Well I stoked a fire on the IG facebook page that is over 200 comments and counting figured I would do the same thing here.
The question is do Elysians and DKoK get regimental doctrines or not. And I know some people are baffled by the very thought of this but one paragraph from the new dex makes me curious about it.
This seems to me to suggest that regiments such as Eylsians and DKoK would get the Doctrines but others have argued that it is only referring to <Regiments> and that DKoK and EDT are effectively their own armies and wouldn't gain anything from the new dex.
I am curious as to how people have ruled things like Red Scorpians and Minotaurs from the Space Marine codex as I figure their would have been a similar question.
Please tell me your thoughts as I am curious as to how other have interpreted this.
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
What baconcatbug said, although personally i'd be fine with you updating some datasheets - e.g. use the new Grinding Advance with the DKoK Leman Russ variants. But that would obviously be a house rule.
They already have their own doctrine and so on. DKoK and Elysians are not "alternate guards", theyre specific regiments.so you cant just build a "Death Korp of Cadia" snd use both doctrines at the same time with the same units. What you can do however is have one DKoK and one Cadian detachment
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
Khadorstompy wrote: Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesn't say that World Eaters don't get them either. Do they need to be explicitly excluded? No, because they are a totally different army with a totally different rulebook. DKoK and Elysians use the Imperial Armour book and the Imperium 2 Index, they don't have ANY relation whatsoever to the Astra Militartum codex. They have as much relation to it as Tau do.
Not to mention as nekooni said, as far as GW rules are concerned Forge World doesn't exist and they never ever mention them. It's up to Forge World to INclude them, not for GW to EXclude them.
Khadorstompy wrote: Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesn't say that World Eaters don't get them either. Do they need to be explicitly excluded? No, because they are a totally different army with a totally different rulebook. DKoK and Elysians use the Imperial Armour book and the Imperium 2 Index, they don't have ANY relation whatsoever to the Astra Militartum codex. They have as much relation to it as Tau do.
Not to mention as nekooni said, as far as GW rules are concerned Forge World doesn't exist and they never ever mention them. It's up to Forge World to INclude them, not for GW to EXclude them.
I disagree. They are Astra Millitarum they have the Astra Militarum Keyword they use units form the Astra Militarum Codex. You seem to be saying the DKoK and EDT are separate armies when all they are is a sub-faction. BA/DA/SW are specifically called out in the SM dex to make it clear they don't use those rules. Red Scorpians, Blood Ravens, Minotaurs, etc.... do use those rules or are you saying they don't either?
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
As I've said about twenty times, nothing in the Imperial Armour Book refers to a codex. Please stop bringing up this incorrect point.
Pask, Strakken, or Creed etc get them because the Codex says they get them. DKoK et. al. have zero mention of these rules ANYWHERE in their rules. Please, find them for me and I'll concede the point.
Forge World rules are special snowflakes, nothing in the codexes apply to them unless the Forge World book explicitly says to do so and the only reason even the Indexes apply to anything is because the Imperial Armour books explicitly say so.
Completely and utterly incorrect. I request you read the Imperial Armour book in question. Please point out a single reference to any codex.
Leman Russ Tank is in the damn codex stop trying to cut literal half a sentence into a statement for a "Gotcha". You are completely ignoring the my counter-argument and the questions I am asking you. Did you even other to read the clip from the codex I posted?
Khadorstompy wrote: Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesn't say that World Eaters don't get them either. Do they need to be explicitly excluded? No, because they are a totally different army with a totally different rulebook. DKoK and Elysians use the Imperial Armour book and the Imperium 2 Index, they don't have ANY relation whatsoever to the Astra Militartum codex. They have as much relation to it as Tau do.
Not to mention as nekooni said, as far as GW rules are concerned Forge World doesn't exist and they never ever mention them. It's up to Forge World to INclude them, not for GW to EXclude them.
I disagree. They are Astra Millitarum they have the Astra Militarum Keyword they use units form the Astra Militarum Codex. You seem to be saying the DKoK and EDT are separate armies when all they are is a sub-faction. BA/DA/SW are specifically called out in the SM dex to make it clear they don't use those rules. Red Scorpians, Blood Ravens, Minotaurs, etc.... do use those rules or are you saying they don't either?
Simple question: How would you even do that? As I said, DKoK units do not have a <Regiment> keyword to replace with e.g. Cadian. All the units they are allowed to take from the Index Imperium 2 have to replace their <Regiment> with Death Korps of Krieg. All Infantry, even those taken from the Index, gain the The Cult of Sacrifice ability.
Sure, you can probably call that detachment 'Cadian', but none of the DKoK units would have the keyword, and you'd immediately break your Cadian detachment since you have just added units that are from a different regiment (DKoK).
And the Marines - Minotaurs right now have to use one of the existing GW chapter tactics. There's no 'Minotaur' army list. If FW created a Minotaur army list, it would come with their own Chapter Tactics and so on, and then you'd be no longer able to use one of the vanilla GW Tactics for them.
Is it really not obvious that a Regiment can't be both Cadian AND Elysian? If you want to play an Airdrop-focused guard army, you play Elysians (or "a Regiment using the same doctrines as the Elysians"). Otherwise, pick a different regiment and play that. You don't get to double-dip, each regiment only has one origin planet, and only one set of regiment doctrines.
Khadorstompy wrote: Leman Russ Tank is in the damn codex stop trying to cut literal half a sentence into a statement for a "Gotcha". You are completely ignoring the my counter-argument and the questions I am asking you. Did you even other to read the clip from the codex I posted?
Yes, the Leman Russ Tank is in the codex. What is your point? You were claiming that DKoK use the AM Codex rules, when they do not, which you would know if you read the IA:AM book.
DKoK have as much relation to the AM Codex as the Tau do. Aka literally less than zero.
Do you want the quote?
Spoiler:
MASTER OF ORDNANCE
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
RAPIER LASER DESTROYER BATTERY
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
HYDRAS
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
TANK COMMANDER
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
GRIFFON MORTAR CARRIER
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
HADES BREACHING DRILL SQUADRON
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
HELLHOUNDS
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
SALAMANDER SCOUT TANK
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
STYGIES THUNDERER SIEGE TANK
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
BASILISKS
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
ARMAGEDDON PATTERN MEDUSA
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
COLOSSUS BOMBARD
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
QUAD LAUNCHER BATTERY
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
HEAVY MORTAR BATTERY
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
From the Errata:
Page 55 – Death Korps of Krieg Army List
Add the following units to the list of those that can be
from the Death Korps of Krieg:
‘• Atlas Recovery Tank
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Centaur Light Carrier
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Cyclops Demolition Vehicle
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Earthshaker Carriage Battery
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Malcador Annihilator
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Malcador Defender
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Malcador Heavy Tank
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Malcador Infernus
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Medusa Carriage Battery
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Stygies Destroyer Tank Hunter
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Arkurian Pattern Stormblade
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Gorgon Heavy Transporter
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Macharius Heavy Tank
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Macharius Omega
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Macharius Vanquisher
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Macharius Vulcan
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Minotaur Artillery Tank
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Basilisks
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
• Hydras
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
• Baneblade
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
• Shadowsword
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
• Stormsword
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2’
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
As I've said about twenty times, nothing in the Imperial Armour Book refers to a codex. Please stop bringing up this incorrect point.
