Krieg Boxset

[TheMawr]

The best solution to every guard problem would clearly, and very objectively, be the following :

Vostroyan Greatcoats

Vostroyan Normalcoats

Vostroyan Nocoats

 

Vostroyan roughriders dont even really need a name change new miniaturekit. and the deadriders will be Vostroyan rawrriders

 

Its also very clear by the name wich profile one needs to proxy less popular or should-be-goners guardsquads with :p

 

Edited Tuesday at 09:06 PM by TheMawr

[Indy Techwisp]

I feel like everyone in the thread is either talking past eachother or not understanding eachother's complaints and/or points.

 

Firstly, the "Run your X Regiment as Y Datasheet" thing.

On the surface, makes sense. You just run your guard as whatever Guard sheet you want to use.

The issues with this are mostly external to the rules.

There's no actual "Rules as Written" requirement to demarcate your Guard units, so while ideally you would, there is now the risk on a more underhanded player using the fact they can have 3 identical units with 3 different datasheets to their advantage.

This isn't just a speculation thing either, as I've seen at least 2 instances of people playing against Sisters complaining that a player told them that a damaged Dominion unit was a normal Battle Sisters unit after it had lost its special weapons (the only way to tell them apart visually is that Dominions have 4 special weapons and Battle Sisters only have 2), so some people do try that.

Another issue could be from a Tourney perspective, as now you need to toss the issue of "Is one Valhallan unit having 2 Flamers enough to make it obviously a Catachan unit amongst the other 3 Valhallan units being run as Cadians?" over to the TOs if a Modelling for advantage issue is called.

I could see Tourneys just banning people from running anything that's not specifically the Kreig or Catachan units as Kreig or Catachan just to avoid having to make judgement calls like this.

 

Another issue is the loss of intergrated HWTs as an option.

Unless every single one of these 3 have gained the ability to have intergrated HWTs, anyone who was running them as 8 men and a HWT now need another 2 Infantry for the squad from somewhere and another 2 HWTs for that unit, something that could be pretty difficult if your Guard Army is mostly the older Metal or Resin units (which incidentally most non-Cadian, Kreig or Catachan Regiment minis will be).

 

Finally, the "Is the entire issue just that these units have Cadian, Kreig and Catachan in the name?" question.

The answer should be No, but we really don't have anything else to compare it to other than Space Marines and in their faction the Keyword for a Chapter is exclusionary of other Chapter keywords where as nothing so far indicates it'll work like that for Guard.

On the other hand, I feel there'd be equal complaints if all your Guard units were made Regiment agnostic. We've got a big Kreig wave on the way and it'd be very weird if we had all this build up about them only for all the units to be renamed "Siege Engineers" and "Siege Cavalry" or something.

[crimsondave]

Think I’ll just continue to not play 10th edition rather than figure out how to proxy my entire army.

[Mogger351]

17 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

I feel like everyone in the thread is either talking past eachother or not understanding eachother's complaints and/or points.

 

Firstly, the "Run your X Regiment as Y Datasheet" thing.

On the surface, makes sense. You just run your guard as whatever Guard sheet you want to use.

The issues with this are mostly external to the rules.

There's no actual "Rules as Written" requirement to demarcate your Guard units, so while ideally you would, there is now the risk on a more underhanded player using the fact they can have 3 identical units with 3 different datasheets to their advantage.

This isn't just a speculation thing either, as I've seen at least 2 instances of people playing against Sisters complaining that a player told them that a damaged Dominion unit was a normal Battle Sisters unit after it had lost its special weapons (the only way to tell them apart visually is that Dominions have 4 special weapons and Battle Sisters only have 2), so some people do try that.

Another issue could be from a Tourney perspective, as now you need to toss the issue of "Is one Valhallan unit having 2 Flamers enough to make it obviously a Catachan unit amongst the other 3 Valhallan units being run as Cadians?" over to the TOs if a Modelling for advantage issue is called.

I could see Tourneys just banning people from running anything that's not specifically the Kreig or Catachan units as Kreig or Catachan just to avoid having to make judgement calls like this.

 

Another issue is the loss of intergrated HWTs as an option.

Unless every single one of these 3 have gained the ability to have intergrated HWTs, anyone who was running them as 8 men and a HWT now need another 2 Infantry for the squad from somewhere and another 2 HWTs for that unit, something that could be pretty difficult if your Guard Army is mostly the older Metal or Resin units (which incidentally most non-Cadian, Kreig or Catachan Regiment minis will be).

 

Finally, the "Is the entire issue just that these units have Cadian, Kreig and Catachan in the name?" question.

The answer should be No, but we really don't have anything else to compare it to other than Space Marines and in their faction the Keyword for a Chapter is exclusionary of other Chapter keywords where as nothing so far indicates it'll work like that for Guard.

On the other hand, I feel there'd be equal complaints if all your Guard units were made Regiment agnostic. We've got a big Kreig wave on the way and it'd be very weird if we had all this build up about them only for all the units to be renamed "Siege Engineers" and "Siege Cavalry" or something.

THANK YOU!!!!!

[INKS]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

It’s a bit more nuanced than that, because they’ll all likely have their specific regimental key word, so a Cadian officer likely won’t grant his buffs to kreig or Catachan units.

 

it would be like using calgar with crusaders, and death company in the army.

