
So deflection, k.
No? This is what I mean by your aggressive posturing. I'm answering your question genuinely, highlighting where you might be mistaken and pointing out things you might have overlooked in an *honest* and *earnest* manner, and you are incapable of responding without aggression. Seriously, take a breath.
Then understand why I was making the point that I was. You chose to discard the reason WHY I made that post, which was to push the fact that subfactions have simply shifted location for keywords on non-Adeptus Astartes factions.
Harlequin, Corsairs, Speed Freeks, etc are all still very much "subfactions". Just because they don't see fit to hold your hands and throw them into the faction slot means nothing...because no other faction has supplemental books that they can draw from.
Because those are less "subfactions" and more like "wholesale different unit aesthetic/classification/battlefield role".
"Cadian", "Catachan" and "Krieg" affect a single unit (except Cadian, which doesn't even include Kasrkin!) I genuinely believe that they ONLY exist in that designation because of NMNR.
Again, let's go back to my comment though, before we discard that entirely.
Why *can't* GW use <Platoon>, <Squadron> and <Militarum Tempestus> to build their detachments around? Am I missing something?
If you're going to argue that those keywords are enough to justify a detachment themed around them, why not Cadian?
I feel fairly confident that GW ONLY have the Cadian/Catachan/Krieg squads around because of NMNR
LOL, NMNR doesn't even allow for you to build what's in the frigging kits for most of the new Guard range.
Yes, *exactly* - they're aggressively pruning back options, and you think that them having three Infantry Squad kits with different weapon options that just happen to correspond to what's largely exactly in their model kits isn't a part of NMNR?
So which is it?
You don't get to have this both ways, Smudge. If you're going to constantly cite NMNR as a thing, it's important to recognize where those kits that don't align with NMNR exist. It's not like there's a KT sprue for the Kasrkin, it's not like there's an upgrade frame for the Heavy Weapons Squads.
*We* haven't had this discussion. You've had it with other people.
And I've had the discussion with you as well, as you've chosen to put your commentary in elsewhere.
There is not a "generic kit". There hasn't been one on sale for the Guard proper, in the 20+ years that I've played them, which included every single option to match the unit.
You know what we all mean. Stop being obtuse. The "Cadian" kit (before the current one) functionally *WAS* the generic kit. Yes, it only had two flamers and two grenade launchers and two chainswords and two laspistols and enough lasguns for every model, instead of *every possible option*, but it functionally WAS the generic kit.
If you can't accept that, then you're simply not arguing in any faith.
I can accept that while also still pointing out that it was never billed as the "Infantry Squad" kit. It was always the "Cadian Infantry Squad kit".
They can do both, y'know. Since there's so few "homeworld specific" units out there...there is nothing stopping them from picking one out(IF this is the case, it's likely to be Cadians since there are as I mentioned units actually with a Cadian keyword in addition to "Cadian" being in their name) to give a more themed detachment with enhancements tied to them.
Like I said - we'll wait and see.
I do have to ask - what will you do if GW *don't* do it like you're claiming?
You'll notice my initial posting in the thread had a statement about what/if DKoK getting expanded would be the barometer to figure things out from.
I'm fully expecting to be disappointed by this book, but then again...they haven't done Guard a great service since the Doctrines book. As long as Robin Cruddace is at GW in the 40k design space and even remotely involved with designing Guard? I have such exceedingly low expectations for the Guard that it's impossible to not be surprised at them being beaten.
End of the day, I really don't care all that much. But I *am* very much sick to the teeth of your absolutely atrocious tone and combative attitude. I'm stating my honest *opinions* on where things might be going, as well as providing alternative perspectives for you, but you're proving unwilling to engage in a tone that isn't wrapped in razorwire. I made *one* comment in this thread saying that I didn't agree with how you defined subfactions, and you blew up on me.
I "blew up on you" because of how you chose to enter the thread and immediately talk down at me, while trying to throw the same semantics that Gert was pushing as some incontrovertible proof of an immutable law of game design when the very same semantics hold up for why I'm arguing that the definition of subfactions has to be recognized as having changed.
Frankly, I'm also sick to the teeth of having my preferred factions treated as a piecemeal goody-bag with their lore and options thrown out to make literally every other faction feel better about themselves.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/05/19 20:36:52
Hey Kan, wanted you to know that your stance on Brood Brothers affected a decision I made in a list I built for a challenge on another site.