Pask, Strakken, or Creed etc get them because the Codex says they get them. DKoK et. al. have zero mention of these rules ANYWHERE in their rules. Please, find them for me and I'll concede the point.
Forge World rules are special snowflakes, nothing in the codexes apply to them unless the Forge World book explicitly says to do so and the only reason even the Indexes apply to anything is because the Imperial Armour books explicitly say so.
According to the logic you have given me because the don't have Regiment they don't get them.
And IA:Force of the Astra Militarum refers to Imerium 2. Imperium 2 is updated by Codex: Astra Militrum actually its more then that because it REPLACES THOSE PARTS OF IMPERIUM 2. And if you where to run an Astra Militrum force with Index Imperium 2 after the codex comes out. You would be cheating.
Khadorstompy wrote: And IA:Force of the Astra Militarum refers to Imerium 2. Imperium 2 is updated by Codex: Astra Militrum actually its more then that because it REPLACES THOSE PARTS OF IMPERIUM 2. And if you where to run an Astra Militrum force with Index Imperium 2 after the codex comes out. You would be cheating.
Except nowhere was that changed in the IA book. By using the codex you are "cheating" (I am using 50 foot air quotes here), not the other way around.
DKoK use the IA rulebook, they cannot use the normal Codex, no more than the Space Wolves can.
I understand you are upset, but yelling the same incorrect thing over and over isn't going to change it.
Captyn_Bob wrote: They interact with the new codex fine. The list of AM units they can take is given. The most recent publication rules should be used where applicable.
Unless Forge World update their books, this is categorically and entirely untrue. If a Forge World rule says to look at the Index, you look at the Index, PERIOD. The same reason why Wolf Lords still use the Index Captain entry and not the Codex Captain entry.
Khadorstompy wrote: And IA:Force of the Astra Militarum refers to Imerium 2. Imperium 2 is updated by Codex: Astra Militrum actually its more then that because it REPLACES THOSE PARTS OF IMPERIUM 2. And if you where to run an Astra Militrum force with Index Imperium 2 after the codex comes out. You would be cheating.
Except nowhere was that changed in the IA book. By using the codex you are cheating, not the other way around.
DKoK use the IA rulebook, they cannot use the normal Codex, no more than the Space Wolves can.
I understand you are upset, but yelling the same incorrect thing over and over isn't going to change it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captyn_Bob wrote: They interact with the new codex fine. The list of AM units they can take is given. The most recent publication rules should be used where applicable.
Unless Forge World update their books, this is categorically and entirely untrue.
Doesn't matter that its not mention in the IA book. IA book refers to I2 book which has been changed. If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
Yes, that's exactly why I'd allow you to use the "Tank Commander" from the Codex (I think there's a solid case for that being allowed anyway, but I'd let you do that either way), and I'd allow - as a house-rule - that e.g. the "DKoK Leman Russ Mars-Alpha Battle Tank" could use the updated Grinding Advance rule from the Codex, even though technically they shouldn't benefit from that one, as they're a completely different unit, technically speaking.
Khadorstompy wrote: If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
[Citation Needed], because this is totally untrue. If Forge World release an errata or FAQ stating this, then fine. Until then, it's not.
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex. "
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
Yes, that's exactly why I'd allow you to use the "Tank Commander" from the Codex (I think there's a solid case for that being allowed anyway, but I'd let you do that either way), and I'd allow - as a house-rule - that e.g. the "DKoK Leman Russ Mars-Alpha Battle Tank" could use the updated Grinding Advance rule from the Codex, even though technically they shouldn't benefit from that one, as they're a completely different unit, technically speaking.
I think your missing the bulk of our argument here. If EDT and DKoK are <Regiments> which Bacon is denying. Then because they do not have a doctrine they would get a Doctrine from the list. They would not get specific strategems, relics, or Warlord Traits though they could take from the generic AM ones. He is making the case that they are completely separate faction like DA/SW/BA are from Space marines despite having the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. I am making the case that they are the Equivalent of Red Scorpions or Minotaurs which are FW sub-factions of Space marines.
Khadorstompy wrote: If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
[Citation Needed], because this is totally untrue. If Forge World release an errata or FAQ stating this, then fine. Until then, it's not.
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex. "
Khadorstompy wrote: I think your missing the bulk of our argument here. If EDT and DKoK are <Regiments> which Bacon is denying. Then because they do not have a doctrine they would get a Doctrine from the list. They would not get specific strategems, relics, or Warlord Traits though they could take from the generic AM ones. He is making the case that they are completely separate faction like DA/SW/BA are from Space marines despite having the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. I am making the case that they are the Equivalent of Red Scorpions or Minotaurs which are FW sub-factions of Space marines.
How about you answer me instead of telling me I'm the wrong kind of wrong because I do not argue the same point that BaconCatBug does?
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
All the DKoK have a hard-wired Regiment, so you can't pick any up anything that's hard-wired to a different regiment: Doctrines, regiment orders, regiment characters etc. You also can't use any generic new orders (if there were any) since the DKoK order list fully replaces the order list. I'd let you get away with non-regimental Warlord traits, stratagems and relics, but that's it. Or was that all you wanted anyway, and I misunderstood you? I thought you're arguing that you can create what's basically a Mordian Death Korps, using all of the rules.
I mean, your opening statement was "The question is do Elysians and DKoK get regimental doctrines or not."
Khadorstompy wrote: If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
[Citation Needed], because this is totally untrue. If Forge World release an errata or FAQ stating this, then fine. Until then, it's not.
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex. "
And the most up to date rules for DKoK are the IA:AM book, which tells you to use the Index. Q.E.D.
As I have said multiple times that people seem to be ignoring: If Forge World decide to fix their books, this will be a non-issue. As it is, if you want to follow the rules, you use the Index rules for DKoK and not the codex.
Khadorstompy wrote: If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
[Citation Needed], because this is totally untrue. If Forge World release an errata or FAQ stating this, then fine. Until then, it's not.
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex. "
And the most up to date rules for DKoK are the IA:AM book, which tells you to use the Index. Q.E.D.
As I have said multiple times that people seem to be ignoring: If Forge World decide to fix their books, this will be a non-issue. As it is, if you want to follow the rules, you use the Index rules for DKoK and not the codex.
Yeah, but to be fair you could argue that while you're directed to the Index, you're then redirected to the Codex for the latest Tank Commander rules. But that doesn't change how you're still unable to have a Tank Commander with both the DKoKand the Valhallan keywords.
And it doesn't clarify whether or not you can use the Stratagems, Warlord traits etc. The DKoK army list doesn't mention those at all, so I'd say you can only use the ones from the BRB.
Khadorstompy wrote: I think your missing the bulk of our argument here. If EDT and DKoK are <Regiments> which Bacon is denying. Then because they do not have a doctrine they would get a Doctrine from the list. They would not get specific strategems, relics, or Warlord Traits though they could take from the generic AM ones. He is making the case that they are completely separate faction like DA/SW/BA are from Space marines despite having the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. I am making the case that they are the Equivalent of Red Scorpions or Minotaurs which are FW sub-factions of Space marines.
