Mixed-models AM armies and the new codex

[Feral_80]

I am pretty sure I am not the only one with this 'problem'. Since I have been collecting AM for many years now, I have plenty of different regiments in my army.

 

I have a couple of Krieg squads/HQ (which normally I run as vanilla AM), a squad of metal Catachans, a squad of Vostroyans, a squad of Steel Legion, some converted vets, and quite some plastic Cadians in various roles. My vehicles also are painted in 2 different schemes, a desertic/ash world yellow/blue grey camo scheme and a jungle green scheme. 

 

I adopted and always liked the 'old' concept of the Guard often fighting as a mix of different regiments, assembled from the survivors of larger armies. On a more practical purpose, it also allowed me to a) diversify my models and painting, and b ) rapidly keep track of my squads and easily see them as separate on the battlefield. The latter is convenient to both me and my opponents, who may not always be familiar with the many options that we can field.

 

Now, since the new codex will rather push in the opposite direction, i.e. thematic, regimental armies, I find myself in a bit of trouble. I don't like the idea of mixing more than 2 regiments/detachments (and I wouldn't have enough models for most of the regiments I am fielding anyway), and I am not intentioned to buy new stuff until we get plastic infantry (i.e. never or almost, atm). I'll probably end up mixing all my infantry in one detachment and all the tanks in another one, likely from two different <regiments>. 

 

I am sure others find themselves in a similar situation. Will you just pick a doctrine you like and use all your different units as count-as that <regiment>? Or will you really start rebuilding your army?

 

As much as I am excited by the new codex, I feel sad that the Guard is probably losing some of its aesthetic variety.

[gunnyogrady]

I feel your dilemma. I don't have as much variety of models, but even having a few older squads of Vets that don't match the rest creates some issues for Regiment type.

 

I think you're good to just use your models and apply whichever Regiment you like. Fluffwise, you can imagine the Consolidated Regiment receiving training from the forces of the appropriate Doctrine.

 

Cadians will be a safe bet, and quite competitive. Considering how many regiments train/equip in Cadian style, it still seems prettt fluffy.

[duz_]

Although most my infantry is Mordian, I've always considered my armoured column a separate regiment (although never really formally declared who) for the same reason as you, guard is really a mishmash of regiments scrounged together for the Emperors service.

 

I wouldn't get too hung up on the look of the models, and if someone gives you grief about it I would tell them to stick it. I would chose a RT that either best reflects your fluff or play style. 

The only real issue you might encounter is if you run multiple detachments with different RT's. In which case you would want to make the units easily identifiable of who's who. The simplest way could be painting a colour (or number) on their base to designate which detachments they belong to.

 

As for multiple regiments, I keep going back and forth on that. I think for casual games I will try and keep them single Mordian for theme, more competitive games I may mix and match. TBH the RT's are all so good its kinda a hard choice which ones to chose! Valhallan ones certainly stick out for the tanks though... if I was going to go that way.

[Jacinda]

Personally, I have always used Cadians as stock troops (white helmets for conscripts) and Catachans as veterens but I have only been running guard in numbers for a few years.  I think it will be easier going forward to keep it that way.  I'll tell my opponent the regiment I am using for the entire army and continue letting the models diferentiate the battlefield roles.

[Altasmurf]

I feel like you can kind of go 2 ways.

First one, just pick one regiment doctrine and apply it to your whole army.

 

Second, take more then one regiment doctrine, but make sure it's very clear. For example all tanks are catachan and all infantry are cadian. Or all the plastic cadians of my own paint design are voystran and all mordians are mordian.

 

What I wouldn't do is all these mordian, catachan, chimera and steel legion count as steel legion. All cadians, tallarn, and LRBT are cadian. That's to much for your opponent imho.

[Guardsman Bob]

Once long ago there was an explicit rule written in the Imperial Guard Codex that made it clear you didn’t have to have the exact named character model to field him. It just had to look right depending on the WYSIWYG for the club or tourney. In fact I think the whole “choose” thing was intended for your kind of situation.