 

on top of that a box of intercessors as default can be any chapter because they’re completely generic. That’s not the case here, and for some reason some people in the modern 40K era have a seriously hard time wrapping their heads around the ‘counts as’ concept.

ok that is true. I can understand that. But I was saying if you had some basic infantry or you were playing steel legion for example, now you just pick the rules you want steel legion to represent. Or if you were Iron Mordians then pick who you think they are most like. It's true you aren't going to mix certain units together, but were basic no flavor troops getting benefits from others?

 

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Because there's literally nothing stopping someone taking 3 squads of valhallans, running 1 squad of death korps, 1 squad of cadians and 1 squad of catachan. They'd be visually identical, representing 3 totally different units when they could previously just be "infantry squad". This is like running 3 units of identically converted terminators as vanilla, wolf guard and deathwing all at once.

 

 

I hope when you play a game against someone representing 3 subsets of rules all using the same none descript minis, that it is basic and understandable for you, that this isn't great.

 

Since the masses are fine with it seemingly, please carry on.

ok but if you have a valhallans army and you want to take 3 different units like you said, you just have to identify which is which. they make base markers just for this. you can use tokens, you could paint them a little different. there are a lot of ways to make them a little different or mark them as such. Is it an issue? a small one I think, but there are products and ways to make it so you can identify what is what while keeping them all Valhallans.

 

Honestly, I don't do this, but maybe I should. carry some markers with me. If my opponent isn't going to mark them then I can. I realize some people are going to say that isn't my responsibility but it would make the game easier for me to know which is which. so maybe I'll do that. However, if it was my guard army. Then I would mark them different on my own. via bases or something else.

[Timberley]

It's a bit of a curious one.  I like the sculpts in the box, but really I just fancy the Engineers for my drop regiment, so I think I'll wait for them to come out on their own.  Getting the fancy Codex would be nice, but again, I'm happy waiting.

 

The datasheet changes are interesting.  I'm curious to see how I can best represent my 2933rd Krieg Fallschirmjager in the new Codex.  Currently they're all Stormtroopers in the Grotmas 'Bridgehead Strike' detachment, which I think best represents the old Elysian Doctrines; Drop Troops, Veterans, Iron Discipline, Stormtrooper squads, & Special Weapons Squads.  Their models are a mix of Steel Legion, Krieg and 2nd Edition Stormtroopers.

 

It does seem a bizarre choice to go for specific named 'regiments' as the datasheets, rather than representing their playstyle using the detachments, as we have in Codex Space Marines (aside from named characters).  I can only assume this was for competitive purposes, as from a cost perspective you'd have to buy one of the Infantry Squads and a Heavy Weapons Squad to field a generic Infantry Squad.

Edited Tuesday at 10:38 PM by Timberley
Additional clarity around cost vs competitive.

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

 

 

I hope when you play a game against someone representing 3 subsets of rules all using the same none descript minis, that it is basic and understandable for you, that this isn't great.

 

Since the masses are fine with it seemingly, please carry on.

Clearly you haven't run into a Marine player like myself that doesn't use the specified kits to make units but nobody has issues figuring out what units are what. Yeah I hate Sterngaurd in the robes and that crap, and they're really no different from any other Mk3 Marine I use except the Heavy Weapon variations. 

 

I promise you'll survive, and the actual issue is equipment = what's in the box. 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

I feel like everyone in the thread is either talking past eachother or not understanding eachother's complaints and/or points.

 

Firstly, the "Run your X Regiment as Y Datasheet" thing.

On the surface, makes sense. You just run your guard as whatever Guard sheet you want to use.

The issues with this are mostly external to the rules.

There's no actual "Rules as Written" requirement to demarcate your Guard units, so while ideally you would, there is now the risk on a more underhanded player using the fact they can have 3 identical units with 3 different datasheets to their advantage.

This isn't just a speculation thing either, as I've seen at least 2 instances of people playing against Sisters complaining that a player told them that a damaged Dominion unit was a normal Battle Sisters unit after it had lost its special weapons (the only way to tell them apart visually is that Dominions have 4 special weapons and Battle Sisters only have 2), so some people do try that.

Another issue could be from a Tourney perspective, as now you need to toss the issue of "Is one Valhallan unit having 2 Flamers enough to make it obviously a Catachan unit amongst the other 3 Valhallan units being run as Cadians?" over to the TOs if a Modelling for advantage issue is called.

I could see Tourneys just banning people from running anything that's not specifically the Kreig or Catachan units as Kreig or Catachan just to avoid having to make judgement calls like this.

 

Another issue is the loss of intergrated HWTs as an option.

Unless every single one of these 3 have gained the ability to have intergrated HWTs, anyone who was running them as 8 men and a HWT now need another 2 Infantry for the squad from somewhere and another 2 HWTs for that unit, something that could be pretty difficult if your Guard Army is mostly the older Metal or Resin units (which incidentally most non-Cadian, Kreig or Catachan Regiment minis will be).

 

Finally, the "Is the entire issue just that these units have Cadian, Kreig and Catachan in the name?" question.

The answer should be No, but we really don't have anything else to compare it to other than Space Marines and in their faction the Keyword for a Chapter is exclusionary of other Chapter keywords where as nothing so far indicates it'll work like that for Guard.