So the idea was to write fluff for a unique chapter/ order/ regiment/ Kultur/ craftworld etc. I chose a Sisters order with connections to an Imperial Cult, and I used guard rules to generate my datacard for the Order rather than creating a "just use 25% of your army from the guard dex" rule.
Not only did I do that, I took out the heavy weapons and sniper options, and then gave them AoF. So what I've done is create a sisters unit that is unique to them BASED on a guard unit, rather than just short cut and import.
Anyway, I don't wanna wade into this debate too far- I think people have made good points on both sides, and I'd say 10th is an era where subfactions don't exist for most factions, but there are enough exceptions that the IDEA of subfactions is still strong, even in places where there aren't a lot of explicit rules to support them.
I also think that looking too closely at how Guard look in their Index as a predictor for what they might look like when the dex drops- I think it will clear up a lot of little weird Keyword issues no matter how it changes detachments.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Dysartes wrote: It does seem odd that Lady Creed and the Kasrkin - soon to be peoples' favourite band - don't feature the <Cadian> keyword.
Equally, I find it weird that Gaunt's Ghosts apparently don't need a <Tanith> keyword.
Ursula and the Ghosts, another underrated band, are following the trend of this edition. Outside of Loyalist Astartes, characters don't have keywords that they should. Farsight doesn't have Farsight Enclaves, for example, instead having a special rule(Independent Power) that makes it so Farsight cannot be taken in an army including Ethereals and Ethereals cannot be taken in an army including Farsight.
Kasrkin should probably have the keyword, but I'm willing to let it slide a little since the Shadowvaults book detailed the recruiting that's being done for Kasrkin is expanded to include non-Cadians now. One such Kasrkin Squad detailed consisted of no Cadians at all.
That's supposed to be rare though...and the Cadian born Kasrkin are supposed to be watching the non-Cadians like hawks.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You *really* ought to calm down talking about this. You *consistently* kick off to even slight disagreement on this topic, and it makes discussing this frankly impossible with your constant militancy.
You call it militancy, I call it actually giving a crap about my faction.
They're my faction too. You don't have a monopoly on this, nor is your take the objectively correct one. Ultimately, we'll have to see which avenue GW choose to take. I can't be bothered to respond to the rest of a post which is allergic to having an honest discussion about how GW *could* be doing things and how keywords seem to be shaping up in the new edition. I'll be responding to points which have at least a chance of you discussing openly. If you can't do that, than that's on you.
Spoiler:
Light Infantry/Recon can function like how Vanguard does for Space Marines - <Infantry> and <Sentinel> units gain stealth based bonuses. They already have the units there for it.
No, they really don't. We have Scout Sentinels and Catachan Jungle Fighters, that's basically it for things that would fit that "vibe"..
Cadians form Light Infantry regiments, and there's no reason that the Cadian Shock Troops squad couldn't be used in to represent infantry in a Light Infantry Regiment. Both Scout AND Armoured Sentinels are present in Light Infantry regiments. Heavy Weapons Squads would also fit in, as mobile weapon teams deployed. Literally, just going for an MSU infantry based army with sentinel support and minimal armour would be a fine choice for a Light Infantry regiment.
Mechanised/Cavalry works like the Skysplinter Dark Elder detachment - units might get bonuses to attacking at things in close quarters and stratagems that affect <Mounted> units or <Infantry> disembarking. Guardsmen have transports. They have cavalry.
Say "mechanised" only then. There's literally one "cavalry" unit, and that's the Attillan Rough Riders.
No. Mechanised AND cavalry are fine, lean into both, and allow the players to choose if they want to lean into biological or mechanised cavalry. Additionally, they are "Attilan" insofar as they are sculpted that way, and that NMNR determines them as such. Or are you claiming that ONLY Attilans know how to ride horses any more?
There is nothing stopping someone from converting some Cadians onto those horses, and just calling them Rough Riders. So, yes, the cavalry concept works across all regiments.
Like it or not, Scions exist, and GW have found design space for them before. I think we're more likely to see a Scion detachment than a Cadian one.
If we see a Scion one, then we should see a Cadian one. It's the same number of units, after all.
Scions had a Codex. Cadians had, what, a supplement?
I'm not arguing. Just stating. We'll see what GW do, but at this point, I'm not sure I'd hold my breath.
If they go your route? The book's going to suck harder than Custodes.
We'll just wait and see. But I genuinely do see them doing that. And I suggest that you consider and prepare for that possibility.