How about you answer me instead of telling me I'm the wrong kind of wrong because I do not argue the same point that BaconCatBug does?
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
All the DKoK have a hard-wired Regiment, so you can't pick any up anything that's hard-wired to a different regiment: Doctrines, regiment orders, regiment characters etc. You also can't use any generic new orders (if there were any) since the DKoK order list fully replaces the order list. I'd let you get away with non-regimental Warlord traits, stratagems and relics, but that's it. Or was that all you wanted anyway, and I misunderstood you? I thought you're arguing that you can create what's basically a Mordian Death Korps, using all of the rules.
I mean, your opening statement was "The question is do Elysians and DKoK get regimental doctrines or not."
I take it you didn't read the clip form the codex in the link I posted on the very first message. Let me quote it for you and see if this helps a bit. "If your chosen regiment doesn't have an associated doctrine," So neither DKoK or EDT have a doctrine seems to fit. "You may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army."
Sorry if I am being confusing. No they wouldn't get example Cadian Orders, Strategems, Warlord traits, or Relics. But they could pick "Born Soldiers" doctrine due to the above.
I dont see how anyone could think they can get away with running Aerial Drop elysians with the Cadian doctrine? It seems pretty obvious and self explanitory.
Then again, even if the RAI is obvious, I guess RAW isnt.
I guess, technically, the DKoK dont have the Regiment keyword, since they replace it with DKoK, and the rules for replacing it in the FW index doesn't tell them to also select a doctrine like the picture above does.
Khadorstompy wrote: I think your missing the bulk of our argument here. If EDT and DKoK are <Regiments> which Bacon is denying. Then because they do not have a doctrine they would get a Doctrine from the list. They would not get specific strategems, relics, or Warlord Traits though they could take from the generic AM ones. He is making the case that they are completely separate faction like DA/SW/BA are from Space marines despite having the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. I am making the case that they are the Equivalent of Red Scorpions or Minotaurs which are FW sub-factions of Space marines.
How about you answer me instead of telling me I'm the wrong kind of wrong because I do not argue the same point that BaconCatBug does?
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
All the DKoK have a hard-wired Regiment, so you can't pick any up anything that's hard-wired to a different regiment: Doctrines, regiment orders, regiment characters etc. You also can't use any generic new orders (if there were any) since the DKoK order list fully replaces the order list. I'd let you get away with non-regimental Warlord traits, stratagems and relics, but that's it. Or was that all you wanted anyway, and I misunderstood you? I thought you're arguing that you can create what's basically a Mordian Death Korps, using all of the rules.
I mean, your opening statement was "The question is do Elysians and DKoK get regimental doctrines or not."
I take it you didn't read the clip form the codex in the link I posted on the very first message. Let me quote it for you and see if this helps a bit. "If your chosen regiment doesn't have an associated doctrine," So neither DKoK or EDT have a doctrine seems to fit. "You may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army."
Sorry if I am being confusing. No they wouldn't get example Cadian Orders, Strategems, Warlord traits, or Relics. But they could pick "Born Soldiers" doctrine due to the above.
You're not choosing a Regiment though, are you? You've chosen to pick up an entirely different army list which locks all your units to a specific Regiment, which comes with a special rule (Cult of Sacrifice). Don't you think that maybe CoS is the 'doctrine', even though FW didn't use the proper wording (since that wasn't known when that Index was released) ?
I mean, you could argue all day about FW & GW rules interactions, but we all know they mess that up frequently. I'd say the intent is pretty obvious, and that's good enough for me. I don't think anyone will actually allow you to do what you want to do at an actual table without a major dispute over that, which should always be a consideration.
There is clearly need for an updated Index:FotAM FAQ that deals with all of this, though.
nekooni wrote: Yeah, but to be fair you could argue that while you're directed to the Index, you're then redirected to the Codex for the latest Tank Commander rules.
Except nowhere is this stated in the rules for DKoK. And don't bother linking that GW webpage again, because it's not relevant. You might as well argue that DKoK Leman Russes use Hammerhead rules for all the sense that argument makes.
Crazyterran wrote: I dont see how anyone could think they can get away with running Aerial Drop elysians with the Cadian doctrine? It seems pretty obvious and self explanitory.
Then again, even if the RAI is obvious, I guess RAW isnt.
I guess, technically, the DKoK dont have the Regiment keyword, since they replace it with DKoK, and the rules for replacing it in the FW index doesn't tell them to also select a doctrine like the picture above does.
Thats a bit of a stretch since you replace <Regiment> with Cadian in a Cadian detachment. No one is saying the the DKoK will get the Cadian Keyword. Its just Regiments without a Doctrine get to pick a Doctrine. Seems straightforward to me.
nekooni wrote: Yeah, but to be fair you could argue that while you're directed to the Index, you're then redirected to the Codex for the latest Tank Commander rules.
Except nowhere is this stated in the rules for DKoK. And don't bother linking that GW webpage again, because it's not relevant. You might as well argue that DKoK Leman Russes use Hammerhead rules for all the sense that argument makes.
So where did I claim that it's written anywhere in any kind of rulebook? I literally wrote "You could argue", nothing more. It's a reasonable argument, it's not "the argument to end all arguments".
Crazyterran wrote: I dont see how anyone could think they can get away with running Aerial Drop elysians with the Cadian doctrine? It seems pretty obvious and self explanitory.
Then again, even if the RAI is obvious, I guess RAW isnt.
I guess, technically, the DKoK dont have the Regiment keyword, since they replace it with DKoK, and the rules for replacing it in the FW index doesn't tell them to also select a doctrine like the picture above does.
Thats a bit of a stretch since you replace <Regiment> with Cadian in a Cadian detachment. No one is saying the the DKoK will get the Cadian Keyword. Its just Regiments without a Doctrine get to pick a Doctrine. Seems straightforward to me.
That's a bit of a stretch since you get the Cadian doctrines by replacing <Regiment> with <Cadian> - you need <Regiment> before getting doctrines. Seems straightforward to me.
Khadorstompy wrote: I think your missing the bulk of our argument here. If EDT and DKoK are <Regiments> which Bacon is denying. Then because they do not have a doctrine they would get a Doctrine from the list. They would not get specific strategems, relics, or Warlord Traits though they could take from the generic AM ones. He is making the case that they are completely separate faction like DA/SW/BA are from Space marines despite having the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. I am making the case that they are the Equivalent of Red Scorpions or Minotaurs which are FW sub-factions of Space marines.
How about you answer me instead of telling me I'm the wrong kind of wrong because I do not argue the same point that BaconCatBug does?
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
All the DKoK have a hard-wired Regiment, so you can't pick any up anything that's hard-wired to a different regiment: Doctrines, regiment orders, regiment characters etc. You also can't use any generic new orders (if there were any) since the DKoK order list fully replaces the order list. I'd let you get away with non-regimental Warlord traits, stratagems and relics, but that's it. Or was that all you wanted anyway, and I misunderstood you? I thought you're arguing that you can create what's basically a Mordian Death Korps, using all of the rules.