On the other hand, I feel there'd be equal complaints if all your Guard units were made Regiment agnostic. We've got a big Kreig wave on the way and it'd be very weird if we had all this build up about them only for all the units to be renamed "Siege Engineers" and "Siege Cavalry" or something.

I legit could not care less if the Marine entry was called "Iron Hands Techmarine" because I just care about the rules themselves and it should have zero impact on how I build a list. 

 

Frankly I actually blame Divergent Marine players for the level of confusion that's happening here LOL

[DemonGSides]

17 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Because there's literally nothing stopping someone taking 3 squads of valhallans, running 1 squad of death korps, 1 squad of cadians and 1 squad of catachan. They'd be visually identical, representing 3 totally different units when they could previously just be "infantry squad". This is like running 3 units of identically converted terminators as vanilla, wolf guard and deathwing all at once.

 

 

I hope when you play a game against someone representing 3 subsets of rules all using the same none descript minis, that it is basic and understandable for you, that this isn't great.

 

Since the masses are fine with it seemingly, please carry on.

 

Your analogies are terrible.  If someone's running three identical units, then those are all the same 3 units.  If they want to say they are something else, it's on the owner to establish what they are and keep track of them during the game. If they don't, call them out!  It's a 2 person game, it's a collaboration.  If one person isn't approaching the collaboration from a genuine spot, why are you playing games against them?  And if it's a tourney setting or an LGS, call a TO or a store Owner and let em know the situation.  Pretty much the entirety of your complaint can get moved past with a 30 second conversation up front "These here are cadians, these here are Catachan, these here are DKOK" "Okay they look pretty similar, how do you distinguish?"  And then making conversational choices after that based on what they say.

 

16 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

I feel like everyone in the thread is either talking past eachother or not understanding eachother's complaints and/or points.

 

Firstly, the "Run your X Regiment as Y Datasheet" thing.

On the surface, makes sense. You just run your guard as whatever Guard sheet you want to use.

The issues with this are mostly external to the rules.

There's no actual "Rules as Written" requirement to demarcate your Guard units, so while ideally you would, there is now the risk on a more underhanded player using the fact they can have 3 identical units with 3 different datasheets to their advantage.

This isn't just a speculation thing either, as I've seen at least 2 instances of people playing against Sisters complaining that a player told them that a damaged Dominion unit was a normal Battle Sisters unit after it had lost its special weapons (the only way to tell them apart visually is that Dominions have 4 special weapons and Battle Sisters only have 2), so some people do try that.

Another issue could be from a Tourney perspective, as now you need to toss the issue of "Is one Valhallan unit having 2 Flamers enough to make it obviously a Catachan unit amongst the other 3 Valhallan units being run as Cadians?" over to the TOs if a Modelling for advantage issue is called.

I could see Tourneys just banning people from running anything that's not specifically the Kreig or Catachan units as Kreig or Catachan just to avoid having to make judgement calls like this.

 

People are already running a lot of these sculpts that you think are suddenly going to be bad for tournaments, in tournaments.  TO's just want to make sure that your army is readable and not modelling for advantage.  No one's calling Vostroyans modeling for advantage.  All of these concerns that you're outlining here are already things TO's deal with, this literally changes nothing.  Considering there were no specific models for "Infantry Squad" in the previous 2 years, do you think that TO's just banned all non-Cadian/Dkok/Catachan sculpts?  No, they let people use what they wanted.  This is more of that.  Almost every tournament I've ever heard of has open lists as well, so it's not like they can hide what units are from you.

 

"People are gonna cheat!" isn't much of a defense either; those people are going to cheat regardless of what the rules are.  They are cheaters and scum.  Don't indulge them or their fancies.  If you're seeing it in a Tournament, call over the TO, and get them disqualified.  If it's your buddy, have a nice conversation with them and say "Hey man, it looks like you're incorrect, mind re-evaluating?" and if they double down, re-evaluate your friendship.

 

16 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Another issue is the loss of intergrated HWTs as an option.

Unless every single one of these 3 have gained the ability to have intergrated HWTs, anyone who was running them as 8 men and a HWT now need another 2 Infantry for the squad from somewhere and another 2 HWTs for that unit, something that could be pretty difficult if your Guard Army is mostly the older Metal or Resin units (which incidentally most non-Cadian, Kreig or Catachan Regiment minis will be).

 

This is the only legitimate gripe with these changes, and even then, it's mostly not a big deal.  Army compositions change over the editions, that's been true of every army (And very true of guard itself!).  It's always a bit of a feels bad, but you adapt, or you keep playing the old stuff.  I do feel bad for people who have old Tallarn or whatever models who now have a bunch of 8 man squads flitting about, but 3d Printer goes brr or whatever, you can find affordable proxies.

 

16 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Finally, the "Is the entire issue just that these units have Cadian, Kreig and Catachan in the name?" question.

The answer should be No, but we really don't have anything else to compare it to other than Space Marines and in their faction the Keyword for a Chapter is exclusionary of other Chapter keywords where as nothing so far indicates it'll work like that for Guard.

On the other hand, I feel there'd be equal complaints if all your Guard units were made Regiment agnostic. We've got a big Kreig wave on the way and it'd be very weird if we had all this build up about them only for all the units to be renamed "Siege Engineers" and "Siege Cavalry" or something.