Oh I'm prepared for it. Thankfully, I can always play Horus Heresy with Solar Auxilia instead. Or Malifaux, Crisis Protocol, Legion, Shatterpoint or any number of other games where they are not constantly catering to a crowd that can't be bothered to read a frigging book.
Again, I'm a guard player as well. I know how to read. I think that maybe there might be a disconnect between what GW see the Guard as, and what some players might see. But I do genuinely hope that you have fun either way.
Seriously, take a breath.
Then understand why I was making the point that I was. You chose to discard the reason WHY I made that post, which was to push the fact that subfactions have simply shifted location for keywords on non-Adeptus Astartes factions.
But from what I'm seeing... that's simply not true. And your aggression in opposing that some people genuinely don't see or believe that is *really* not helping.
I won't understand the point you're making if you're going to be aggressive. Politely, I'm suggesting that you're not helping me see your perspective.
Because those are less "subfactions" and more like "wholesale different unit aesthetic/classification/battlefield role".
"Cadian", "Catachan" and "Krieg" affect a single unit (except Cadian, which doesn't even include Kasrkin!) I genuinely believe that they ONLY exist in that designation because of NMNR.
Again, let's go back to my comment though, before we discard that entirely.
Why *can't* GW use <Platoon>, <Squadron> and <Militarum Tempestus> to build their detachments around? Am I missing something?
If you're going to argue that those keywords are enough to justify a detachment themed around them, why not Cadian?
That's not how this works. You asked how else GW could distinguish between groupings of units. I demonstrated a possible alternative. That wasn't to say "THEY SHOULDN'T USE CADIAN", that was to say "they don't have to, here's the alternative you asked for".
Do you acknowledge that GW *could* use the other keyword system I mentioned?
I feel fairly confident that GW ONLY have the Cadian/Catachan/Krieg squads around because of NMNR
LOL, NMNR doesn't even allow for you to build what's in the frigging kits for most of the new Guard range.
Yes, *exactly* - they're aggressively pruning back options, and you think that them having three Infantry Squad kits with different weapon options that just happen to correspond to what's largely exactly in their model kits isn't a part of NMNR?
So which is it?
Honestly? GW incompetence, and *them* doing it both ways.
*We* haven't had this discussion. You've had it with other people.
And I've had the discussion with you as well, as you've chosen to put your commentary in elsewhere.
That was over regiments. Not NMNR. I'm not denying I've not discussed regiment layouts with you, but I haven't discussed how the kits are laid out with you.
There is not a "generic kit". There hasn't been one on sale for the Guard proper, in the 20+ years that I've played them, which included every single option to match the unit.
You know what we all mean. Stop being obtuse. The "Cadian" kit (before the current one) functionally *WAS* the generic kit. Yes, it only had two flamers and two grenade launchers and two chainswords and two laspistols and enough lasguns for every model, instead of *every possible option*, but it functionally WAS the generic kit.
If you can't accept that, then you're simply not arguing in any faith.
I can accept that while also still pointing out that it was never billed as the "Infantry Squad" kit. It was always the "Cadian Infantry Squad kit".
... dude, come on. You know well enough that, functionally, it was the generic kit. Cadian was considered generic for the longest time for this very reason.
I do have to ask - what will you do if GW *don't* do it like you're claiming?
You'll notice my initial posting in the thread had a statement about what/if DKoK getting expanded would be the barometer to figure things out from.
I do - I think that we'll find out about the DKoK at about the same time we get leaks on the new Codex, but I'll be honest, I don't think we'll see much there.
End of the day, I really don't care all that much. But I *am* very much sick to the teeth of your absolutely atrocious tone and combative attitude. I'm stating my honest *opinions* on where things might be going, as well as providing alternative perspectives for you, but you're proving unwilling to engage in a tone that isn't wrapped in razorwire. I made *one* comment in this thread saying that I didn't agree with how you defined subfactions, and you blew up on me.
I "blew up on you" because of how you chose to enter the thread and immediately talk down at me, while trying to throw the same semantics that Gert was pushing as some incontrovertible proof of an immutable law of game design when the very same semantics hold up for why I'm arguing that the definition of subfactions has to be recognized as having changed.
Politely, I commented *before* you. In fact, I was the first commenter after OP. I didn't "enter the thread and immediately talk down" on you. I disagreed with you, but that was on the perception on how subfactions have changed (or in your case, have not), and then provided an alternative on how GW were going to break down detachments.
One comment, and then you *did* blow up on me. Hardly a fair reaction.
