Krieg Boxset

[DemonGSides]

9 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Starting with this wall

 

C'mon man, let's be civil. 

 

9 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

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

 

This isn't the problem. People have been playing full DKoK armies in 10th without using just DKoK datasheets. It's a literal non issue that so far, it seems like the people worried about it are a majority of non guard players. Seems kinda weird.

 

9 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

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.

 

This isn't how it works in real life.   No one's gonna care that you're using green army men for Cadians, tan army men for Catachans and red army men for DKoK, I assure you. As long as you arent modeling for advantage, there's literally no issue. 

 

9 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

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.

 

Man it really feels like you are just making things up. There's fully 3D printed armies all over the place at tournaments and casual play levels. There's plenty of proxies that are close enough that no one is going to be able to tell at tabletop distance, and we are talking a few models not even full army.  The intersection of people with full Tallarn armies who aren't willing to make a compromise to play the game and also play in GW sanctioned tournaments has gotta be vanishingly small. 

 

9 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

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.

 

This isn't even how Guard work right now so I'm not sure why you would expect it to work that way or want it to work that way.  You are fighting Guard; waves of humanity, treads, and some specialists. It doesn't matter if it's DKoK or Cadian or whatever themed; they're gonna have their specialties, but the guard work a way you expect them to and this change doesn't impact it at all.  If you see tanks, it's tanks. If you see 200 Guardsmen, if doesn't really matter their flavor, you're gonna be chewing through a ton of wounds.  This hasn't changed just because you don't have a default datasheet.

 

9 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

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)_/¯.

Auto correct removed my aren't to an are so it definitely changed what I intended to say there. My b. It's kind of the opposite.

 

And people are entitled to want whatever vibes they want, but also maybe they could take a step back and realize the vibes are fine.  We got MORE command squads available than we did previously. We have MORE heavy weapons available than previously. Just require a slightly different organization on paper.  People don't want to realize that for whatever reasons, and can't get over the knee-jerk initial reaction. 

 

There's so much less of the "right model" philosophy out in the wild due to 3D printing and bits sites that I am pretty sure it's mostly just a Boogeyman from days past. And it'd be better for everyone if we stopped bringing it up constantly as if it's a real concern. No one cares. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:02 PM by DemonGSides

[Magos Takatus]

22 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I’m glad you wrote this and completely get the idea of proxying - I’m here for it. You’re right though, it would be better if the squads weren’t named after those specific regiments if that was their intention all along.
 

The issue is removing the infantry squad type that includes a heavy weapon team. This was a nice option and the traditional option. The flexibility was nice. Instead you now have to reorganise all your squads if you want to stay “legal.”
 

A minor annoyance is also that I’ve painted squad numbers on them all that I would have to re-do whilst reorganising them. Plus I’ll have some odd random spare infantry models that don’t fit into any squad by the time I’m done because the numbers don’t add up right (Edit: 8 models, in fact, because I have 6 infantry squads with HWTs. Sure I can make 2 HW squads but then I’m left with 4 x squads plus 8 guys left over. Nearly a full painted squad, which is even more annoying than one or two leftover dudes).

 

Just don’t get why they couldn’t leave that one page in the codex.

Exactly the issue I have with my Skitarii after GW moved the special weapon goalposts.

[Handsome Fred]

Am I the only one surprised that 2 days before the embargo lift there are still no leaks from the codex?

Edited yesterday at 02:40 PM by Handsome Fred

[Emperor Ming]

1 minute ago, Handsome Fred said:

Am I the only one surprised that 2 days before the embargo lift there are still no leaks from the codex?

Prob a sign gw are clamping down on the leaks maybe?

[ZeroWolf]

It's been mainly AoS leaks of late, barring the Death Guard screw up

[INKS]

2 hours 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.

They did say this, I'll find the quote for you later today and update

[DemonGSides]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-us/articles/cwbqyqmp/astra-militarum-detachments-artillery-barrages-mechanised-assault-and-stealth-tactics/

 

I'm kinda digging all of these. The callous sacrifice is very flavorful but probably not great on battle line stuff but any specialist unit is gonna like that, probably when they're already about to die. Being able to lash out one final time with the melta/plas of a Kasrkin squad or Scion squad will be nice.

