New Codex Incoming!

[WarriorFish]

Black Templars also don't have a place in the barracks - see to it that it remains this way lest you find out who wears black best...

[HenricusTyranicus]

I'm pretty sure it'll just be on a detachment basis, like every codex so far has done. You want Pask and Valhallans? Double battalion detachment, there we go. 

[NatBrannigan]

Yeppers,

 

You have to deal with having two detachments, and potentially less CP's or more options that you may not want in order to get the benefit of two different sets of tactics / strategems and Special Characters. Seems like a very fair trade off.

 

No different to me having to use two detachments if I want to add my Marines with their Chapter Tactics to my army for a game. It works really well.

[Sete]

Black Templars also don't have a place in the barracks - see to it that it remains this way lest you find out who wears black best...

Not the comissar ;)

 

Again i hope they give the Sargent's option for lasgun. It's a pet peeve I have when squad building.

 

Curious to see what the regiments CT will be.

Hopefully a couple of them will be for Scions.

[Plasmablasts]

 

Black Templars also don't have a place in the barracks - see to it that it remains this way lest you find out who wears black best...

Not the comissar ;)

 

Again i hope they give the Sargent's option for lasgun. It's a pet peeve I have when squad building.

 

Curious to see what the regiments CT will be.

Hopefully a couple of them will be for Scions.

Not sure that they'll do that, as the Scions don't have the <Regiment> keyword. It would be nice if they produced a Codex: Militarum Tempestus with rules for different MT regiments though.

[duz_]

Scions might get their own regardless

Hopefully they get their vox-net back or something similar

Their leadership is abysmal!

[HenricusTyranicus]

If Scions become their own Regiment, we'll have to take them in their own detachments. This sounds exceedingly inconvenient 

[Plasmablasts]

It'll be interesting to see how they handle regimental doctrines and detachment building, as Guard are so far unique (I think) in having many parts of their list not having the <Regiment> keyword (Militarum Tempestus, Auxilia, Officio Praefectus, Adeptus Ministorum, Astra Telepathica, Ad Mech), so either you'll have to move all these out into separate detachments (which is doable and sort of fluffy) or there'll need to be a more long-winded explanation that <Regiment> units only benefit from the special rules as long as the detachment contains only Astra Militarum units which do not have a different <Regiment> keyword (which I think is more likely).

[Schlitzaf]

Guys food for thought, could the Forged World Regiment provide insight for GW Guard? Tying our 'regiment' bonus to a unique order* and one special rule?** (Aerial Drop and Cult of Sacrifice.). Sense that way we wouldn't lose our tactics if IG units weren't all from the same regiment persay. To use your regiments main buff/thing you need an officer of the apporiate regiment keyword?

 

*Krieg Unique Order being if Killed May Still Fight. As functionally the Pistol Two Order just replace FRSRF, and the Elysian Unique Order being Ignoring Moral.

 

**Admittedly the one special rule could be lost following the (keyword) idea every other army is following. But tying our tactics to our orders seems like a solid idea to get around an issue of Commissars/etc. or perhaps maybe that is the fix. If you take auxiliaries you lose (regiment) keyword bonus. Just spitballing.

[Plasmablasts]

Random idea for a Catachan stratagem: "Ambush" - 1CP - at the start of your turn, allows you to "deep-strike" one unit of Catachan Infantry into an area of cover, as long as they are at least 3" away from any enemy model.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think it'll be 9" as that's the general rule.

[Guardsman Bob]

If Scions become their own Regiment, we'll have to take them in their own detachments. This sounds exceedingly inconvenient

 

They are already their "own regiment" and the errata has squashed any use of <name-changling> shenanigans to circumvent standing lore names. I think the whole Imperial Soup thing is here to stay.

 

I'm just curious if they'll get their own codex again as GW has been focusing as a book publisher over a miniatures company. It would be kind of hilarious if AM/IG players are expected to spend over $100 just for their army books in 8th.

[Withershadow]

Guys food for thought, could the Forged World Regiment provide insight for GW Guard? Tying our 'regiment' bonus to a unique order* and one special rule?** (Aerial Drop and Cult of Sacrifice.). Sense that way we wouldn't lose our tactics if IG units weren't all from the same regiment persay. To use your regiments main buff/thing you need an officer of the apporiate regiment keyword?

*Krieg Unique Order being if Killed May Still Fight. As functionally the Pistol Two Order just replace FRSRF, and the Elysian Unique Order being Ignoring Moral.

**Admittedly the one special rule could be lost following the (keyword) idea every other army is following. But tying our tactics to our orders seems like a solid idea to get around an issue of Commissars/etc. or perhaps maybe that is the fix. If you take auxiliaries you lose (regiment) keyword bonus. Just spitballing.