I mean, your opening statement was "The question is do Elysians and DKoK get regimental doctrines or not."
I take it you didn't read the clip form the codex in the link I posted on the very first message. Let me quote it for you and see if this helps a bit. "If your chosen regiment doesn't have an associated doctrine," So neither DKoK or EDT have a doctrine seems to fit. "You may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army."
Sorry if I am being confusing. No they wouldn't get example Cadian Orders, Strategems, Warlord traits, or Relics. But they could pick "Born Soldiers" doctrine due to the above.
You're not choosing a Regiment though, are you? You've chosen to pick up an entirely different army list which locks all your units to a specific Regiment, which comes with a special rule (Cult of Sacrifice). Don't you think that maybe CoS is the 'doctrine', even though FW didn't use the proper wording (since that wasn't known when that Index was released) ?
I mean, you could argue all day about FW & GW rules interactions, but we all know they mess that up frequently. I'd say the intent is pretty obvious, and that's good enough for me. I don't think anyone will actually allow you to do what you want to do at an actual table without a major dispute over that, which should always be a consideration.
There is clearly need for an updated Index:FotAM FAQ that deals with all of this, though.
Agree on the need for a FAQ and you could be right that its not RAI. However RAW I think its pretty clear they get it along with the Generic Astra Miltarum Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems.
Crazyterran wrote: I dont see how anyone could think they can get away with running Aerial Drop elysians with the Cadian doctrine? It seems pretty obvious and self explanitory.
Then again, even if the RAI is obvious, I guess RAW isnt.
I guess, technically, the DKoK dont have the Regiment keyword, since they replace it with DKoK, and the rules for replacing it in the FW index doesn't tell them to also select a doctrine like the picture above does.
Thats a bit of a stretch since you replace <Regiment> with Cadian in a Cadian detachment. No one is saying the the DKoK will get the Cadian Keyword. Its just Regiments without a Doctrine get to pick a Doctrine. Seems straightforward to me.
That's a bit of a stretch since you get the Cadian doctrines by replacing <Regiment> with <Cadian> - you need <Regiment> before getting doctrines. Seems straightforward to me.
I am not getting the point you are trying to make with this. If your saying that only units with <Regiment> get doctrines the all the Hardcoded Characters can't have doctrines. If your saying that DKoK is not a Regiment like Space Wolves are not a Chapter then you could make the argument though I would make the argument that DKoK is a FW <Regiment> like Red Scorpions are a FW <Chapter>.
Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.
Crazyterran wrote: Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.
Exactly.
There are two ways to deal with this:
a) You treat the DKoK as a separate entity that borrows a few Datasheets from the AM, then you don't get anything from the Codex.
b) You treat the DKoK as an additional Regiment with some very specific rules (and datasheets) that, instead of picking a Doctrine, has the Cult of Sacrifice "doctrine".
The first one is RAW, the 2nd one is not, but I'd be fine with it being a pretty good house rule unit FW releases an update to their FAQ
Crazyterran wrote: Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.
Which is basically what debate is going to be coming down to. Are they a Regiment like Space wolves is a chapter frankly nothing but a separate army or are the a <Regiment> like Red Scorpions are a <Chapter>? I see it has the ladder I I find more parallels however its seems you find it more the former.
Crazyterran wrote: Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.
Which is basically what debate is going to be coming down to. Are they a Regiment like Space wolves is a chapter frankly nothing but a separate army or are the a <Regiment> like Red Scorpions are a <Chapter>? I see it has the ladder I I find more parallels however its seems you find it more the former.
Not at all. You're throwing everything into the same pot while they're different things.
Red Scorpions do not have their own rules.
DKoK do.
Space Wolves do.
Elysians do.
Minotaurs don't.
Minotaurs and Red Scorpions are one type of thing, that - since it's lacking specific rules, use the generic rules.
Elysians, DKoK and Space Wolves are a different type of thing, that has their own specific rules, and you use those, not the generic rules.
Crazyterran wrote: Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.
Which is basically what debate is going to be coming down to. Are they a Regiment like Space wolves is a chapter frankly nothing but a separate army or are the a <Regiment> like Red Scorpions are a <Chapter>? I see it has the ladder I I find more parallels however its seems you find it more the former.
Not at all. You're throwing everything into the same pot while they're different things.
Red Scorpions do not have their own rules.
DKoK do.
Space Wolves do.
Elysians do.
Minotaurs don't.
Minotaurs and Red Scorpions are one type of thing, that - since it's lacking specific rules, use the generic rules.
Elysians, DKoK and Space Wolves are a different type of thing, that has their own specific rules, and you use those, not the generic rules.
You make a good point. That does add to the confusion of it. But some in codex units of the Space Marines have their own special rules. For example the Black Templars Chapter has the Lost Libarius Rule and the Crusader Squads.
nekooni wrote: Not at all. You're throwing everything into the same pot while they're different things.
Red Scorpions do not have their own rules.
DKoK do.
Space Wolves do.
Elysians do.
Minotaurs don't.
Minotaurs and Red Scorpions are one type of thing, that - since it's lacking specific rules, use the generic rules.
Elysians, DKoK and Space Wolves are a different type of thing, that has their own specific rules, and you use those, not the generic rules.
You make a good point. That does add to the confusion of it. But some in codex units of the Space Marines have their own special rules. For example the Black Templars Chapter has the Lost Libarius Rule and the Crusader Squads.
What exactly is changed by that? It's part of the package that is "Chapter Tactics: Black Templars".
DKoK and EDT are Forgeworld Army Lists, which is the FW equivalent to a codex. Regardless of any individual dataslates, the army list - just like a codex - lays out which rules the army has and what dataslates, disciples, equipment and whatever else they have access to.
To play a DKoK army, you have to start with their army list. That means you are not using the AM codex to determine which rules, units and whatever else your army has access to. Therefore it is irrelevant what codex AM says.
Turning that around, say you have a collection of DKoK minis, but you want to play following the AM codex. So you start with that and gain whatever that permits you, but that also means you won't be using any dataslates that the AM Codex doesn't include and will have to leave some DKoK minis on the shelf.
I really don't see any way to be confused, if you follow either books rules.
DKoK is demonstrably a Regiment; both by background, and because the rules require you to change pickable units' <REGIMENT> Keyword to DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. So let's not be silly on that tangent. It is a Regiment, albeit one that has a unique Army List and special list of usable units.
It makes sense to use the Codex entries for those units updated by the AM Codex, as that's what GW has instructed elsewhere. Latest version, and all that.
That throws up some fun stuff where your Tank Commander is driving a regular AM Leman Russ but all other Russes have to be Mars-Alpha.
There are definitive compatibility issues, and fingers crossed FW does an update ASAP for those who play their unique Regiments. Simple fixes like updating Mars-Alpha tanks Grinding Advance wording and all will be sorted out.
JohnnyHell wrote: DKoK is demonstrably a Regiment; both by background, and because the rules require you to change pickable units' <REGIMENT> Keyword to DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. So let's not be silly on that tangent. It is a Regiment, albeit one that has a unique Army List and special list of usable units.