 

These units aren't keyworded in the way you're acting.  Sure a Cadian Castellan only attaches to Cadian squads; that's intentional based on how their rules were designed, same reason why I can't attach a Sanguinary Priest to Bladeguard; it has nothing to do with their keywords, it's just a 'balancing' thing that GW's doing for the game's sake.  Additionally, the Castellan could attach to the old Infantry Squad, so this might actually change in the Codex, we literally don't know.

If your "Cadians" are actually "Steel Legion", it's a "Steel Legion" castellan.  Simple.  If your DKOK are also Steel Legion, just slightly different, your DKOK commissar is ALSO a steel legion commissar.

If they were given generic names, there'd be just as many sour grapes, just from a different direction.  Lack of imagination isn't exclusive to any given side of an argument.

 

Additionally, the datasheets are nothing like the Space Marine keywords, i'm not sure what that's all about.  SM get keyword locked if you used a divergent codex's specialist units, the detatchments and armies themselves do nothing with keyword restrictions.

It honestly feels like if people aren't handed something on a silver platter for this hobby, their immediate reaction is to be upset instead of thinking about it creatively or constructively.  Really depressing.

 

15 hours ago, Timberley said:

It does seem a bizarre choice to go for specific named 'regiments' as the datasheets, rather than representing their playstyle using the detachments, as we have in Codex Space Marines (aside from named characters).  I can only assume this was for competitive purposes.

 

Every box has a datasheet.  It has nothing to do with Competitive Purposes and everything to do with the Chapterhouse Lawsuit.

Edited 13 hours ago by DemonGSides

[Emperor Ming]

This is probably one time were they really should have just left those two datasheets alone

 

and everything would have kept ticking along

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, INKS said:

ok that is true. I can understand that. But I was saying if you had some basic infantry or you were playing steel legion for example, now you just pick the rules you want steel legion to represent. Or if you were Iron Mordians then pick who you think they are most like. It's true you aren't going to mix certain units together, but were basic no flavor troops getting benefits from others?

 

ok but if you have a valhallans army and you want to take 3 different units like you said, you just have to identify which is which. they make base markers just for this. you can use tokens, you could paint them a little different. there are a lot of ways to make them a little different or mark them as such. Is it an issue? a small one I think, but there are products and ways to make it so you can identify what is what while keeping them all Valhallans.

 

Honestly, I don't do this, but maybe I should. carry some markers with me. If my opponent isn't going to mark them then I can. I realize some people are going to say that isn't my responsibility but it would make the game easier for me to know which is which. so maybe I'll do that. However, if it was my guard army. Then I would mark them different on my own. via bases or something else.

Unfortunately the proxy haters would probably still throw a fit if your steel legionnaires aren’t run as the krieg that they look so much like.

[Indy Techwisp]

Alright, let's try and clear this up.

4 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

Your analogies are terrible.  If someone's running three identical units, then those are all the same 3 units.  If they want to say they are something else, it's on the owner to establish what they are and keep track of them during the game. If they don't, call them out!  It's a 2 person game, it's a collaboration.  If one person isn't approaching the collaboration from a genuine spot, why are you playing games against them?  And if it's a tourney setting or an LGS, call a TO or a store Owner and let em know the situation.  Pretty much the entirety of your complaint can get moved past with a 30 second conversation up front "These here are cadians, these here are Catachan, these here are DKOK" "Okay they look pretty similar, how do you distinguish?"  And then making conversational choices after that based on what they say.

 

People are already running a lot of these sculpts that you think are suddenly going to be bad for tournaments, in tournaments.  TO's just want to make sure that your army is readable and not modelling for advantage.  No one's calling Vostroyans modeling for advantage.  All of these concerns that you're outlining here are already things TO's deal with, this literally changes nothing.  Considering there were no specific models for "Infantry Squad" in the previous 2 years, do you think that TO's just banned all non-Cadian/Dkok/Catachan sculpts?  No, they let people use what they wanted.  This is more of that.  Almost every tournament I've ever heard of has open lists as well, so it's not like they can hide what units are from you.

 

"People are gonna cheat!" isn't much of a defense either; those people are going to cheat regardless of what the rules are.  They are cheaters and scum.  Don't indulge them or their fancies.  If you're seeing it in a Tournament, call over the TO, and get them disqualified.  If it's your buddy, have a nice conversation with them and say "Hey man, it looks like you're incorrect, mind re-evaluating?" and if they double down, re-evaluate your friendship.

Starting with this wall, I provide a simple reasoning for why this is an issue that no-one had to deal with before:

We had a Battleline Unit amd Command Squad that wasn't any specific Regiment to use.

Unless the Codex itself comes with something saying "You must demarcate which type of Infantry/Command Squad is which" (shout out to the Ruinstorm Daemons rules from HH explicitly saying as such btw) people will just run what they already have with no changes and would just need to say "Oh, the Valhallan with the Commisar are my Kreig unit."

And that is where it should stop being an issue, except that we live in a world where a frankly disappointing amount of people cannot get their heads around "Collaborative" and "Competitive" not being mutually exclusive.

 

I used Dominion Squads as my example because they're effectively the closest we have to this currently, but the issue is more of a retrospective one, wherein you only realise after your opponent has already packed up that they should've had one Battle Sister unit but you killed 2 of them.

It's not something you could easily catch in a game if you're not actively looking for it.

