Dulahan said:

Actually the Iron Snakes have been mentioned officially in Deathwatch - there are stats for power spears for them. As such Abnett's IP is a-okay for usage.

By the later novels in the First-and-Only line, the regiment has taken heavy casualties but also merged with several other sets of troops. I see no issue with a platoon of Tanith being seconded to a heavy infantry or armour force as a scout detachment. Seems entirely viable to include them in the book, even if not statted up at least as an honourable mention under light infantry.

Kasatka said:

So, when you say this, are you sure it is a specific weapon, for specific people? Having a spear-format power weapon isn't the same as having a particularly picked weapon, listed as for a specific group, who don't happen to be Space Marines. If you have a page number, I would like very much to go see it, as I often like non-Space Marine things in DW; while they are the focus, it's nice to see a few little things for everyone else fighting in their war.

As for one IP allowing the use of others, even if they did get permission to use Abnett's stuff in one spot, that doesn't necessarily open the door for his other stuff; he has to agree to every little one. Luckily, a willingness to allow it, in a 40K official work, such as their RPG, does reflect, at least to me, a willingness to probably allow more, again, if only to get his stuff some more recognition, which might drum up some book sales for him.

If i get stuff for Cadians (almost a given), Elysians, and maybe some unique to the works Regiment, I'll be pleased enough. If they just say "Guardsmen are Guardsmen, all across the galaxy", and then give us some flavor packages to flesh them out, as a specific group, so that the Cadians and the Catechans are not the same, that'll work for me.

Not only is there an Iron Snakes reference but there is a Blood Raverns quote in the main DW rulebook. However That's all they can really do without risking contradicting the other companies fluff.

Which seems to be the main reason behind the policy. Everybody get's their own sector or subsector to do with as they will. Unless those companies colaborate with Dan Abnett to write rules for Iron Snakes, or with THQ to do rules for Blood Ravens as publicity for DoW III, say. Of course, I don't know the wording of the license.

Kasatka said:

Mentioned doesn't mean used.  It's one thing to have a quote and acknowlege a part of the IP exists and quite another to outright use them.  There's some real subtleties. 

I think a little too much is being made of iP issues here. I'm not an IP lawyer, but my understanding is that GW own the IP to all 40k material, full stop. it's theirs to do what they want with. If they want to licence other companies to produce material set in their universe, they'll do so. If the Blood ravens or Iron Snakes prove popular, GW are quite within their rights to authorise FFG to produce material based upon them. (I'd stress that's an opinion, I don't have access to any facts one way or another!) 

As for the Tanith First and only, I'd tentatively say it's unlikely they'd appear in only War, for reasons of setting rather than legality. The FFG games tend to be set around 816-817 M41. The Gaunt's Ghosts books are set roughly 40-50 years prior to this time period. Now I know that this is 40k, and rejuvenat treatment is available, but it would be very unusual for an entire regiment to be given rejuvenat. Gaunt, yes, but not all of them.

Of course, that assumes that the Only War setting is the usual 816 M41 40k RPG time period! Only War could be set at any other time. For all I know, it could be set during the Sabbat Worlds Crusade - but I doubt it. FFG tend to prefer to create their own settings.

No, don't think we'll see Gaunt's Ghosts, sorry. GW likes to keep a close eye on its IP, and would probably want to avoid any entanglements between its product diversification. But I'm not a lawyer either. It just seems like common sense to keep the crossover limited to coy references (like Commissar Holt, of Final Liberation (it's old) being quoted in Deathwatch books, or Arbitor Senioris Shira Calpurnia referencing Ciaphas Cain recruitment posters).

Now a thought I've been having recently, is if the book is going to have a relatively large number of Regiments to choose from, we might see two new regiments from FFG, instead of the more expected one. Perhaps one, that's entirely new as of the Only War book, and probably one that has been mentioned previously, from the Calixis Sector.

Cadians most definetly, Catachans as well (and the one or two FFG created). But after them I can't say I think any one of them is an absolute certainty. Even narrowing things down to the armies that have had rules and/or models still leaves too many possible options.

 I think we need to evaluate what a Regiment will mean - Unlike in previous 40k RP lines, it will not be the Homeworld/Archetype that defines your individual character, but more the over-arching style of campaign you play. For example if the group and GM decide to run a Light Infantry style Regiment, you'll end up with lots of lightly armoured, stealthier characters than if you ended up playing a Mechanised or Heavy Infantry Regiment.

For those that have purchased the later supplements for Dark Heresy, i'd imagine the Regiments will work more like the inquisitorial Cell packages, whereby all the characters have access to a communal advance table to represent their shared training and methodology. 

That is of course my two cents, but it makes little sense to me if the game ends up allowing each and every character to pick their own regiment until you end up with a spec-ops team of Doom(tm). It'd break the flavour and the point of the game for me.

What you say makes sense, but i don't know if it leaves the game open and flexible enough to conduct the style of gameplay the title implies; war. If your group was deployed as part of the 8th Cadian Regiment (lucky you, you get to be among Castellan's Own), in order to help repel the Orks in the 4th War of Armageddon, things will start off one way, but then you, and much more likely your enemy, will begin to acquire more, and better assets. Wars have an annoying habit of evolving, and changing; what worked yesterday is fruitless now, as the enemy is onto your game, or maybe has taken an important asset from you. At that point, you need to prepare for what they are now doing, or lose. As soon as Thraka's Mek Boyz have cranked out a few trukks, and looted stolen Leman Russ Battle Tanks, your game has completely changed, and your light infantry plan goes out the window. You need your own anti-tank guys and stuff, and i don't expect you have three separate characters each, waiting to switch out for the appropriate theatre. Your characters will need to be good at various things, to roll with the punches they will receive.

Of course, I have no idea what level of involvement your group will have, among what size of formation, and over what time span, so I'm mostly just flapping my gums, at present, but it's a thought to have. I'll have to wait and see how involved one is in the makings and movements of the Guard army the players actually prove to be. It's different when you are a small group of Space Marines, probably the only ones on that given planet, but the Guard don't do much on the individual level, so I don't know how the characters will grow, whether you will build a character, and then modify it so that it is in a tank, or in a Horde (yeah extra BS and Magnitude health), or whether they will find a good way to make single soldiers among the millions actually shine, sort of like Space Marines without all bells and whistles (armor, weaponry, hope).

 Well even light infantry will have a number of machineguns, missile launchers and demolitions for various task. Light infantry aren't literally just men with battle rifles. Conversely Mechanised infantry are just as likely to have snipers and Heavy infantry will have scouts.

It's more an overall ethos to a fighting force and how it conducts itself in warfare. Light infantry use their speed, stealth and tactical edge to fight. Heavy infantry rely on directly attacking strong points and using heavy armour to resist damage and heavier weaponry to deal it. Mechanised infantry are reliant on their troop transports and armour assets to stay highly mobile and deliver sledgehammer blows with pinpoint accuracy.

As i said in my previous post, if we end up with Regimental advance tables it would just mean that, for example, the Light infantry advances make it easier to increase your stealth, tracking and navigation etc skills, whilst the Heavy infantry table will have a higher profusion of heavy weapons training and things like Sound constitution.