It makes sense to use the Codex entries for those units updated by the AM Codex, as that's what GW has instructed elsewhere. Latest version, and all that.
That throws up some fun stuff where your Tank Commander is driving a regular AM Leman Russ but all other Russes have to be Mars-Alpha.
There are definitive compatibility issues, and fingers crossed FW does an update ASAP for those who play their unique Regiments. Simple fixes like updating Mars-Alpha tanks Grinding Advance wording and all will be sorted out.
Ok, that's nice, but either by accident or on purposes it misses my point.
Take the IA Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. Look at the DKoK army list. It tells you right there what you have access to:
- Cult of Sacrifice
- DKoK unique Dataslates
- DKoK unique Orders and
- some generic AM dataslates and how to adapt them.
Take the AM Codex. Look at the army list header. It explains what you have access to:
- Regimental Doctrines
- Orders etc.
- generic AM Dataslates.
What rules do you follow that permit you to
- include DKoK specific Dataslates or rules in an AM list?
- include AM specific special rules in a DKoK list?
Without a permission to take something from another army list, you cannot do that.
Note that the DKoK list specifically has the permission to adapt AM dataslates for DKoK use, because otherwise they'd have to reprint all the respective dataslates there to make them available in a DKoK list.
Indeed, this discussion is no different than arguing that Thunderwolf Cavalry should be usable in an SM detachment, or that Tau Firewarriors can be used instead of Guardsmen.
Granted, here the idea is too double-dip in the special rules, but ninjaing units would be no different, only less sneaky. ;-]
JohnnyHell wrote: DKoK is demonstrably a Regiment; both by background, and because the rules require you to change pickable units' <REGIMENT> Keyword to DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. So let's not be silly on that tangent. It is a Regiment, albeit one that has a unique Army List and special list of usable units.
It makes sense to use the Codex entries for those units updated by the AM Codex, as that's what GW has instructed elsewhere. Latest version, and all that.
That throws up some fun stuff where your Tank Commander is driving a regular AM Leman Russ but all other Russes have to be Mars-Alpha.
There are definitive compatibility issues, and fingers crossed FW does an update ASAP for those who play their unique Regiments. Simple fixes like updating Mars-Alpha tanks Grinding Advance wording and all will be sorted out.
Ok, that's nice, but either by accident or on purposes it misses my point.
Take the IA Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. Look at the DKoK army list. It tells you right there what you have access to:
- Cult of Sacrifice
- DKoK unique Dataslates
- DKoK unique Orders and
- some generic AM dataslates and how to adapt them.
Take the AM Codex. Look at the army list header. It explains what you have access to:
- Regimental Doctrines
- Orders etc.
- generic AM Dataslates.
What rules do you follow that permit you to
- include DKoK specific Dataslates or rules in an AM list?
- include AM specific special rules in a DKoK list?
Without a permission to take something from another army list, you cannot do that.
Note that the DKoK list specifically has the permission to adapt AM dataslates for DKoK use, because otherwise they'd have to reprint all the respective dataslates there to make them available in a DKoK list.
Indeed, this discussion is no different than arguing that Thunderwolf Cavalry should be usable in an SM detachment, or that Tau Firewarriors can be used instead of Guardsmen.
Granted, here the idea is too double-dip in the special rules, but ninjaing units would be no different, only less sneaky. ;-]
It's almost like you didn't read my post and took it as a rebuttal of yours just because it came right afterwards...
JohnnyHell wrote: DKoK is demonstrably a Regiment; both by background, and because the rules require you to change pickable units' <REGIMENT> Keyword to DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. So let's not be silly on that tangent. It is a Regiment, albeit one that has a unique Army List and special list of usable units.
It makes sense to use the Codex entries for those units updated by the AM Codex, as that's what GW has instructed elsewhere. Latest version, and all that.
That throws up some fun stuff where your Tank Commander is driving a regular AM Leman Russ but all other Russes have to be Mars-Alpha.
There are definitive compatibility issues, and fingers crossed FW does an update ASAP for those who play their unique Regiments. Simple fixes like updating Mars-Alpha tanks Grinding Advance wording and all will be sorted out.
Ok, that's nice, but either by accident or on purposes it misses my point.
Take the IA Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. Look at the DKoK army list. It tells you right there what you have access to:
- Cult of Sacrifice
- DKoK unique Dataslates
- DKoK unique Orders and
- some generic AM dataslates and how to adapt them.
Take the AM Codex. Look at the army list header. It explains what you have access to:
- Regimental Doctrines
- Orders etc.
- generic AM Dataslates.
What rules do you follow that permit you to
- include DKoK specific Dataslates or rules in an AM list?
- include AM specific special rules in a DKoK list?
Without a permission to take something from another army list, you cannot do that.
Note that the DKoK list specifically has the permission to adapt AM dataslates for DKoK use, because otherwise they'd have to reprint all the respective dataslates there to make them available in a DKoK list.
Indeed, this discussion is no different than arguing that Thunderwolf Cavalry should be usable in an SM detachment, or that Tau Firewarriors can be used instead of Guardsmen.
Granted, here the idea is too double-dip in the special rules, but ninjaing units would be no different, only less sneaky. ;-]
As I have stated before it comes to one question. Is DKoK for example a completely separate army that just used a few units from another codex. (Ala Space Wolves) Or is it a sub-faction have just has its own units and rules (Ala Black Templars).
The case can be made either way. For me the biggest clue is the fact on page 55 & 71 of the IA:FoAM index it makes clear that officer use the orders from the IA index rather then I2 index. This implies to me that they would expect you if that rule was not there to use the ones from the I2 index which implies that it is a subfaction rather then a seperate army.
I'm not sure why you need explicit permission to mix books. The books have rules in them for Warhammer 40k. If the rules say they apply to you, then they apply to you, wherever they are.
A DKoK detachment is an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment. There are rules for ASTRA MILITARUM detachments in the new codex. You should follow those rules. I'm not "including AM rules in a DKoK list". I have a DKoK list which is also an AM list. Even the DKoK rules only promise that the index has "all of the datasheets" I need, not that it has everything I need. And the AM codex is very clear that it applies to DKoK armies -- it clearly defines an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment as "any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units".
So my DKoK Troops get Objective Secured, because there's a rule clearly saying that they get that by virtue of their being Troops in an AM detachment.
I haven't seen the stratagem rules in full but if it's anything like the other codices then DKoK detachments will unlock AM stratagems.
A DKoK character can take an Heirloom of Conquest, since they're ASTRA MILITARUM characters too, and you get one for free if you have a DKoK warlord because that's also an AM warlord.
The only real question, I think, is whether DKoK is a <REGIMENT>, so that it also gets a doctrine and a DKoK character gets a warlord trait. This is ambiguous, RAW -- this is basically another manifestation of the problem where you could have regiment ULTRAMARINES. Yes, DKoK replace <REGIMENT> with DKoK in exactly the way that Cadians replace <REGIMENT> with CADIAN. But this is insufficient, since Renegades and Heretics replace <REGIMENT> too, but clearly aren't a regiment. The FAQ seems to tell us to consult the fluff, basically, and if we do it seems clear that DKoK are a regiment. That said, I don't think it is intended that they get a doctrine and I wouldn't play it this way, but RAW this is what happens when the codex doesn't pick out special regiments as not qualifying in the way that the Marine codex picks out several Chapters as not qualifying as "Space Marine detachments".