 

I can’t imagine a Necron player being denied his dynasty because the person didn’t buy the right colored glowing rods. How often have people here fought Marines after they went to an armor swap party? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

Your idea of placing infantry in one <Regiment> and vehciles in another is probably going to be a standard approach. The very nature of Detachments is modular. Just follow the others advice about trying to make the markings clear in some way.

 

By the by, after all these years of the Guard being so vanilla and bland issues like this thread are oddly refreshing.

[Withershadow]

I am not sure if this is how it works... If you are not using the "official" models for a particular Regiment, you are running a kit-bashed army.  For armies that don't have their own Doctrine, you can pick an existing Doctrine, but you wouldn't get any of the special orders, stratagems, or relics linked to that Regiment.  So for example, if your alternatively painted Cadian models are Savlar Chemdogs or whatever, and you want to use the same doctrine as Armageddon Steel Legion.  You would get Industrial Efficiency as your Regimental Doctrine, and get the buff on your troops and tanks... but you would NOT get the orders, relic or stratagem.

 

I don't know, I have a bone to pick with saying, oh, these purple Cadians are actually Vostroyans, and these orange ones are Catachans, and those unpainted ones are actually Krieg combat engineers.  That's basically proxying/counts-as, something GW doesn't really support in this edition.

[FallenSoldiers]

I'm doing basically the same thing. My ultimate goal is to have Cadians fill the ranks as conscripts and "greener" troops. They'll man things like HBs on my HWTs or form gun lines.

 

My Catachans will be the up close and personal units. Flamers, meltas, CCWs.

 

Tanks will most likely he Cadian while artillery is Catachan.

 

However, there will definitely be times when I'll have Cadians on the table using Catachan detachment rules. If my opponent doesn't like it they can go pound sand.

[Withershadow]

I think the issue will only be for tournaments and official events, where counts-as does not fly.

[FallenSoldiers]

Yeah, but if it's WYSIWYG (weapon, base, painted...) how can they say a custom paint job can't be from whatever regiment you choose?

 

As far as I can tell, none of these regiments have any specific models (looks maybe, but no unique units). As long as my infantry squad with a plasma gun is modeled properly I don't see how a tournament can object to running them with whatever regiment you choose.

 

I do see the issue where you're mixing a Battallion of Cadian with a Spearhead of Catachan and a supreme command of Tempestus but they all look identical.

[Vel'Cona]

Since detachment-by-detachment there's nothing stopping anyone from doing, say, a battalion of Astartes, a spearhead of IG and an Imperial Knight in a super-heavy auxiliary detachment, using different regiments of IG for each detachment really isn't a far stretch.  It's a combined army, and while I think such mismash forces are unappealing to look at and smack of WAAC tomfoolery, ultimately it's everyone's game to play how they choose.  For tournaments, I feel that any hope of coherency is already a pipe dream (40 Assassins?  REALLY?), but at the FLGS if I see something like this that player has earned themselves a brown star (Do Not Play status), but that's entirely my problem and not theirs.  I don't expect or want someone doing this to change; rather, I prefer to surround myself with the sort of opponents that share my aesthetic vision for Warhammer 40,000.

 

And ultimately, that's OK!  As long as we're all having fun, it's a non-issue.  :)

[Withershadow]

Yeah, but if it's WYSIWYG (weapon, base, painted...) how can they say a custom paint job can't be from whatever regiment you choose?

 

As far as I can tell, none of these regiments have any specific models (looks maybe, but no unique units). As long as my infantry squad with a plasma gun is modeled properly I don't see how a tournament can object to running them with whatever regiment you choose.

 

I do see the issue where you're mixing a Battallion of Cadian with a Spearhead of Catachan and a supreme command of Tempestus but they all look identical.

They've been hardcore about it at events I've seen so far, so who knows.  The Regiments DO have specific models AND unique units in the form of characters.  Catachans have unique models, Vostroyans have unique models, Steel Legion have unique models, etc...  the way the Doctrine and traits rules read, it seems if you want to take Cadian models but use the Catachan special rules, you can say they are a unique Regiment that uses the Beastly Strength Doctrine, but you would not get access to Catachan characters, relics, orders, stratagems, etc.