Again, I'm genuinely just throwing out how GW *could* be doing things, and how I don't think, based on how other detachments are being broken down, that we'll see what you're describing. But we won't know until we see it. But, you know, could we cut it out with the whole "MY FACTION" thing? I'm a guard player too. They're also my cannon fodder as well.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/05/19 22:58:03
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You *really* ought to calm down talking about this. You *consistently* kick off to even slight disagreement on this topic, and it makes discussing this frankly impossible with your constant militancy.
You call it militancy, I call it actually giving a crap about my faction.
They're my faction too. You don't have a monopoly on this, nor is your take the objectively correct one. Ultimately, we'll have to see which avenue GW choose to take. I can't be bothered to respond to the rest of a post which is allergic to having an honest discussion about how GW *could* be doing things and how keywords seem to be shaping up in the new edition. I'll be responding to points which have at least a chance of you discussing openly. If you can't do that, than that's on you.
[spoiler]
Light Infantry/Recon can function like how Vanguard does for Space Marines - <Infantry> and <Sentinel> units gain stealth based bonuses. They already have the units there for it.
No, they really don't. We have Scout Sentinels and Catachan Jungle Fighters, that's basically it for things that would fit that "vibe"..
Cadians form Light Infantry regiments, and there's no reason that the Cadian Shock Troops squad couldn't be used in to represent infantry in a Light Infantry Regiment. Both Scout AND Armoured Sentinels are present in Light Infantry regiments. Heavy Weapons Squads would also fit in, as mobile weapon teams deployed. Literally, just going for an MSU infantry based army with sentinel support and minimal armour would be a fine choice for a Light Infantry regiment.
Mechanised/Cavalry works like the Skysplinter Dark Elder detachment - units might get bonuses to attacking at things in close quarters and stratagems that affect <Mounted> units or <Infantry> disembarking. Guardsmen have transports. They have cavalry.
Say "mechanised" only then. There's literally one "cavalry" unit, and that's the Attillan Rough Riders.
No. Mechanised AND cavalry are fine, lean into both, and allow the players to choose if they want to lean into biological or mechanised cavalry. Additionally, they are "Attilan" insofar as they are sculpted that way, and that NMNR determines them as such. Or are you claiming that ONLY Attilans know how to ride horses any more?
There is nothing stopping someone from converting some Cadians onto those horses, and just calling them Rough Riders. So, yes, the cavalry concept works across all regiments.
Like it or not, Scions exist, and GW have found design space for them before. I think we're more likely to see a Scion detachment than a Cadian one.
If we see a Scion one, then we should see a Cadian one. It's the same number of units, after all.
Scions had a Codex. Cadians had, what, a supplement?
I'm not arguing. Just stating. We'll see what GW do, but at this point, I'm not sure I'd hold my breath.
If they go your route? The book's going to suck harder than Custodes.
We'll just wait and see. But I genuinely do see them doing that. And I suggest that you consider and prepare for that possibility.
Oh I'm prepared for it. Thankfully, I can always play Horus Heresy with Solar Auxilia instead. Or Malifaux, Crisis Protocol, Legion, Shatterpoint or any number of other games where they are not constantly catering to a crowd that can't be bothered to read a frigging book.
Again, I'm a guard player as well. I know how to read.
I think that maybe there might be a disconnect between what GW see the Guard as, and what some players might see. But I do genuinely hope that you have fun either way.
Seriously, take a breath.
Then understand why I was making the point that I was. You chose to discard the reason WHY I made that post, which was to push the fact that subfactions have simply shifted location for keywords on non-Adeptus Astartes factions.
But from what I'm seeing... that's simply not true. And your aggression in opposing that some people genuinely don't see or believe that is *really* not helping.
I won't understand the point you're making if you're going to be aggressive. Politely, I'm suggesting that you're not helping me see your perspective.
Because those are less "subfactions" and more like "wholesale different unit aesthetic/classification/battlefield role".
"Cadian", "Catachan" and "Krieg" affect a single unit (except Cadian, which doesn't even include Kasrkin!) I genuinely believe that they ONLY exist in that designation because of NMNR.
Again, let's go back to my comment though, before we discard that entirely.
Why *can't* GW use <Platoon>, <Squadron> and <Militarum Tempestus> to build their detachments around? Am I missing something?
If you're going to argue that those keywords are enough to justify a detachment themed around them, why not Cadian?
That's not how this works. You asked how else GW could distinguish between groupings of units. I demonstrated a possible alternative. That wasn't to say "THEY SHOULDN'T USE CADIAN", that was to say "they don't have to, here's the alternative you asked for".