Other things that kind of look like regiments are explicitly forbidden from getting a doctrine. An AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS detachment does not get a doctrine.
BaconCatBug wrote: So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.
DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.
Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.
BaconCatBug wrote: So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.
DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.
Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.
You're claiming that an army that has nothing to do with the Astra Mil. Codex can use that codexes rules. By the same logic, Tau can use Space Marine rules. Read the IA book, it clearly says to use the index. Until forge world errata's this, you can't use the codex.
BaconCatBug wrote: So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.
DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.
Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.
You're claiming that an army that has nothing to do with the Astra Mil. Codex can use that codexes rules. By the same logic, Tau can use Space Marine rules. Read the IA book, it clearly says to use the index. Until forge world errata's this, you can't use the codex.
So, again, could you actually explain this instead of just hand-waving while saying "by the same logic"?
Doesn't invalidate my point about no permission for mixing books though. ;-]
It's like you didn't read my post...
(I'm just taking the friendly piss by repeating that line, but you really didn't. The DKoK list already mixes books. Updating to latest versions of dayasheets for those units is only sensible. Beyond that, I didn't say they get new doctrines etc. Totally agree they don't get the new boons as they have some already.)
BaconCatBug wrote: So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.
DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.
Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.
You're claiming that an army that has nothing to do with the Astra Mil. Codex can use that codexes rules. By the same logic, Tau can use Space Marine rules. Read the IA book, it clearly says to use the index. Until forge world errata's this, you can't use the codex.
So, again, could you actually explain this instead of just hand-waving while saying "by the same logic"?
BaconCatBug wrote: So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.
DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.
Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.
You're claiming that an army that has nothing to do with the Astra Mil. Codex can use that codexes rules. By the same logic, Tau can use Space Marine rules. Read the IA book, it clearly says to use the index. Until forge world errata's this, you can't use the codex.
Sigh and you are ignoring the quote we have. "In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex."
Also Tau have do not have the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. DKoK and EDT DO have the Astra Militarum Keyword. The space marine book also specifically includes only <Chapter>, and the chapters in the book and specifically excludes BA and SW. It also makes mention that chapters not mentioned specifically use there founding chapter's tactics of it you don't know what the founding chapter is then you simply pick one.
The Bulwark of Humanity page says that Detachments of only Astra Militarum get the Warlord traits, Relic, and Strategems. It makes no mention of Specific Regiments in its opening paragraph in fact on only mention of <Regiment> on the page is to determine what doctrine they get and to exclude non-<regiment> units from benifiting from doctrines (IE Ratlings, Bullgyrns, etc).
I mean, if you refer back to the post where I initially asked you to explain, I think that's clear. I don't understand how you're including Tau and Space Marines in the same Matched Play army. That seems to me to run afoul of the rule that all of your units must share a faction keyword. If you show up to a game with Tau and Space Marines both in your list, I don't see how what I've said provides you with a response to that objection. Could you explain what you would say, using my logic?
BaconCatBug wrote: Just because units share a faction keyword doesn't mean they use the same rulebooks.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I really don't think this is a big ask. Could you please make some effort to actually communicate whatever it is you think the argument is that would allow you to bring Tau and Space Marines together, assuming that my argument that DKoK Troops get Objective Secured is correct? Why does my argument imply that you can bring units that don't share a faction keyword in the same army?
Because the relationship between DKoK and generic Codex Imperial Guard is the same as that between Space Marines and Tau. There is literally none. You can't use DKoK rules with the rules from the IG codex because the DKoK rules don't allow you to, they use the Index rules instead until FW update it.
BaconCatBug wrote: Because the relationship between DKoK and generic Codex Imperial Guard is the same as that between Space Marines and Tau. There is literally none. You can't use DKoK rules with the rules from the IG codex because the DKoK rules don't allow you to, they use the Index rules instead until FW update it.
I'm beginning to think he is just trolling now or REALLY bad at getting his point across. Cause think we have explained that DKoK is AM and all AM detachments get the rules. Being in a different book make no difference. I mean everything in IA:FoAM is ment to run with AM. Your logic here is unsound. You are basicly stating with you current argument that nothing from Imperium or Chaos FW indexes is usable now because the original indexes they refer to have been updated.
BaconCatBug wrote: Because the relationship between DKoK and generic Codex Imperial Guard is the same as that between Space Marines and Tau. There is literally none. You can't use DKoK rules with the rules from the IG codex because the DKoK rules don't allow you to, they use the Index rules instead until FW update it.
So, it should go without saying that this is not an argument that what I'm saying implies that you can ignore the rule that Matched Play armies must all share a faction keyword. I suspect that you don't actually have anything, and you're just reluctant to admit that after going off on this weird tangent and being so condescending. You'd rather just get back to asserting your position without argument, implying but avoiding actually making a case that this is just as crazy as putting Space Marines and Tau together, when actually that would clearly be against the rules.
The problem for you is that you actually do need an argument here. Like, you're not offering anything based on the rules, right? You just started by saying that I must be wrong because if I'm right there are absurd consequences (Space Marines and Tau living together). And that's a reasonable sort of objection! It's true that we ought to adopt a method for interpreting the rules that doesn't lead to absurd consequences. But... then you couldn't actually show how what I'm saying implies these absurd consequence (again, there was just hand-waving while saying "by the same logic" as if those are magic words that automatically win arguments). So now you're back to just asserting that even though we've got a rule that clearly tells us to do something, we're not supposed to follow that rule, because something something different books.
BaconCatBug wrote: Because the relationship between DKoK and generic Codex Imperial Guard is the same as that between Space Marines and Tau. There is literally none. You can't use DKoK rules with the rules from the IG codex because the DKoK rules don't allow you to, they use the Index rules instead until FW update it.
So, it should go without saying that this is not an argument that what I'm saying implies that you can ignore the rule that Matched Play armies must all share a faction keyword. I suspect that you don't actually have anything, and you're just reluctant to admit that after going off on this weird tangent and being so condescending. You'd rather just get back to asserting your position without argument, implying but avoiding actually making a case that this is just as crazy as putting Space Marines and Tau together, when actually that would clearly be against the rules.
The problem for you is that you actually do need an argument here. Like, you're not offering anything based on the rules, right? You just started by saying that I must be wrong because if I'm right there are absurd consequences (Space Marines and Tau living together). And that's a reasonable sort of objection! It's true that we ought to adopt a method for interpreting the rules that doesn't lead to absurd consequences. But... then you couldn't actually show how what I'm saying implies these absurd consequence (again, there was just hand-waving while saying "by the same logic" as if those are magic words that automatically win arguments). So now you're back to just asserting that even though we've got a rule that clearly tells us to do something, we're not supposed to follow that rule, because something something different books.