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours 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.

Is that terribly different to Dark Angels having Tactical Terminators, Assault Terminators, Deathwing Terminators, and Deathwing Knights? Seems like they're managing just fine. 

[INKS]

38 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

I'll break it down for you as it isn't apparently clear. You've painted 3 sets of unit A (infantry squad/terminators) which belong to Subfaction  9 (Valhallans/Ultramarines). These were previously generic units and could be fielded as such.

 

You now are told generic units are gone, your 3 identical units of A now have 3 options: Unit B (Death korps/Deathwing terminators) of Subfaction 1 (krieg/dark angels), Unit C (shock troopers/wolf guard termiantors) of Subfaction 2 (cadians/space wolves) or Unit D (jungle fighters/assault terminators) of Subfaction 3 (catachan/blood angels for arguments sakes) and can have a unit of each.

 

To represent this, according to you, people must now repaint the unit, rebase the unit or provide additional game pieces to notify the opponent what they represent as it's otherwise visually confusing when it wasn't previously. That's not good.

 

Unit A of subfaction 9 could be Valhallan infantry squads, or iron hands terminators, doesn't matter. Applies to any army and why this is a concern game wide in reality as a potential trend. There's already a bespoke night lords unit as an example, when in reality it's better served as a visual upgrade to a generic unit imo which this could apply to in the future.

 

It genuinely isn't a difficult concept, one that others are grasping, yet you are accusing me of missing basic concepts.

 

 

 

Try following your own advice sometime.

But the flip of this was true before. You had generic guard which I could represent with cadian models. It's not as if I was going out to buy resin or metal models to represent generic guard. What you are saying isn't un-true but you don't have to repaint them. You should distinguish them (just like you should have before) if you are using mixed units of Cadian and Jungle fighters. If you Vahllans are all Cadians then you don't need to do anything other than say "these are cadians rules" It only matters to mark them if you are using 2 cadians, 1 death core, 1 jungle fighters. But that has ALWAYS been the case. If you were using generic guard, cadians, and something else you had to distinguish between them.

 

However I do understand that some players were probably using Valhallan models and using ALL generic rules. that is ok. you can still do that. the generic is cadians now.

[HeadlessCross]

11 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-us/articles/cwbqyqmp/astra-militarum-detachments-artillery-barrages-mechanised-assault-and-stealth-tactics/

 

I'm kinda digging all of these. The callous sacrifice is very flavorful but probably not great on battle line stuff but any specialist unit is gonna like that, probably when they're already about to die. Being able to lash out one final time with the melta/plas of a Kasrkin squad or Scion squad will be nice.

Artillery Support one is gonna be a hard counter to melee lists, and I could see it being used for that alone. The caveat of needing to be a foot away might make it too unwielding though. I'd be curious to experiment with that one. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Mandragola said:

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.

In regards to new players, it really isn’t an issue like it was because the other 3 options existed.

 

but even then, it wasn’t a huge issue.

buy a HWS, 2 infantry boxes, and a command squad and all the HWTs can be used up with a solid basis for an army.

[Sir Clausel]

24 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Artillery Support one is gonna be a hard counter to melee lists, and I could see it being used for that alone. The caveat of needing to be a foot away might make it too unwielding though. I'd be curious to experiment with that one. 

Yeah. Especially since thats every enemy unit. So first turn is everyone. On 5+ that is. So should be on a fair bit of units hit 

[redmapa]

Recon and Artillery sound like a ton of fun, can't wait to see what the Armored and Mechanized rules do, maybe an all Russ army will get it's time to shine!

[SteveAntilles]

I have a pure infantry Tanith army. 225 4+ (min) guardsmen is going to be fun. I can now run 9 Heavy Weapon Squads too. 

[The Pounder]

I’m loving the Siege Regiment rules!
 

Takes me back to when I collected my first Krieg army! 
 

The idea that artillery off the table is laying smoke and bombarding the enemy is a lot of fun!