This is unlikely to get carried over to GW, since FW has a very different approach to rules (many things tend to be overcosted, models tend to have way more attacks in melee, etc). Battle-forged to a specific keyword so far not only grants other armies their unique perk, but also gives their troops objective secured. Krieg and Elysians are able to get away bringing other Imperial stuff in the same detachment without losing regimental rules, and our troops are objective secured (per future rule in Chapter Approved book). Edited September 16, 2017 by Withershadow

[Vel'Cona]

The only annoyance I have with regiment rules landing a la Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus is that we don't share the convenience the latter have with selecting FWs.  Since IG regiments typically have unique appearances in terms of uniforms, armour marks and other characteristics (even their Lasguns are different!) it's quite a bit more challenging to "hot swap" as many AdMech players seem to be doing toward Lucius/Stygies FWs.  For example, if the most effective regimental keyword (based on Abilities granted) becomes Valhallan, imagine the difficulty this will cause as players flock to that banner with generic Cadian/Catachan models, at least from a WYSIWYG/sportsmanship perspective.  Here's hoping GW makes particular cause to balance each regiment appropriately!  :)

[Mitchverr]

I suspect (or hope to be fair) that they wouldnt be silly enough to go with named regiments for the doctrines, that would be very silly indeed (elysians and dkok are a different case, they have basically had 1 way to play for their whole existance really).

 

I 100% would hope that they go with a more sane view and fluff friendly point of something like

 

"light infantry" - bonus to movement, firing on move or possibly they would get the ambush/cover save thats shown up on other books. (catachan)

"mech infantry" - bonus to using transports. (steel legion)

"armoured" - tanks, kind of obvious.

"airborne" - deep strike bonus. Carapace for regular troops? (thinking harkoni warhawks)

"line infantry" - bonus to formation style fighting (mordian)

"mass infantry" - something that would encourage mass conscript stuff (valhallan influence?)

 

Maybe mentioning a specific "world regiment" as an example in the fluff text for the training, but not actually forcing them to be from said world would be nice.

 

 

Ofcourse thats just examples of how I would like it to look, not the "it should be this specific buff". The guard is simply to diverse to enforce something such as "catachan - light infantry", as IIRC fluff wise, dont the vast majority of worlds form armies out of regiments trained in different roles? And ofcourse, GW should take note that many of the regiments which they likely might use as named dont even have models or if they do, have highly limited numbers of them which would drive people to other companies.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Mitchverr

[duz_]

I don't think the visual look of the model will be an issue with the regiment keyword as long as your clearly delineate which is which. 

 

Kinda like Ultra Scars syndrome, just say despite that they are Valhallans, they are currently seconded to a Cadian Brigade and commander. Therefore have been trained and integrated to suit the new Brigades requirements.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

The only annoyance I have with regiment rules landing a la Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus is that we don't share the convenience the latter have with selecting FWs.  Since IG regiments typically have unique appearances in terms of uniforms, armour marks and other characteristics (even their Lasguns are different!) it's quite a bit more challenging to "hot swap" as many AdMech players seem to be doing toward Lucius/Stygies FWs.  For example, if the most effective regimental keyword (based on Abilities granted) becomes Valhallan, imagine the difficulty this will cause as players flock to that banner with generic Cadian/Catachan models, at least from a WYSIWYG/sportsmanship perspective.  Here's hoping GW makes particular cause to balance each regiment appropriately!  

I have almost exclusively Cadian Models. I run my guys with Death Korps rules. I like the way DKoK plays, but I also love the way my Cadians look (I have 47 Kasrkin + Kell as my standard bearer). I use DKoK rules because I feel that they are the best representation of how my regiment fights. 

 

 

I don't think the visual look of the model will be an issue with the regiment keyword as long as your clearly delineate which is which. 

 

Kinda like Ultra Scars syndrome, just say despite that they are Valhallans, they are currently seconded to a Cadian Brigade and commander. Therefore have been trained and integrated to suit the new Brigades requirements.

Alternatively just make your own regiment, that uses equipment that is either identical to or reminiscent of Cadian gear, but that they come from a world like Valhalla and that they use very similar tactics. 

 

I'll also throw it out there:

 

 

I see no trench/great coats. 

 

Here's some images of Wehrmacht Soldiers on the Eastern Front in winter:

Also, no trench/great coats.

 

So, while the imagery is cool, to have your guys wearing ushankas and greatcoats, it's not necessarily the only way that your dudes would be fighting in harsh tundra environments. 

[Plasmablasts]

Among the millions of worlds of the Imperium, it's not unlikely that you could find one whose regiments are dressed, e.g., like Valhallans but fight like Cadians.