What BCB is referring to is that the army lists are completely separate.
ForgeWorld clearly calls out their army lists as such, but maybe I should define army list here:
Army List := Set of permissions (disciplines, orders, special rules, datasheets, etc.) and restrictions (force organisation, allies, etc.), typically found at the beginning of every codex's dataslate section.
See:
- Codex Hereticus Astartes: Death Guard, p.68: Lords of the Plague Planet
- Codex Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines, p. 130 Defenders of Mankind
- Codex Adeptus Mechanicus, p. 72 Defenders of the Forge Worlds
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 7 Astra Militarum Army List
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 54 Death Korps of Krieg Army List
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 70 Elysian Drop Troop Army List
- Codex Astra Militarum, p. ??, Cannonfodder and you (don't have that book)
DKoK and AM are both Imperium, but do not mix any better than SM and SW. Yes, they share faction keywords, but they don't share army list permissions or restrictions.
The only thing different in the Tau (or any other faction) example is that they don't share faction keywords, but are still completely separate army lists, which is the point being made.
A better example may be an Eldar player having to pick to play Ynaari or Craftworld and thereby choosing different army list permissions and restrictions.
There is no way to have both Strength from Death and Battle-Trance, just like there is no way to have Regimental Doctrines and Cult of Sacrifice.
What BCB is referring to is that the army lists are completely separate.
ForgeWorld clearly calls out their army lists as such, but maybe I should define army list here:
Army List := Set of permissions (disciplines, orders, special rules, datasheets, etc.) and restrictions (force organisation, allies, etc.), typically found at the beginning of every codex's dataslate section.
See:
- Codex Hereticus Astartes: Death Guard, p.68: Lords of the Plague Planet
- Codex Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines, p. 130 Defenders of Mankind
- Codex Adeptus Mechanicus, p. 72 Defenders of the Forge Worlds
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 7 Astra Militarum Army List
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 54 Death Korps of Krieg Army List
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 70 Elysian Drop Troop Army List
- Codex Astra Militarum, p. ??, Cannonfodder and you (don't have that book)
DKoK and AM are both Imperium, but do not mix any better than SM and SW. Yes, they share faction keywords, but they don't share army list permissions or restrictions.
The only thing different in the Tau (or any other faction) example is that they don't share faction keywords, but are still completely separate army lists, which is the point being made.
A better example may be an Eldar player having to pick to play Ynaari or Craftworld and thereby choosing different army list permissions and restrictions.
There is no way to have both Strength from Death and Battle-Trance, just like there is no way to have Regimental Doctrines and Cult of Sacrifice.
I mean, I understand the position being asserted. What I would like to understand is whether anyone has a reason to take this position. BCB seemed to be suggesting that the interpretive schema I was proposing led to an absurd result, and so we should reject it. But it doesn't, and so I don't see that anyone has presented a reason to reject it. To be clear, what I'm proposing is: if there's an official, up-to-date Warhammer 40k rule that says it applies to you, you should follow it.
Anyway, yes, obviously DKoK is a separate army list from the regular Astra Militarum one. I'm not sure that anyone is disputing this. We're not talking about army lists, I don't think. We're talking about rules that appear after the Astra Militarum army list. If you've got the SM codex handy (since the Guard one isn't out yet) take a look at it real quick. There's a big section called "Defenders of Mankind". You reference this yourself, and I completely agree with you. This is the army list. This is the thing that's telling you how you can replace <CHAPTER> and it's some abilities like ATSKNF and wargear lists that will be referenced later on the datasheets in the army list. Then we have the datasheets. Then we have the armoury (wargear rules). But... that's it. Then there's another section: "Sons of the Primarchs". This is not an army list and does not claim to be one. What does it say it is? It says: "In this section you'll find rules for Battle-forged armies that include Space Marines Detachments -- that is, any Detachment which only includes Space Marines units (as defined below)." That's what it is. And then it goes into this and explains that "Space Marines units" are not all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units. Instead this is defined as excluding certain Chapters. This is important, because if this wasn't here then a Blood Angels player could use these rules. Like, obviously that's why it does this, right?
Then we go over to the new Guard codex. Same story, as far as I can tell. There's an army list. And then there's another section called "Bulwark of Humanity". Who is this section for? It explains: "In this section you will find rules for Battle-forged armies that include ASTRA MILITARUM Detachments -- that is, any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units." So say I've got a DKoK detachment. This is clearly telling me that it's going to have rules that apply to my detachment, since it's an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment too, as that is defined here. You'll note a pretty striking difference between this and the similar Space Marine codex -- this doesn't limit the scope of the ASTRA MILITARUM units it's concerned with to only those with particular <REGIMENT> keywords.
So I don't think your analogy works. Battle Focus and Strength from Death are part of the Craftworld Eldar and Ynnari army lists. Also Strength from Death is explicitly handed out to units as a replacement for Battle Focus; I'm not sure how the sort of reading I'm proposing is supposed to lead to units having both. Likewise I don't think there's any sort of weird conflict between DKoK's Voice of Command and regular AM Voice of Command. I'm not talking about the AM army list; I'm talking about the rules for battle-forged armies that include detachments composed only of ASTRA MILITARUM units.
Edit: I would note that everyone already agrees with me that you're supposed to reference this kind of section even when using army lists that aren't included in the book. When the DKoK army list says that you can include the "Hellhounds" datasheet from Index: Imperium 2, it doesn't just mean the datasheet. How much does a DKoK Hellhound cost? You won't actually find this in the section of the FW index that claims to tell you it should "be used to determine the points cost of any Death Korps of Krieg units included in the army". What everyone has been doing is just going to the point listings in the Imperium 2 index -- those are taken to be the points one should use for all units with datasheets in the Imperium 2 index rather than being points exclusively for the army lists in the Imperium 2 index. Just as with the codices, the indices separate the army lists (which include some special rules and datasheets) from a section they call "Battle-forged Armies", which gives point values for the units in the data sheets that are intended to be used by more than just the army lists in the book. The rules for doctrines, stratagems, and warlord traits are in the same section as these point listings.
I mean, I understand the position being asserted. What I would like to understand is whether anyone has a reason to take this position. BCB seemed to be suggesting that the interpretive schema I was proposing led to an absurd result, and so we should reject it. But it doesn't, and so I don't see that anyone has presented a reason to reject it. To be clear, what I'm proposing is: if there's an official, up-to-date Warhammer 40k rule that says it applies to you, you should follow it.
Anyway, yes, obviously DKoK is a separate army list from the regular Astra Militarum one. I'm not sure that anyone is disputing this. We're not talking about army lists, I don't think. We're talking about rules that appear after the Astra Militarum army list. If you've got the SM codex handy (since the Guard one isn't out yet) take a look at it real quick. There's a big section called "Defenders of Mankind". You reference this yourself, and I completely agree with you. This is the army list. This is the thing that's telling you how you can replace <CHAPTER> and it's some abilities like ATSKNF and wargear lists that will be referenced later on the datasheets in the army list. Then we have the datasheets. Then we have the armoury (wargear rules). But... that's it. Then there's another section: "Sons of the Primarchs". This is not an army list and does not claim to be one. What does it say it is? It says: "In this section you'll find rules for Battle-forged armies that include Space Marines Detachments -- that is, any Detachment which only includes Space Marines units (as defined below)." That's what it is. And then it goes into this and explains that "Space Marines units" are not all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units. Instead this is defined as excluding certain Chapters. This is important, because if this wasn't here then a Blood Angels player could use these rules. Like, obviously that's why it does this, right?
