Representing regiments on your models

[Inquisitor lorr]

Hi all

 

Still new back in to the hobby - I've been seeing various posts about the merits of different regiments and, I don't know if I've got the wrong impression but it seems like people swap regiments in their lists a lot - I'm not sure if these people have multiple sets of models and so are free to field Cadians one day and steel legion the next or whether they have a Cadian army (model-wise) but sometimes, for example choose to field them as Tallharns? Is this commonplace and how do people feel about it? It seems most applicable to tanks, where different tanks won't necessarily have a clear regimental alignment.

 

That was a touch rambly - in essence - do people chop and change their regiments without changing models and is this something you are comfortable with?

[clanfield]

personaly I am not if there is a existing model for it unless its a test of rules agreed ahead of time

 

 

that being said if it was a permanet change say catachans used as cadians(bazare but hey) id be ok with it if 

the army had cool conversions and back story/fluff

 

constant switching no not for me 

 

just my thoughts

[micahwc]

I've tried my Cadian models as Cadians, Valhallans, Vostroyans, Steel Legion, and Tallarn. I wanted to get some games in to see which set of bonuses I liked the best before deciding on a regiment. I had thought I would go with Steel Legion before the codex dropped but I've ended up with Valhallans because I like the bonuses to my Shadowsword when I bring it in a supreme command detachment.

 

Also, I believe GW say in the Astra Militarum codex that there are many different regiments that use Cadian equipment, and they seem to encourage people to make up their own using Cadian parts, while assigning them whatever regimental bonus you want to in order to represent their specific tactics, I.E, Tallarn are not the only regiment who use Ambush tactics, but the rule set to represent that is "Tallarn".

 

Personally I try not to mix/match regiments unless it's clear from the model that they are different. This is easier with my scions, as they are obviously different from all 80 cadian models I own, but as long as you can mark the different regiments on the battlefield in such a way to avoid confusion, it's not really an issue.

[duz_]

Iorr, I think what you are seeing by some (not all) is experimenting with new rules guard has not seen in a long long while.

The "mixing and matching" of various RD's without changing the models is probably has a lot to do with limited guard models for each regiment (other than Catachan and Cadian) and the high cost to have enough of each flavour to "faithfully" represent their RD's.

 

As for being ok with mixing and matching:

There has been plenty of discussions whether or not mixing and matching is acceptable from a "WYSIWYG" perspective and if that enables you to use special characters, orders and RD's.

The consensus is mixed so speak with your local gaming group to see how they accepting they are.

 

On that point, I would ask that others refrain from rehashing the same argument that's been going on since the release of the index.

Edited December 19, 2017 by duz_

[mertbl]

I feel like GW really missed the mark by naming them after regiments instead of tactics. Tallarn - Ambush Masters, Steel legion - Mechanized etc etc.

[Withershadow]

But they aren't named after Regiments, people just do that for ease of remembering.  Each doctrine has it's own unique name, it's just some Regiments are associated with that battle doctrine. 

[Feral_80]

As many AM players, I have a - pretty random - collection of regiments. Before 8th, using different regiments together was merely a cosmetic choice with absolutely no game effects, and in fact for a long time GW has represented AM armies as regularly formed by units from various regiments.

 

Everything has changed abruptly with the 8th codex, with the result that the collections of many players turned out to be unsuited for the new game. Expensive and substantial repainting and remodeling would be needed in most collections. I have started to do this, but it's far from optimal, and I guess I am not alone. I do not like at all the idea that one's perfectly viable army has suddenly become almost unplayable under the new rules because of aesthetic inconsistencies. And I like even less the idea that one 'must' be forced to play a certain regiment only because he has bought those miniatures in the past for aesthetic reasons, but now finds out that that regiment's doctrine is unsuited to his tastes and play style.

 

For all these reasons, I am very tolerant about allowing people to swap regiments without swapping models. The only condition is that it must be easy and quick to differentiate units from different regiments, either by colour schemes or models.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Feral_80

[Galron]

I normally play Elysians but have a crapton of vehicles so rather than build another infantry force, Ill play them as the ground forces of Elysia that all Elysians have to serve in before they are allowed to volunteer for the drop forces. I use catachans for these guys as they are given top notch gear in my opinion. I don't mix and match forces however within the same army and make sure my opponent knows who they are facing which in my case is fairly obvious.

[Chris521]

All my infantry model are basically the Cadian models, but I haven't put any labels on them.  I came up with their own home world and a bit of fluff to go along with it so if I decide to give them any regimental markings in the future, they won't say anything about Cadia.  I feel like this gives me more than enough justification to use any doctrine I want.  

 

I won't, however, use more than one doctrine in an army (unless my models are clearly different).  I do think the regiment rule are a bit poorly defined though.  As mentioned earlier, the doctrines have their own names, so I think it would have been best to not relate those to any specific regiment.

[Withershadow]

The only issue with the homegrown regiments is that they would not get any unique relics, characters or stratagems.

[Chris521]

The only issue with the homegrown regiments is that they would not get any unique relics, characters or stratagems.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, but I would still use the ones that match with whichever doctrine I decide to use.

[duz_]

 

The only issue with the homegrown regiments is that they would not get any unique relics, characters or stratagems.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, but I would still use the ones that match with whichever doctrine I decide to use.

 

 

 

=][= As I already mentioned we have discussed this enough in multiple topics. If there's still debate on this take it to the OR. =][=

[Mileposter]

The only issue with the homegrown regiments is that they would not get any unique relics, characters or stratagems.