[Gillyfish]

/Mod voice enabled:

 

I have just gone through the last page and hidden a number of posts whilst the mod team decides what to do with them.

 

It's fine for people to disagree, but it's not okay for that to degenerate into personal attacks.

 

Keep the discussion civil, please.

[Dr. Clock]

51 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

notify the opponent what they represent as it's otherwise visually confusing

This is a problem that will exist wherever comparable units get near each other on the table. If your units aren't visually distinct in some way shape or form, then as soon as 2 units enter coherency with each other you still need to 'notify your opponent' when they activate, or when they are attacked. I know some people strive to the level of hobby consistency that would allow them to actually have all their unit markings consistent and legible, but that's a high bar indeed (I have never quite cleared it). At the end of the day you just need to use common sense and do your best to keep units separate mentally and/or physically.

 

Obviously giving 3 'visually identical' units three different special rules is probably a bad idea, but that's not a fault in the rules and models as such - rather it's a potential fault in the player IMO. It is possible to apply those arbitrary differences to identical units, allowing that it is also somewhat more difficult. Essentially - If we've got non-standard units in our army, it's up to us to remember how they track on to the 'official' models and rules, and to be self-conscious enough to know how many of those factors we can actually remember and apply consistently during a game.

 

TLDR - this game just is 'visually confusing' for alot of reasons. Both players have to play in good faith, and we can't expect everyone to know everything about our chosen army all the time, therefore the addition of a few more 'similar but slightly different' iterations on basic infantry units is par for the course, not some crazy deviation from the norm.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

This is a problem that will exist wherever comparable units get near each other on the table. If your units aren't visually distinct in some way shape or form, then as soon as 2 units enter coherency with each other you still need to 'notify your opponent' when they activate, or when they are attacked. I know some people strive to the level of hobby consistency that would allow them to actually have all their unit markings consistent and legible, but that's a high bar indeed (I have never quite cleared it). At the end of the day you just need to use common sense and do your best to keep units separate mentally and/or physically.

 

Obviously giving 3 'visually identical' units three different special rules is probably a bad idea, but that's not a fault in the rules and models as such - rather it's a potential fault in the player IMO. It is possible to apply those arbitrary differences to identical units, allowing that it is also somewhat more difficult. Essentially - If we've got non-standard units in our army, it's up to us to remember how they track on to the 'official' models and rules, and to be self-conscious enough to know how many of those factors we can actually remember and apply consistently during a game.

 

TLDR - this game just is 'visually confusing' for alot of reasons. Both players have to play in good faith, and we can't expect everyone to know everything about our chosen army all the time, therefore the addition of a few more 'similar but slightly different' iterations on basic infantry units is par for the course, not some crazy deviation from the norm.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

Good rules wouldnt allow for such confusion or malicious manipulation, bad rules invite such confusion or malicious manipulation.

 

people will try to cheat no matter how good a rule set is, but in the end bad rules create more opportunities for cheaters, or honest mix ups.

[DemonGSides]

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Good rules wouldnt allow for such confusion or malicious manipulation, bad rules invite such confusion or malicious manipulation.

 

people will try to cheat no matter how good a rule set is, but in the end bad rules create more opportunities for cheaters, or honest mix ups.

 

Your first sentence is undone by your second sentence.

 

There's no perfect ruleset.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Your first sentence is undone by your second sentence.

 

There's no perfect ruleset.

I never said there was a perfect ruleset, but good rules minimizes confusion, and opportunities for malicious actors to take advantage of them.

bad rules like these, provide plenty of opportunities for confusion, and malicious actors to take advantage of the rules being bad.

[Dr. Clock]

24 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

good rules minimize confusion

Fair, yet the rules do not 'exist' beyond their application to the specific models used in-game. So I'd also say 'good collections and rules choices minimize confusion'. The criticisms I was responding to have more to do with the models we choose to use with the rules than with the rules themselves in the abstract. I'd argue that Cadian, Catachan and Krieg models are on their face distinct enough that the difference in rules between them is not really a deviation or any more confusing than 'normal 40k'. Of course, application of rules to models can and will usually be imperfect in this hobby, so this just doesn't rise to the level where I think there's a unique concern here.