Likewise, on the TO thing, this is a textbook issue with army readability. Up until now, it would be a pretty safe bet to say that any Valhallans on the board are Platoon Infantry/Command Squads, but now not only is that no longer an option but those Valhallans could be any one of the 3 Battleline, and likely not all the same type either.

When I say "They may ban running them as Kreig/Catachan" it's purely due to the loss of an "Obvious" way to tell what they are at Tabletop Distance where as before there was the simple "Not any of them = Platoon". It also wouldn't be the first time TOs have implemented rules outside of GW's own based on nothing but keeping their own sanity intact.

 

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

This is the only legitimate gripe with these changes, and even then, it's mostly not a big deal.  Army compositions change over the editions, that's been true of every army (And very true of guard itself!).  It's always a bit of a feels bad, but you adapt, or you keep playing the old stuff.  I do feel bad for people who have old Tallarn or whatever models who now have a bunch of 8 man squads flitting about, but 3d Printer goes brr or whatever, you can find affordable proxies.

Firstly, 3D printer cannot go "Brrrr" for most official tourneys (GW ones anyway), but besides that yeah printed or cheaper Proxies are an option, as is buying second hand.

As for the actual reason it's a problem, it's just been an option for so long that losing it wasn't even a consideration in people's minds, so no-one's been able to account for it unless they already had those spares on standby.

Also some of the Metal/Resin Regiments had their Infantry Squads sold as a kit of 8+HWT in the first place so there's not really going to be easily obtainable spares like there are for the Plastic kits, but then again as you said Printer can go Brrr or you could bolster your collection by buying the old Metal/Resin minis of someone who's looked at this and decided to quit and sell their army.

 

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

These units aren't keyworded in the way you're acting.  Sure a Cadian Castellan only attaches to Cadian squads; that's intentional based on how their rules were designed, same reason why I can't attach a Sanguinary Priest to Bladeguard; it has nothing to do with their keywords, it's just a 'balancing' thing that GW's doing for the game's sake.  Additionally, the Castellan could attach to the old Infantry Squad, so this might actually change in the Codex, we literally don't know.

If your "Cadians" are actually "Steel Legion", it's a "Steel Legion" castellan.  Simple.  If your DKOK are also Steel Legion, just slightly different, your DKOK commissar is ALSO a steel legion commissar.

If they were given generic names, there'd be just as many sour grapes, just from a different direction.  Lack of imagination isn't exclusive to any given side of an argument.

 

Additionally, the datasheets are nothing like the Space Marine keywords, i'm not sure what that's all about.  SM get keyword locked if you used a divergent codex's specialist units, the detatchments and armies themselves do nothing with keyword restrictions.

I thought I had made it kinda clear that the Regiment keywords weren't exclusionary by highlighting the Exclusionary Chapter keywords as a difference, but I guess not.

That bit was intended to be a bit of a "This should be a non-issue but here we are!" kinda thing, but tone in written text is hard.

As for the bit about making the names generic, I agree that jt would also be horrible, which is why I mentioned that.

The whole paragraph was really a response to a couple of posts floating about saying something along the lines of "But surely we wouldn't be complaining if GW just made the units generic so you weren't playing your Vostryans as Kreig, but instead Siege Infantry!" and "This isn't an issue for Space Marine chapters when they run LAG with their Salamanders painted Marines."

To be a bit clearer on the latter, if you roll up to the Table with LAG for your Detachment I already know what I can and cannot expect to not be in your army, regardless of if it is actually painted as Blood Angels. Similarly, if I see you unpack a Blood Angels painted Marine army, but your Detachment is Librarius and you've got Guilliman and Tigerius ready to deploy then I know you're running Ultramarines and I don't need to watch out for Death Company.

Marines locking you out removes all ambiguity as soon as one unit with an innate chapter keyword is brought out (even more so now that the Codex Chapter Masters now give you a reason to take them by buffing their thematic unit) but the Guard lack this lockout so there's no easy tell of "Oh he's deployed the massive artillery piece, so all his Infantry/Command Squads are Kreig." or "That's Ursla Creed leading that Squad, so the army are all Cadians."

As far as detachments go, I doubt any will lock you to a Regiment. That doesn't seem to be the style of the Non-Marine factions and I don't recall actually saying anything about Guard Detachments in my post anyway.

I'm also not expecting the Command Squads to be able to lead different Infantry units than their type, but I think other people here have speculated as such.

 

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

It honestly feels like if people are handed something on a silver platter for this hobby, their immediate reaction is to be upset instead of thinking about it creatively or constructively.  Really depressing.

I don't really see how this is being handed a silver platter, if only because of the Intergrated HWT thing.

More generally tho, it's about having the vibes right for the army and some people simply cannot, or do not, want to run their non-Cadian/Kreig/Catachan stuff as Cadian/Kreig/Catachan, or they're concerned they'll run into a player who'll take offense at them not using the "Right models"

Regarding the latter point, it is a pretty rare occurrence nowadays but it is still sadly a possibility. Then again, I run Kairic Acolytes as Tzaangors with the Scroll as a Banner and the Bird as an Instrument and I've not had anyone complain about it yet, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

Every box has a datasheet.  It has nothing to do with Competitive Purposes and everything to do with the Chapterhouse Lawsuit.

The Chapterhouse Lawsuit and it's consequences have been disastrous for the Warhammer Community...

But seriously the Chapterhouse 'suit still causes issues to this day.