I've been hunting for where this argument has cropped up. What says this?

 

EDIT: The Mod post hadn't placed when I submitted - it's what I get for sitting on a post for too long. Not trying to restart this debate, simply find where it had been held.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Pentharian

[Tirak]

Imperial Guard Codex page 132, bottom paragraph, left column.

 

If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army. For example, as your army of Ventrillian Nobles does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you can decide that the Vostroyan Heirloom Weapons doctrine best suites these wealthy and well equipped fighters.

No where does it say you gain their strategems, orders or special characters. You specifically gain their named doctrine, not the Regiment associated with it. Edited December 20, 2017 by Tirak

[CrusherJoe]

Call me a crusty old curmudgeon if you want, but the best way to represent regiments is with the correct regimental models. 

[Imperator Deus]

I've been accused of being a bit of a stickler for WYSIWYG before, but when it comes to Regimental Doctrines, I'm a little more flexible. The nice thing with Guardsmen is that unless you're using the old metal models they're pretty generic. I have no problem with people using Cadians for pretty much any regiment. They have such a generic Sci-Fi look to them that with the right paint job they could reasonably pass for any regiment with the possible exception of Valhallans and Militarum Tempestus. The great coats really sell the winter warfare thing for the Valhallans, and I think they're a little too generic for Tempestus, but it is pretty easy to give them a more "special forces" look with a little conversion work. At the end of the day, as long as you're clear with your opponent about what you're using as what ahead of time, it's probably cool. After all the only real difference between Space Marines chapters is a colour scheme for the most part. If you're mixing regiments on the other hand they ought to be different models, or at the very least painted in a different colour so that it's immediately obvious what they represent (for example, Cadians in green fatigues and Tallarns using Cadian models painted in desert camo).

 

Obviously, it would be nice if GW would release some new plastics for one or two of the other regiments at least, but I can't see that happening. My original 3rd/4th edition Guard army was a mix of the metal Cadian, Valhallan and Steel Legion models. That was just way too expensive to update at the tail end of 5th edition, when I started playing 40K again, so I just started over with plastic Cadians. I don't really like to mix regiments myself (with the exception of adding an occasional platoon's worth of Tempestus), so this was for the best. If only I could get more painting done on the "new" stuff, I went from a painted army to mostly grey plastic! I just don't have the time to paint like I did when I was 19, lol!

[Galron]

Cadian pattern armor is fairly ubiquitous in the Guard. There are multiple worlds making it, its cheap, and its fairly simple for upkeep. Why the Catachans have the lock on bullet proof tank tops I don't know, maybe its woven from some deadly spider native to Catachan. Therefore having any thousands of Guard armies wearing Cadian armor is not only believable but makes a lot of sense logistically. The richer worlds like Elysia, Mordia, and the fur hat guys make their own thus making them more expensive and probably don't export it very much for that reason. Therefore other regiments outside of their original worlds wearing it isn't unknown but probably not near as common. So call your units whatever you want and pick a set of rules doctrines and relics, inform your opponent very clearly, and remember to use only those rules. And remember to keep your mini's box open because Cadian pattern armor doesn't stop crap.

[Mileposter]

I've been paying close attention to this topic, as I am building up a sizable Guard army myself. I have no intent to play Cadian, but Cadian are the only plastic models, and my love for conversions and basing dictates the plastic kits are the way I get to go.

 

I intend to play Vostroyans, and paint them in obviously-not-Cadian schemes to reflect that. I would be wary of the suggestion that I am required to play with metal minis to adopt that style of play.

[Halfpint100]

As long as all the models using different regiments are obviously different, no worries. The guard are so varied that any regiment can look like anything.

[Spyboy]

I am of the same opinion as halfpint. As long as the models look different that you are using different regiment rules for, then no problem.

[micahwc]

Even the Valhallans fight on warmer planets sometime, and therefore the great coat is not always needed. In fact, there is a specific regiment of Valhallans that are known for fighting on Tundra worlds that are not as cold as Valhalla. My Cadian miniatures all have backpacks, and the backpacks all include a rolled up cloth on top which is meant to be a bedroll of some kind, but in my mind its their great coats rolled up and strapped to their backpack.

[Inso]

My two penneth is this:

 

1. If you are testing rules, then chop and change as much as you like but make sure everyone is aware of which unit is which regiment.

2. Once you have decided which regiments you want to use, make them different to one another so that 'all the green ones are Mordian and all the blue ones are Tallarn' (or something to that effect).

3. Make sure that any special characters are WYSIWYG and clearly representative of the character they are proxying.

 

Using Cadian models as Catachan (or any regiment) is fine by me as long as it is made clear before playing.

 

My Catachan force is made up of Squats... so I am probably a little more tolerant than some people may be :)

[Kinstryfe]

I mostly agree with inso. Given the state of the models accessable to most people (especially if they're only now building their army), I think that I'd be fine with almost any doctrine being used. The old metal regiments are not only much more expensive, but also lacking key options in pretty much every range. The only thing I think I'd not be happy with would be using the same exact models/colors for multiple doctrines in multiple detachments. The only substitution I may find suspect, but ultimately would probably still be ok with, would be using plastic Catachans or Cadians as the other, since they're both available in plastic anyway, but I'd probably still let it slide.

 

tl:dr use whatever doctrine you'd like, as long as it's consistent across the army.

[walter h]

@Pentharian,you are so in luck.. Check out Anvil, miniatures they have a new line of heads(bearskin) that would be perfect for your Cadian, style ,Vostroyan's.