Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lore says commissars attached to Catachan regiments get fragged more often than normal.

 

so how about a rule that says if the unit has a commissar attached, whenever the summary execution rule would be activated remove the commissar from the table, and this unit gets +1A on their close combat weapons, and +1 OC for the rest of the turn, and are no longer battleshocked.

Edited by Inquisitor_Lensoven
Link to comment
https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/386177-fun-idea-for-catachan-ability/
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, kabaakaba said:

Lol, it's sounds more like savlar chem dogs then catachans. 

I’ve only ever seen like a two line blurb about the Chem dogs, so not sure why you’d say that.

Edited by Inquisitor_Lensoven
5 hours ago, kabaakaba said:

There exact situation in Hailey shadowsword novel. Where commissar ready to execute crew and savlar driver stab him. And iirc there lot written about them earlier in codices iirc.

Like I said, Catachans are very well known for offing their commissars. I personally wouldn’t associate that with the chemdogs just because of one novel.

  • 2 weeks later...

There used to be a rule for this in the Deathworld Codex (basically just Codex Catachans), every Commissar you included in your army rolled 1d6 before the battle and on a 1 they couldn't take part (having suffered an "accident"). that was removed with the 3.5 guard codex which consolidated on the variant lists and gave us doctrines. 

I don't see a place for a rule like that in modern 40k, the game has gone a specific direction and rules like that just don't seem to gel with it. 

On 7/7/2025 at 4:01 PM, Harrowmaster said:

There used to be a rule for this in the Deathworld Codex (basically just Codex Catachans), every Commissar you included in your army rolled 1d6 before the battle and on a 1 they couldn't take part (having suffered an "accident"). that was removed with the 3.5 guard codex which consolidated on the variant lists and gave us doctrines. 

I don't see a place for a rule like that in modern 40k, the game has gone a specific direction and rules like that just don't seem to gel with it. 

Yes, randomly losing a model from your army with no benefit in return doesn’t have a place in modern 40k. 
that’s why I tied a direct benefit into losing the model, and made it optional.

4 hours ago, Harrowmaster said:

I don't see GW going with it tbh, I think it's a very different game from what it used to be that sort of rule (even with a benefit) probably doesn't fit.

Again I don’t see the rule you’re talking about as having any real similarity beyond surface level to what I’ve suggested.

its basically just a one time inverse of the commissar’s own rule…

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.