 

Also special guest appearance for @HeadlessCross, I see your message and invite you to read section 3 of the above Short Novellia so I don't need to repost that section as it's own message.

[sairence]

9 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

I feel like everyone in the thread is either talking past eachother or not understanding eachother's complaints and/or points.

 

Firstly, the "Run your X Regiment as Y Datasheet" thing.

On the surface, makes sense. You just run your guard as whatever Guard sheet you want to use.

The issues with this are mostly external to the rules.

There's no actual "Rules as Written" requirement to demarcate your Guard units, so while ideally you would, there is now the risk on a more underhanded player using the fact they can have 3 identical units with 3 different datasheets to their advantage.

This isn't just a speculation thing either, as I've seen at least 2 instances of people playing against Sisters complaining that a player told them that a damaged Dominion unit was a normal Battle Sisters unit after it had lost its special weapons (the only way to tell them apart visually is that Dominions have 4 special weapons and Battle Sisters only have 2), so some people do try that.

Another issue could be from a Tourney perspective, as now you need to toss the issue of "Is one Valhallan unit having 2 Flamers enough to make it obviously a Catachan unit amongst the other 3 Valhallan units being run as Cadians?" over to the TOs if a Modelling for advantage issue is called.

I could see Tourneys just banning people from running anything that's not specifically the Kreig or Catachan units as Kreig or Catachan just to avoid having to make judgement calls like this.

 

Any tournament worth it's salt will only let you run the same models as different datasheets if they are clearly and obviously distinguishable. Usually you do this with different paint jobs, base colours and base decorations. 

 

The rule of thumb is generally that I need to be able to tell from across the table that unit A is distinct from unit B, even if I'm using the same base model.

 

It's not that difficult to do, in all honesty. And if you can't do that, the TO will not let you run that list. It's also why most TOs will expect you to flag and check proxies, etc with them before the actual event.

 

Your SoB example from above would not be possible at any tournament I've ever attended and would likely lead to a disqualification.

Edited 20 hours ago by sairence

[apologist]

 

@Indy Techwisp has a well-laid series of points there, and while I don't agree with every detail, I think the vast bulk is entirely fair.

 

Fundamentally for me, I think the discussion boils down to this part, near the end of the post:

It honestly feels like if people are handed something on a silver platter for this hobby, their immediate reaction is to be upset instead of thinking about it creatively or constructively.  Really depressing.

I don't really see how this is being handed a silver platter, if only because of the Intergrated HWT thing.

More generally tho, it's about having the vibes right for the army and some people simply cannot, or do not, want to run their non-Cadian/Kreig/Catachan stuff as Cadian/Kreig/Catachan, or they're concerned they'll run into a player who'll take offense at them not using the "Right models"

 

I can sympathise with both sides of the coin here. Ultimately, I want to bring my Guard army to the table, and have the least 'rules fog' getting between me and the other player. Having played Guard since Rogue Trader, I've been very used to adapting, chopping and changing, but fundamentally I've wanted to play pretty much the same army for years. There has, until the last Codex, always been a 'bog-standard' background-agnostic infantry squad that I've been able to use.

 

This Infantry squad has – at various points across the editions – had options for veteran rules, additional equipment, Regimental rules, or separate units that performed a similar function, but the unifying feature was that you could take it bare bones, and it had an option for a special weapon and a heavy weapon. That's been true since the Black Codex in second edition.

 

This has suited my Lamb's World guard very well, as they're clearly not Cadian, Catachan etc. As a result, I've simply been able not to take the upgrades that make them (say) Grenadiers, or Guerillas, or Cadian, etc., which keeps them nice and simple. Good for me, as I don't play a great deal, and want to minimise the mental load, and good for the other player, as I can simply say 'everything is a basic infantry squad armed exactly as you see.' 

 

I was disappointed that the 8th edition Codex separated particular Regiments out, because it 'breaks the vibe' for me in the same way that one edition (6th?) removed the option for sergeants to carry lasrifles. It frustrates me when certain options are locked-out seemingly arbitrarily, and doubly so when it means models suddenly have 'illegal' weapons. Is it a problem for me to say 'all the sergeants count as having laspistol and sword'? No, not really, but it's another bit of rules fog between me and the other player.

 

Likewise Catachans being restricted to having only 0–2 flamers as their options. It's weird – and it directly discouraged me from painting up a Catachan army. I had the choice of either:

• Not using the other special weapon models I have
• Using them 'counts-as' flamers, and explaining that to the other player
• Using the models as basic infantry – which involves explaining that 'these Catachans aren't <Catachans>'
• Have some models as <Catachans>, and others as not-quite-Catachans.  

 

None of those options is really a problem, but it definitely ruins the 'vibe' and introduces unnecessary rules fog. It's exactly the same thing for the posters earlier in the discussion talking about ways to simulate Death Korps tanks etc.

 

This most recent change doubles down on things, removing the third and fourth options. I hope – and there's every reason still to do so – that we see the Catachan, Cadian and Death Korps squads be differentiated only by their special rules, not by their options and equipment. At the very least, I hope Cadians are treated as 'the standard', with sufficient options to let them be the old Infantry Squad in all but name (hence my preference to think of the new unit types as generic, rather than planet-specific).

 

+++

On the comparison to using a similar model to Space Marine Chapters, I'll be interested to see whether there's an equivalent bonus to having a single Regiment (i.e. only Cadian) in the army, as there is for Marines not including units from divergent Chapters.