 

I'd also tend to think that while 'minimizing confusion' is an important value, it will always be in tension with values like 'maximizing player choice'. In any case, collectors/players will need to judge for themselves how they can best minimize confusion within the admittedly broad array of choices (modeling and gaming) available.

 

36 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

bad rules like these, provide plenty of opportunities for confusion,

 

Do they, tho? Strictly speaking you must model correct weapons and options for every choice you make during army construction. Very few actually do this consistently, in my experience. Do all your tanks have smoke launchers and hunter-killers modeled? I know mine don't, but that doesn't stop me using those rules (though I basically never use Smoke lol). As soon as you're using something to represent something else, you are technically 'breaking or at least bending the rules', yet as long as everyone agrees that it's close enough, what is the harm?

 

And yes - it's a good idea to keep your choices as simple and obvious as you can because it reduces everyone's mental load, but I fail to see how these different Regiment rules, insofar as they are intended to represent single specific kits of currently offered miniatures are to blame because some grognards might try to awkwardly kludge their old collections into this new rules regime. The intent of these rules is not to encourage people to use Mordians as Catachans, Cadians and Kriegers in the same army; rather it is to make it easier for people fielding multiple regiments to have slightly different rules for each 'type' they are fielding and thus to add some cool narrative flavour to match the diversity of the collection they are using. eObviously we can still choose to just say 'all the squads in this army use Cadian rules' even though they're a mishmash or Valhallans, Tallarn and Steel Legion, and that might be kinder to ourselves and our opponents, but I don't think it's inherently 'wrong or bad' either way.

 

If we're talking about competitive play obviously there's likely to be a higher standard on differentiation if you intend to use Cadians 'as' Catachans or whatever, but again it's incumbent on the player themselves to avoid choices likely to confuse their opponents and to clearly mark out the different units.

 

Finally, it comes as little surprise to me that it appears that GW is likely hecked if they do and hecked if they don't in this regard. Remove differentiation between regiments and there will be great hue and cry as the Catachans, Cadians, and Kriegers mourn their bespoke special rules and faction identities. Add differentiation and a great hue and cry over too many rules and potential for confusion and bad faith army construction. 

 

I understand that more diversity equates to more potential for confusion and abuse. I don't agree however that this problem can properly be escaped in a game as complex and with as many options as 40k has had since it began.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

Fair, yet the rules do not 'exist' beyond their application to the specific models used in-game. So I'd also say 'good collections and rules choices minimize confusion'. The criticisms I was responding to have more to do with the models we choose to use with the rules than with the rules themselves in the abstract. I'd argue that Cadian, Catachan and Krieg models are on their face distinct enough that the difference in rules between them is not really a deviation or any more confusing than 'normal 40k'. Of course, application of rules to models can and will usually be imperfect in this hobby, so this just doesn't rise to the level where I think there's a unique concern here.

 

I'd also tend to think that while 'minimizing confusion' is an important value, it will always be in tension with values like 'maximizing player choice'. In any case, collectors/players will need to judge for themselves how they can best minimize confusion within the admittedly broad array of choices (modeling and gaming) available.

 

 

Do they, tho? Strictly speaking you must model correct weapons and options for every choice you make during army construction. Very few actually do this consistently, in my experience. Do all your tanks have smoke launchers and hunter-killers modeled? I know mine don't, but that doesn't stop me using those rules (though I basically never use Smoke lol). As soon as you're using something to represent something else, you are technically 'breaking or at least bending the rules', yet as long as everyone agrees that it's close enough, what is the harm?

 

And yes - it's a good idea to keep your choices as simple and obvious as you can because it reduces everyone's mental load, but I fail to see how these different Regiment rules, insofar as they are intended to represent single specific kits of currently offered miniatures are to blame because some grognards might try to awkwardly kludge their old collections into this new rules regime. The intent of these rules is not to encourage people to use Mordians as Catachans, Cadians and Kriegers in the same army; rather it is to make it easier for people fielding multiple regiments to have slightly different rules for each 'type' they are fielding and thus to add some cool narrative flavour to match the diversity of the collection they are using. eObviously we can still choose to just say 'all the squads in this army use Cadian rules' even though they're a mishmash or Valhallans, Tallarn and Steel Legion, and that might be kinder to ourselves and our opponents, but I don't think it's inherently 'wrong or bad' either way.

