The "Notable Regiments" section is a bit of a misnomer, I suppose. Most of the armies listed are larger than just regiments. Should we include just particular regiments, or change the name? (I'm not really sure what GW calls Guard armies above the regiment level.) --Avenging Dentist 09:07, 12 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- I agree that the name "Notable Regiments" is a misnomer. I have been looking around but I cant find anything higher than regiment, and GW uses regiment for both, ie Kanak Skull Takers and Cadian 33rd. We could change it but I'm not sure what to. Perhaps 'Notable Guard Armies' or something similar?--Jonru 22:11, 4 Aug 2005 (CEST)
- While calling them notable regiments is not entirely accurate, it could be listed that the Armies are notable due to action by regiments within.
The regimental structures section is somewhat ridiculous. Most regiments receive reinforcements from their home world (as quoted in a few books, ie the Ciaphas Cain series and I believe the codex itself), especially considering most regiments are often one gender only. Unless the Departmento Munitorium has mastered some form of making men into mothers, I think some rewrite is necessary. --He2etic 22:39, 4 September 2008 (CEST)
- 1.) The relevant sentences should have a footnote (except if the Whiteshield source is the correct one).
- 2.) If the original article states that this is "a general rule", then that's it.
- 3.) Even if regiments are "one gender only" there's always the baggage where children can come from (and will). Not everyone that gets carted around with the regiment is "military" personel in strict sense. Even the Munitorum apparently has acknowledged that Soldiers don't live on faith alone ;)
- 4.) Just cite the regiments where known practices can be sourced. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 13:38, 6 September 2008 (CEST)
"Regiments of Imperial Guard are generally posted to combat zones immense distances from their homeworlds and it is rarely practical for them to recruit from their homeworld to make up combat losses." Warhammer 40,000 Compendium, p.44
"A Regiment is shipped to its posting after it is raised, but does not receive replacements for losses...However, in many Regiments the Guardsmen's offspring...are recruited when they come of age...it is common for Regiments to become severely depleted...in some cases...two or more Regiments...may be combined to form a new Regiment." Warhammer 40,000 Compendium p.145
It's old fluff, but I couldn't find any updates on the subject in more recent codexes or rulebooks - perhaps I am looking in the wrong places? - so had to go with it. There are of course exceptions to this 'general rule', and I included the Vostroyans not only as I felt they were the most extreme example of the practice of reinforcing from home, but because I'd just finished reading Rebel Winter. I will attempt to rewrite the section a bit so it is clearer.--Mob 17:23, 28 September 2008 (CEST)
- Yeah, I got to debate that. I've read examples from various books where some regiments do get reinforced from their homeworld. The Valhallan 597th did in the Ciaphas Cain books, after they were merged (this was mentioned cheerfully by Cain when he stated that the Administratum screwed up and sent them double the reinforcements because the two regiments that were meshed to make the 597th both received additional troops). I believe that major Imperial Guard worlds like Cadia or Valhalla frequently do ship troops out to reinforce their units, while more backwater worlds prefer other methods to reinforce their troops. --Lygris 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- If there's a source for it, by all means put it in and rewrite the section, I used the best sources I could find at the time and things are always changing. Thanks.--Mob 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Switched the previous back in as (despite being an old picture) it better represents the idea of the guard as a large meatgrinder force than the one of the 3 cadians. That one has been moved down to the section of the page dealing with regimental structure. Thanks.--Mob 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I removed this addition as this article is not directly concerned with such specifics; the (identically worded) Guardswomen entry on the Guardsman page is the appropiate place for such information IMHO. To support this page's gender-neutral approach to describing Guardsman, I've reworded the section about probies. Thanks.--Mob 16:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Origins of the Imperial Guard
I removed the last part since it was just "Since then" and nothing else, if a paragraph is supposed to be there then I have no idea what it would contain, so deleting it seemed the best solution OmegaXicor 00:03, 4 January 2013 (CET)
Was it really necessary to rename the page "Astra Militarum" and nearly every reference to Imperial Guard with it? We don't do this with the Space Marines page despite being technically called the "Adeptus Astartes"--Harriticus (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2015 (MDT)
- It was not necessary, in the sense that somebody's life was depending on it, but it is a solid editorial call, backed up by a strict reasoning. Imagine you're a new player who just bought Codex:Astra Militarum, or was browsing the website, you don't know about Imperial Guard. Imperial Guard, in the new Games Workshop parlance, has become a nickname of sort. Space Marines is, instead, still a very supported name.
- With that in mind, I think it's wise to go along with the change without editorializing too aggressively (meaning that we take what GW says for canon, not that we don't edit a lot of articles, which is something we will have to do.) When GW retcons, we have no option but to go along, we can mention the old history, but as a side node, and/or a convenience redirect.
- As it seems to be at the moment:
- * Hoity toity/posh names: Adeptus Astartes
- * Names people in the universe actually use on a daily base: Astra Militarum, Space Marines
- * Nicknames that people commonly use but in a lower register, like among friends: Imperial Guard, Angels of Death, Beakies?
- --Madness (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2015 (MDT)
- I went through the codex Astra Militarum again, checking, and you might have a point. Whereas I still believe that the name of the articles should be reflecting the new conventions, I think you're right in that the article itself should speak of Imperial Guard more than it speaks of Astra Militarum. Let me know what you think. --Madness (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2015 (MDT)