Edited 17 hours ago by apologist

[Evil Eye]

Alas I think this is another result of GW's absurd "you can only field options directly representable using the kit options" rules philosophy. Ideally, a Guard Codex would have rules for different kinds of regiment but they'd be "generic" in as much as you could choose options to field your own regiment, with options that would allow you to either accurately represent an existing example (Cadians, Catachans, Kriegers, Steel Legion etc) or make your own homebrew regiment. I do think there should be rules to make the regiments feel distinct, but they shouldn't be so heavily restrictive. Something as simple as "If you wish to represent [insert specialism here] regiment, you can take additional [X] and your Infantry Platoons gain the [Y] rule, but [Z] gets a 0-1 restriction" would be fine.

[apologist]

21 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Alas I think this is another result of GW's absurd "you can only field options directly representable using the kit options" rules philosophy. Ideally, a Guard Codex would have rules for different kinds of regiment but they'd be "generic" in as much as you could choose options to field your own regiment, with options that would allow you to either accurately represent an existing example (Cadians, Catachans, Kriegers, Steel Legion etc) or make your own homebrew regiment. I do think there should be rules to make the regiments feel distinct, but they shouldn't be so heavily restrictive. Something as simple as "If you wish to represent [insert specialism here] regiment, you can take additional [X] and your Infantry Platoons gain the [Y] rule, but [Z] gets a 0-1 restriction" would be fine.

 

I quite understand it from a commercial perspective – it's much cleaner and simpler, and creates a solid basis for Matched/tournament play. It also fits the retail model of having card decks that, for obvious reasons, need to have as little extraneous information as possible. I don't think that this approach is going anywhere in the near future; and so really it boils down to groups interested in Narrative or Open play making the best of things. 

 

What I think would be ideal is for other Regiments (and extending the idea in future, Craftworlds, Dynasties etc.) to get rules intended for Narrative/Open play – perhaps on WarCom or in White Dwarf, that tie into a particular 'historical' event. For example, we get a story about a particular planet, where the Tallarn Desert Raiders (for example) are fighting, and so we get datasheets for Tallarn HQ, Tallarn Infantry squad, Tallarn Heavy Weapons squad, Tallarn Rough Riders etc. to allow you to refight the battle. Having them in WD/WarCom would avoid bloating the Codex while throwing a sop to enthusiasts of these particular Regiments/sub-factions.

 

That'd give a nice clean system for more competitive play, but add an optional layer for people to explore further – and perhaps more importantly, give that sheen of 'official approval' that helps to encourage hobbyists to explore on their own. Some people are very happy to improvise and make do, but it's nice for GW to give an encouraging thumbs-up to let more hesitant hobbyists know that it's okay to look beyond the core 40k experience and explore.

Edited 16 hours ago by apologist

[Mandragola]

I share the concerns people have about this to an extent. It's annoying to have to change your existing army when a new codex arrives, as models have the wrong unit markings and stuff. 

 

This isn't a new issue though and this probably isn't the worst example of it. Guard have seen all kinds of different ways to organise their infantry over the years, including massive platoons of joined infantry squads. Everyone had to (or "had to") remodel their Sergeants, stick hunter killers on their tanks and so on when they took away the points cost of upgrades.

 

So I guess I'd say it's fine to be annoyed by this, because I agree it's annoying, but don't be surprised. This isn't the first time any of us have been through it. And yes, TOs will be inconsistent about it and bad people will do bad things.

 

I can see the logic of the heavy weapon change from GW's perspective. They want you to be able to make a unit with one box. It was kind of awkward in the past to buy 3 squads and a box of heavy weapons, ending up with 36 models. Obviously if you've gone through that it'll be annoying to have to undo it, but for someone starting from scratch this is an easier way to build an army.

[skylerboodie]

Whilst the heavy weapons change is annoying if you liked the original 2nd edition way, it's the removal of the generic options that disappoint me more; having only Catachan, Cadian, or Krieg as your official options doesn't sit right if you have old school Valhallans, Tallarn, Mordians, etc. The game-focussed fraters see no issue but for those more interested from a collecting and lore/background interest, it is a shame.

 

It's a bit like removing generic Space Marines and just giving you datasheets for Imperial Fists, White Scars, and Iron Hands. Oh, you play Salamanders/Ultramarines etc? well just pick one of the other chapters and go with it. [Simplified comparison obviously, ignores -specific rules.] Yes you can do it, but those with armies for other chapters (~ regiments) would be understandably unhappy too.

[apologist]

A bright spot in this is the welcome news that the Catachans are included at all. I don't think their inclusion was certain by any means, so confirmation that we'll see Catachans with similar weighting as Cadians and Death Korps bodes well for future releases. 

 

The use of the current Catachan Command Squad (CCS) and Catachan Heavy Weapon Squad (CHWS) models in the WarCom picture suggests to me we won't see either of these replaced in the near future, but I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that we'll see an updated Catachan Infantry squad (by far the weakest of the three, and up there as one of the oldest plastic kits still in circulation) in the middle term.

 

While the CCS and CHWS aren't standout models, they remain solid. I think they always suffered a bit by being associated with the Catachan Infantry Squad, which – even on release – was met with a lukewarm reception. The more modern Catachan releases of 'Ripper' Jackson and the Catachan Colonel indicate what GW could do these days, so I'm crossing my fingers that these iconic 40k representatives will see a new kit at some point.