 

If we're talking about competitive play obviously there's likely to be a higher standard on differentiation if you intend to use Cadians 'as' Catachans or whatever, but again it's incumbent on the player themselves to avoid choices likely to confuse their opponents and to clearly mark out the different units.

 

Finally, it comes as little surprise to me that it appears that GW is likely hecked if they do and hecked if they don't in this regard. Remove differentiation between regiments and there will be great hue and cry as the Catachans, Cadians, and Kriegers mourn their bespoke special rules and faction identities. Add differentiation and a great hue and cry over too many rules and potential for confusion and bad faith army construction. 

 

I understand that more diversity equates to more potential for confusion and abuse. I don't agree however that this problem can properly be escaped in a game as complex and with as many options as 40k has had since it began.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

Good rules and the models don’t really matter.

 

as the rules currently work, it doesn’t matter if I’m using guard models as proxies for space marine units, as long as each unit can be told apart from one another. The rules and the models are completely separate, good rules it doesn’t matter if I’m using pill bottles and bottle caps to represent units.

[Timberley]

The new detachments look like they could be fun, but at the moment none of them looks like a good replacement for the Grotmas detachment for my army. The Recon Element could be really fun, as I do like me some sneaky-beaky!  I'm not big on tanks, but enjoy using elite infantry and artillery.

 

Also, and this is an aside, I wonder if they've removed the restriction on Special Weapons for the Catachans?  They're possibly the best representation of my Fallschirmjager out of the 3 archetypes available with their Scout 6", but they're armed with melta and plasma guns, not flamers.  If not, then deep striking Scions makes sense as the archetype.

 

Interestingly, something I didn't notice on first reading about the trio of archetypes yesterday is that the Krieg Command Squad's "Grim Determination" is nearly the generic Command Squad special ability "Command Structure (Aura)", but more restrictive.  Similarly, the Cadian's "Cadia Stands!" rule is a replacement for their 'ignore modifiers' rule with one that's similar to the "Defenders of Humanity" generic Infantry squad ability, but without the need to be within range of a friendly objective.  The generic Heavy Weapons Squad ability now belongs to the Cadians.  So, the generic squads live on, but split across the archetypes!

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

43 minutes ago, Timberley said:

The new detachments look like they could be fun, but at the moment none of them looks like a good replacement for the Grotmas detachment for my army. The Recon Element could be really fun, as I do like me some sneaky-beaky!  I'm not big on tanks, but enjoy using elite infantry and artillery.

 

Also, and this is an aside, I wonder if they've removed the restriction on Special Weapons for the Catachans?  They're possibly the best representation of my Fallschirmjager out of the 3 archetypes available with their Scout 6", but they're armed with melta and plasma guns, not flamers.  If not, then deep striking Scions makes sense as the archetype.

 

Interestingly, something I didn't notice on first reading about the trio of archetypes yesterday is that the Krieg Command Squad's "Grim Determination" is nearly the generic Command Squad special ability "Command Structure (Aura)", but more restrictive.  Similarly, the Cadian's "Cadia Stands!" rule is a replacement for their 'ignore modifiers' rule with one that's similar to the "Defenders of Humanity" generic Infantry squad ability, but without the need to be within range of a friendly objective.  The generic Heavy Weapons Squad ability now belongs to the Cadians.  So, the generic squads live on, but split across the archetypes!

I hope so, but unlikely as Catachan kits still only come with flamers.

 

also it would likely mean Cadians would need a rework. Unless maybe it’s a flamer and one other special weapon.

 

if they offered more weapons options to Catachans it would also likely signal that they’re getting a refresh we haven’t heard about yet.

[Tokugawa]

10 hours 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.

Don't use marine as analog. When you draw an analogy between marine and any other products, your argument would be rendered invalid. 

 

Marines are exceptions. To GW and 40K.