[FallenSoldiers]

I guess my issue is, I came from being a CSM player. Aside from the obvious named characters nothing stopped me from having my Marines part of any Legion I choose. Sure, some people "don't like" having red Marines represent Noise Marines.... but aside from the color scheme they'd be totally WYSIWYG. How do you differentiate a Cadian LRBT from a Steel Legion LRBT aside from paint?

 

Obviously characters and such are a horse of a different color, however, if I'm a force of all "generic guardsmen" and a TO gave me a hard time about playing Catachan rules, they'd better be doing the exact same thing for all the Space Marine legions. Dark Angels, for example, have specific models, would your local TO claim that painting up Codex Marines Bikers as DA Ravenwing be incorrect since there -are- DA bikers?

[FallenSoldiers]

Also, sorry if that came off rude or argumentative. I'm quite honestly just trying to find the line here. Being newish to guard (late 7th edition) I never had to think about which models I was grabbing as long as their guns were right.

[olcottr]

If you want to follow fluff, one of those regiment types is the main regiment.  After repeated engagements, it would be depleted and sometimes have to be reinforced by units from other regiments who would come to follow the original regiment's tactics.  Reference the Gaunt's Ghosts series.  Everyone who joined the regiment learned how to fight like the original.

[Withershadow]

I guess my issue is, I came from being a CSM player. Aside from the obvious named characters nothing stopped me from having my Marines part of any Legion I choose. Sure, some people "don't like" having red Marines represent Noise Marines.... but aside from the color scheme they'd be totally WYSIWYG. How do you differentiate a Cadian LRBT from a Steel Legion LRBT aside from paint?

 

Obviously characters and such are a horse of a different color, however, if I'm a force of all "generic guardsmen" and a TO gave me a hard time about playing Catachan rules, they'd better be doing the exact same thing for all the Space Marine legions. Dark Angels, for example, have specific models, would your local TO claim that painting up Codex Marines Bikers as DA Ravenwing be incorrect since there -are- DA bikers?

Catachans have their own unique models.  If you want to use your own "generic guardsmen" regiment, you can pick the Brutal Strength (or whatever it's called) Doctrine.  That doesn't make your "generic guardsmen" into Catachans for the purposes of characters, relics, or orders however. 

 

With tanks, you of course can call them whatever you want.

[FallenSoldiers]

 

 

I guess my issue is, I came from being a CSM player. Aside from the obvious named characters nothing stopped me from having my Marines part of any Legion I choose. Sure, some people "don't like" having red Marines represent Noise Marines.... but aside from the color scheme they'd be totally WYSIWYG. How do you differentiate a Cadian LRBT from a Steel Legion LRBT aside from paint?

 

Obviously characters and such are a horse of a different color, however, if I'm a force of all "generic guardsmen" and a TO gave me a hard time about playing Catachan rules, they'd better be doing the exact same thing for all the Space Marine legions. Dark Angels, for example, have specific models, would your local TO claim that painting up Codex Marines Bikers as DA Ravenwing be incorrect since there -are- DA bikers?

Catachans have their own unique models. If you want to use your own "generic guardsmen" regiment, you can pick the Brutal Strength (or whatever it's called) Doctrine. That doesn't make your "generic guardsmen" into Catachans for the purposes of characters, relics, or orders however.

 

With tanks, you of course can call them whatever you want.

I guess I'm just not seeing the difference between this and SM players using Codex Biker models as Ravenwing or Codex Marine models as Blood Angels. They both have specific kits and I've never heard a peep about it being an issue... and there we are dealing with a totally different gene seed.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

If you're not in a tournament that disallows counts-as, please disregard everything Withershadow has said. In an official event, someone can dictate what you do with your minis. In a friendly game, as long as your opponent knows what is what, there shouldn't be a problem. If they do have a problem then they're probably not someone you want to play against in the first place. 