[Wormwoods]

And hey, Reptilian Overlords do some pretty nice 'Space Nam' figures in plastic until then. 

[INKS]

"More generally tho, it's about having the vibes right for the army and some people simply cannot, or do not, want to run their non-Cadian/Kreig/Catachan stuff as Cadian/Kreig/Catachan, or they're concerned they'll run into a player who'll take offense at them not using the "Right models""

 

I can understand this. BUT: The old "generic guard" are now Cadians. Cadians are "generic guard". It just has a name other than Generic.

My Chapter of Rainbow Eagles are codex marines. They are generic marines. And it wasn't until very recently that Ultra Marines other than special characters had any sort of special or unique rules. Cadians are Ultramarines for Guard.

 

"It's a bit like removing generic Space Marines and just giving you datasheets for Imperial Fists, White Scars, and Iron Hands. Oh, you play Salamanders/Ultramarines etc? well just pick one of the other chapters and go with it. [Simplified comparison obviously, ignores -specific rules.] Yes you can do it, but those with armies for other chapters (~ regiments) would be understandably unhappy too. "

 

But this is how it more or less works. If you play Generic marines you have the choice of your founding chapter and you use whatever rules you think fit that chapter. If you think they represent Imperial Fists you use those rules and so on. It just that Generic Guard are now considered Cadians. It feels like you lost another flavour of Guard but you didn't really. GW has just said, no, those generic guard are all Cadians because most guard regiments are just like Cadians. You might not like that lore, but that is where it now sits. Your guards lore might be unique and special, their trials and tribulation unique to them but their tanks, their guns, how they fight is all very generic and therefore Cadian.

[Mogger351]

15 minutes ago, INKS said:

"More generally tho, it's about having the vibes right for the army and some people simply cannot, or do not, want to run their non-Cadian/Kreig/Catachan stuff as Cadian/Kreig/Catachan, or they're concerned they'll run into a player who'll take offense at them not using the "Right models""

 

I can understand this. BUT: The old "generic guard" are now Cadians. Cadians are "generic guard". It just has a name other than Generic.

My Chapter of Rainbow Eagles are codex marines. They are generic marines. And it wasn't until very recently that Ultra Marines other than special characters had any sort of special or unique rules. Cadians are Ultramarines for Guard.

 

"It's a bit like removing generic Space Marines and just giving you datasheets for Imperial Fists, White Scars, and Iron Hands. Oh, you play Salamanders/Ultramarines etc? well just pick one of the other chapters and go with it. [Simplified comparison obviously, ignores -specific rules.] Yes you can do it, but those with armies for other chapters (~ regiments) would be understandably unhappy too. "

 

But this is how it more or less works. If you play Generic marines you have the choice of your founding chapter and you use whatever rules you think fit that chapter. If you think they represent Imperial Fists you use those rules and so on. It just that Generic Guard are now considered Cadians. It feels like you lost another flavour of Guard but you didn't really. GW has just said, no, those generic guard are all Cadians because most guard regiments are just like Cadians. You might not like that lore, but that is where it now sits. Your guards lore might be unique and special, their trials and tribulation unique to them but their tanks, their guns, how they fight is all very generic and therefore Cadian.

They haven't said they're all cadian, they said use whatever profiles you like. That's the sticking point. Your imperial fists terminators can now be ultramaine tactical terminators, dark angels deathwing knights or space wolves wolf guard terminators. All at once. In the same army.

Edited 14 hours ago by Mogger351

[TheArtilleryman]

2 hours ago, Mandragola said:

It was kind of awkward in the past to buy 3 squads and a box of heavy weapons, ending up with 36 models.

Actually this was great because the 6 infantry you had left over would build a command squad so you didn’t have to buy a command… ah now I see the reasoning 

[DemonGSides]

24 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

They haven't said they're all cadian, they said use whatever profiles you like. That's the sticking point. Your imperial fists terminators can now be ultramaine tactical terminators, dark angels deathwing knights or space wolves wolf guard terminators. All at once. In the same army.

 

You can keep repeating this but it doesn't make it any more logical or correct. 

[ZeroWolf]

1 hour ago, apologist said:

A bright spot in this is the welcome news that the Catachans are included at all. I don't think their inclusion was certain by any means, so confirmation that we'll see Catachans with similar weighting as Cadians and Death Korps bodes well for future releases. 

 

The use of the current Catachan Command Squad (CCS) and Catachan Heavy Weapon Squad (CHWS) models in the WarCom picture suggests to me we won't see either of these replaced in the near future, but I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that we'll see an updated Catachan Infantry squad (by far the weakest of the three, and up there as one of the oldest plastic kits still in circulation) in the middle term.

 

While the CCS and CHWS aren't standout models, they remain solid. I think they always suffered a bit by being associated with the Catachan Infantry Squad, which – even on release – was met with a lukewarm reception. The more modern Catachan releases of 'Ripper' Jackson and the Catachan Colonel indicate what GW could do these days, so I'm crossing my fingers that these iconic 40k representatives will see a new kit at some point.

There's two choices (or they'll do both, which I suspect they well) which is reintroduce new Catachans as either a Kill-Team unit (ala Krieg) or 11th edition refresh fodder.