[M@verik115]

 

 

Here's some images of Wehrmacht Soldiers on the Eastern Front in winter:

Also, no trench/great coats.

 

So, while the imagery is cool, to have your guys wearing ushankas and greatcoats, it's not necessarily the only way that your dudes would be fighting in harsh tundra environments. 

 

If my memory serves me correct, they would have benefited greatly from some great coats lol. 

[Withershadow]

I'm pretty sure it'll just be on a detachment basis, like every codex so far has done. You want Pask and Valhallans? Double battalion detachment, there we go.

 

Guard will have a harder time with this, I think. Unlike the recent example of Ad Mech, who can be easily differentiated by a paint job, Guard regiments have very diverse regiments. Putting some green paint on some Cadians, and saying that detachment is now Catachans doesn't really work. And unlike Chaos players, who've always had very fractured collections by the nature of the army, Imperial Guard players tend to focus on a particular regiment. We will see I guess if people start building very fractured Imperial armies.

[Shamansky]

 

The only annoyance I have with regiment rules landing a la Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus is that we don't share the convenience the latter have with selecting FWs.  Since IG regiments typically have unique appearances in terms of uniforms, armour marks and other characteristics (even their Lasguns are different!) it's quite a bit more challenging to "hot swap" as many AdMech players seem to be doing toward Lucius/Stygies FWs.  For example, if the most effective regimental keyword (based on Abilities granted) becomes Valhallan, imagine the difficulty this will cause as players flock to that banner with generic Cadian/Catachan models, at least from a WYSIWYG/sportsmanship perspective.  Here's hoping GW makes particular cause to balance each regiment appropriately!  

I have almost exclusively Cadian Models. I run my guys with Death Korps rules. I like the way DKoK plays, but I also love the way my Cadians look (I have 47 Kasrkin + Kell as my standard bearer). I use DKoK rules because I feel that they are the best representation of how my regiment fights. 

 

 

I don't think the visual look of the model will be an issue with the regiment keyword as long as your clearly delineate which is which. 

 

Kinda like Ultra Scars syndrome, just say despite that they are Valhallans, they are currently seconded to a Cadian Brigade and commander. Therefore have been trained and integrated to suit the new Brigades requirements.

Alternatively just make your own regiment, that uses equipment that is either identical to or reminiscent of Cadian gear, but that they come from a world like Valhalla and that they use very similar tactics. 

 

 

 

So, while the imagery is cool, to have your guys wearing ushankas and greatcoats, it's not necessarily the only way that your dudes would be fighting in harsh tundra environments. 

 

That's good for friendly play where it is possible to just say something like 'today these dudes are DKoK'. Tournaments i visit have strict rule of WYSIWYG: you want a unit – bring the models with the wargear you want. So cadians cosplaying DKok is a no-go. And i bet there won't be any CHARACTER with special rules for player-made regiments. Very smart move to sell models to people who have an army already. 

[M@verik115]

I think taking advantage of what the best regiment rules at the moment are, is pretty crappy and just reeks of power gaming. 
I have black templars and I run them as black templars even though salamanders are much better. 
I have cadians and vostroyans and I will run them as such even though catachans or steel legion might be better. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

My guys are an amalgam of Cadian and Tau parts, with a few other bitz here and there. Not sure what I'd run them as tbh, whatever fits my playstyle tbh. I think Cadians are stated to be the generic vanilla that many worlds copy the look of, but not necessarily the tactics.

 

They'll tie the different rules to actual Regiment names though, like every other faction they've released so far.

[NatBrannigan]

I agree to some extent, but I don't see any problem with a Cadian regiment that is mainly mechanised Infantry using hypothetical Steel Legion rules for instance.

 

For me I expect my Praetorians will use the Mordian rules, but I see my infantry as experts with their Lasguns, firing in disciplined ranks, more than being a bit braver than your average guardsman. If hypothetical Mordian rules give a bonus to Morale and hypothetical Cadian rules give a bonus to Lasgun fire, I'll be using the Cadian rules.

 

Those are rather fluffy reasons for choosing tactics of course. It's amazing how many bright shiny silver and gold armoured Marine armies there are that are now suddenly experts at striking stealthily from the Shadows...

 

My real fear for this is the hypothetical (I won't say that word again!) Valhallan rules are going to buff Conscripts. It makes sense from a rules and fluff perspective, I think it's downright likely that it will happen, and it might well lead to Eldar levels of hatred coming our way whether we use conscripts or not!

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm gunna reserve judgement until I see what's what.

 

If there's a Regiment that buffs Devildogs though, that's me. I want that one. :P