Do you acknowledge that GW *could* use the other keyword system I mentioned?
I feel fairly confident that GW ONLY have the Cadian/Catachan/Krieg squads around because of NMNR
LOL, NMNR doesn't even allow for you to build what's in the frigging kits for most of the new Guard range.
Yes, *exactly* - they're aggressively pruning back options, and you think that them having three Infantry Squad kits with different weapon options that just happen to correspond to what's largely exactly in their model kits isn't a part of NMNR?
So which is it?
Honestly? GW incompetence, and *them* doing it both ways.
*We* haven't had this discussion. You've had it with other people.
And I've had the discussion with you as well, as you've chosen to put your commentary in elsewhere.
That was over regiments. Not NMNR. I'm not denying I've not discussed regiment layouts with you, but I haven't discussed how the kits are laid out with you.
There is not a "generic kit". There hasn't been one on sale for the Guard proper, in the 20+ years that I've played them, which included every single option to match the unit.
You know what we all mean. Stop being obtuse. The "Cadian" kit (before the current one) functionally *WAS* the generic kit. Yes, it only had two flamers and two grenade launchers and two chainswords and two laspistols and enough lasguns for every model, instead of *every possible option*, but it functionally WAS the generic kit.
If you can't accept that, then you're simply not arguing in any faith.
I can accept that while also still pointing out that it was never billed as the "Infantry Squad" kit. It was always the "Cadian Infantry Squad kit".
... dude, come on. You know well enough that, functionally, it was the generic kit. Cadian was considered generic for the longest time for this very reason.
I do have to ask - what will you do if GW *don't* do it like you're claiming?
You'll notice my initial posting in the thread had a statement about what/if DKoK getting expanded would be the barometer to figure things out from.
I do - I think that we'll find out about the DKoK at about the same time we get leaks on the new Codex, but I'll be honest, I don't think we'll see much there.
End of the day, I really don't care all that much. But I *am* very much sick to the teeth of your absolutely atrocious tone and combative attitude. I'm stating my honest *opinions* on where things might be going, as well as providing alternative perspectives for you, but you're proving unwilling to engage in a tone that isn't wrapped in razorwire. I made *one* comment in this thread saying that I didn't agree with how you defined subfactions, and you blew up on me.
I "blew up on you" because of how you chose to enter the thread and immediately talk down at me, while trying to throw the same semantics that Gert was pushing as some incontrovertible proof of an immutable law of game design when the very same semantics hold up for why I'm arguing that the definition of subfactions has to be recognized as having changed.
Politely, I commented *before* you. In fact, I was the first commenter after OP. I didn't "enter the thread and immediately talk down" on you. I disagreed with you, but that was on the perception on how subfactions have changed (or in your case, have not), and then provided an alternative on how GW were going to break down detachments.
One comment, and then you *did* blow up on me. Hardly a fair reaction.
Again, I'm genuinely just throwing out how GW *could* be doing things, and how I don't think, based on how other detachments are being broken down, that we'll see what you're describing. But we won't know until we see it.[/spoiler]
But, you know, could we cut it out with the whole "MY FACTION" thing? I'm a guard player too. They're also my cannon fodder as well.
how dare you suggest cadians are cannon fodders. don't you know that the troops of cadia are the most elite soldiers in the entire galaxy? after all, that's why, that's why it's unthinkable to compare them to normal humans, let alone genestealer cultists i admit i have a chip on my shoulder over this
she/her
i have played games of the current edition
Guard didn't have a purely generic infantry squad because there has been more than one distinct aesthetic available for the same unit since Rogue Trader. Hence why a box would say Cadian infantry squad or Catachan jungle fighters etc. They have never had all the options in the kit, but then neither did Firstborn tactical squads. It just wasn't the paradigm until recently where options have been pared down and limited to the box options.
In 2007, you could, using only official GW Imperial Guard models, build an infantry squad with one of 10 distinct aesthetics (11 if the metal Cadians were still available in the collectors range, I forget). There were also at least 3 other aesthetic options that were no longer available but valid to use (Praetorians, early Rogue Trader, late Rogue Trader). So yeah, a purely generic squad wasn't in the Imperial Guard model design ethos and arguably still isn't (although they went the weird route of regiment-specific units).
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
4th company 3000pts
3rd Navy drop Command 3000pts air cavalry
117th tank company 5500pts
2000pts 