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

I'm just going to say, who cares what you do with your list. Taking multiple things from different regiments in different detachments is too much for your opponent? That's not his responsibility, it's yours, the player. If you can keep track of what's what, that's all that matters, as long as you keep it all straight (For instance, you have a Patrol detachment of Mechanized infantry that is using steel legion tactics, and a patrol of dismounted infantry that's catachan, it's whatever, as long as you make it clear when you start what's what, then you remind him as you have that unit do stuff...). 

 

Unfortunately, there are many myself included) who only went in for Cadian minis. Does that mean I have to only play Cadians from now until the end of time? The hell it does. If I want to use Krieg rules, I'll do that, If I want to use Cadian Rules I'll have that too. Same goes for all others. I'm not going to build 7 different guard armies just so I can use different rules...

[Feral_80]

This thread is bringing out all the compatibility problems created by the old game, in which colours and models differentiation for the same units were simply or mostly cosmetic, and the new edition, in which they have major rules implications.

 

The discrepancy is worrying and not very well managed by GW. It will only get worse once more factions come in with new codex. Very few players will have models that consistently represent the sub-factions they play, and they cannot be blamed for this. The aesthetic diversity of the game will suffer, and tournament organizers will face a mess and will need to take decisions that will have an impact. I couldn't care less about tournaments, but the rest is a concern.

[seriade]

The simplest thing to do is say that all your troops are of one type of regiment and try to use as many of the same type as possible.  As long as you are clear with your opponent as to what is happening i do not see a problem.

[duz_]

I feel there might be a mountain of a mole hill brewing here.

The codex will drop Saturday and all will be revealed.

If SMs are anything to go buy there is no aesthetic requirement for CTS, other than you simply state what the models / detachments are.

If Ultramarines could be white scars in 7th and now white scars are ultramarines in 8th. It seems fine to mix and match RTs as you wish.

 

Otherwise check with your opponent, gaming group or TO.

[Withershadow]

We have the rules already from the review.  The Regiment rule can just be filled in with whatever you want.  However like I said in post #9, this discussion is only relevant for events and tournaments that do not allow counts-as.  In friendly games, as always, of course it depends on your opponent... this is such a pointless truism to harp upon.  I personally don't care if you want to run your Cadians as Catachans, you will only get the same level of derision that I heap upon unpainted models. :P  I only have two exceptions:

 

1. You're cherry picking a bunch of Regimental rules while using the same models for everything.  This is confusing, power gaming, super-friend shenanigans, and I thought we were having a friendly game?

2. You want to play Krieg with your whatever models.  This is an emotional response, certainly, but Krieg models are too awesome to lend their rules to your inferior plastic crap. Karskins are the only ones who are allowed an exception, or perhaps some of the kitbashed 3rd party armies.  :D

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

Ok, so the big problem is that cosmetically the current production models only match 2 regiments. The best possible outcome we can hope for is that we see some new kits from GW. Or they revive the old lines as metal, or God forbid, finecast. We know they still have the molds, since they did a new production run of made to order stuff (I got a squad of kasrkin, lord solar, and a steel legion commissar from it). Now, it's possible we might a made to order section just exist with GW now, to take care of that niche stuff (since only die hard fans will want Steel Legion, Valhallans, or Vostroyans to actually represent their force). 

 

They'd be shooting themselves in the foot to not offer a way to have these regiments represented by their webstore.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

1. You're cherry picking a bunch of Regimental rules while using the same models for everything.  This is confusing, power gaming, super-friend shenanigans, and I thought we were having a friendly game?

I tend to agree, which is why I'm not going to do it.

 

 

2. You want to play Krieg with your whatever models.  This is an emotional response, certainly, but Krieg models are too awesome to lend their rules to your inferior plastic crap. Karskins are the only ones who are allowed an exception, or perhaps some of the kitbashed 3rd party armies. 

Hey now... My Plastic Cadians are just as capable as Resin DKoK (Don't get me wrong, I love those models, but Where are the distinct grenadier molds hmmm?). Besides, I love the way Cadians look too, especially Kasrkin ( I should, I own 47 or so of them...). I think I'll probably run more from the actual codex, since it lets me run more of my units (Sentinels and wyverns).