Then we go over to the new Guard codex. Same story, as far as I can tell. There's an army list. And then there's another section called "Bulwark of Humanity". Who is this section for? It explains: "In this section you will find rules for Battle-forged armies that include ASTRA MILITARUM Detachments -- that is, any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units." So say I've got a DKoK detachment. This is clearly telling me that it's going to have rules that apply to my detachment, since it's an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment too, as that is defined here. You'll note a pretty striking difference between this and the similar Space Marine codex -- this doesn't limit the scope of the ASTRA MILITARUM units it's concerned with to only those with particular <REGIMENT> keywords.
So I don't think your analogy works. Battle Focus and Strength from Death are part of the Craftworld Eldar and Ynnari army lists. Also Strength from Death is explicitly handed out to units as a replacement for Battle Focus; I'm not sure how the sort of reading I'm proposing is supposed to lead to units having both. Likewise I don't think there's any sort of weird conflict between DKoK's Voice of Command and regular AM Voice of Command. I'm not talking about the AM army list; I'm talking about the rules for battle-forged armies that include detachments composed only of ASTRA MILITARUM units.
Edit: I would note that everyone already agrees with me that you're supposed to reference this kind of section even when using army lists that aren't included in the book. When the DKoK army list says that you can include the "Hellhounds" datasheet from Index: Imperium 2, it doesn't just mean the datasheet. How much does a DKoK Hellhound cost? You won't actually find this in the section of the FW index that claims to tell you it should "be used to determine the points cost of any Death Korps of Krieg units included in the army". What everyone has been doing is just going to the point listings in the Imperium 2 index -- those are taken to be the points one should use for all units with datasheets in the Imperium 2 index rather than being points exclusively for the army lists in the Imperium 2 index. Just as with the codices, the indices separate the army lists (which include some special rules and datasheets) from a section they call "Battle-forged Armies", which gives point values for the units in the data sheets that are intended to be used by more than just the army lists in the book.
Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.
GrimmT wrote: Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.
You have zero rules basis for doing so though. You would be breaking the rules of the game if you did so. If I took my Space Wolves and said "I get to use the points costs for Space Marine Scouts for my Grey Hunters now.", that has as much rules basis as using the AM Codex for DKoK.
You have it arse about elbows to use an English idiom. You use the Index until FW update things, not the other way around.
GrimmT wrote: Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.
You have zero rules basis for doing so though. You would be breaking the rules of the game if you did so. If I took my Space Wolves and said "I get to use the points costs for Conscripts for my Grey Hunters now.", that has as much rules basis as using the AM Codex for DKoK.
Yeah, except the people at my LGS are way more reasonable than you are and know that a Death Korps Hellhound has the same statline and cost as a Cadian Hellhound. I would really hate to have you be a local player here, hahaha. You're definitely THAT guy from what I can see in your posts.
GrimmT wrote: Yeah, except the people at my LGS are way more reasonable than you are and know that a Death Korps Hellhound has the same statline and cost as a Cadian Hellhound. I would really hate to have you be a local player here, hahaha. You're definitely THAT guy from what I can see in your posts.
Reasonable? How is it reasonable to break the rules of the game for your advantage?
GrimmT wrote: Yeah, except the people at my LGS are way more reasonable than you are and know that a Death Korps Hellhound has the same statline and cost as a Cadian Hellhound. I would really hate to have you be a local player here, hahaha. You're definitely THAT guy from what I can see in your posts.
Reasonable? How is it reasonable to break the rules of the game for your advantage?
GrimmT wrote: Yeah, except the people at my LGS are way more reasonable than you are and know that a Death Korps Hellhound has the same statline and cost as a Cadian Hellhound. I would really hate to have you be a local player here, hahaha. You're definitely THAT guy from what I can see in your posts.
Reasonable? How is it reasonable to break the rules of the game for your advantage?
Can you show me what advantage I'd have?
Different unit costs and stratagems a DKoK army is not supposed to have? Like I said, if FW decide to update their books to allow it, good for everyone. Until then using anything from the AM codex is breaking the rules of the game.
GrimmT wrote: Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.
You have zero rules basis for doing so though. You would be breaking the rules of the game if you did so. If I took my Space Wolves and said "I get to use the points costs for Space Marine Scouts for my Grey Hunters now.", that has as much rules basis as using the AM Codex for DKoK.
You have it arse about elbows to use an English idiom. You use the Index until FW update things, not the other way around.
Except that is a false analogy. Per the rules, Space Wolves are not a Space Marine army. DkoK are an Astra Militarum Regiment.
Happyjew wrote: Except that is a false analogy. Per the rules, Space Wolves are not a Space Marine army. DkoK are an Astra Militarum Regiment.
DKoK are a regiment with special rules found in the IA book. You use the rules in the IA book and NOTHING ELSE. The IA book tells you to look at the Index, you look at the Index. End of discussion. If Forge World decide to update their rules to point at the codex, that's a different matter.
Happyjew wrote: Except that is a false analogy. Per the rules, Space Wolves are not a Space Marine army. DkoK are an Astra Militarum Regiment.
DKoK are a regiment with special rules found in the IA book. You use the rules in the IA book and NOTHING ELSE. The IA book tells you to look at the Index, you look at the Index. End of discussion. If Forge World decide to update their rules to point at the codex, that's a different matter.
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.
1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>
Khadorstompy wrote: 1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
From page 55 of 'Imperial Armour: Forces of the Astra Militarum'
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Death Korps of Krieg – presented in the box on the left. Those they can use replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all instances with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list, it cannot be from the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG, and so cannot have the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG Faction keyword.
From page 71 of 'Imperial Armour: Forces of the Astra Militarum'
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Elysian Drop Troops – presented in the box on the left. Those that do replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all instances with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS. If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list to the left, it cannot be used by models with the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword, and so cannot have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS Faction keyword.
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.
1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>
1) no its not. Space wolves is not a <chapter> just like Deathguard is not a <legion>. They are their own keyword separate from the selectable keywords. Deathguard cannot choose to swap deathguard for alpha legion. Dkok cannot pick their regiment.
2) the rules require you to have a specific detachment to get the bonuses. Dkok cannot use cadian special rules because they are not cadians. They cannot use cadian characters, artifacts, or stratgems.
GrimmT wrote: Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.
You have zero rules basis for doing so though. You would be breaking the rules of the game if you did so. If I took my Space Wolves and said "I get to use the points costs for Space Marine Scouts for my Grey Hunters now.", that has as much rules basis as using the AM Codex for DKoK.
You have it arse about elbows to use an English idiom. You use the Index until FW update things, not the other way around.
Why have you been such a stickler for doing exactly this in other threads (cf your belief quad Autocannon Dreads can't now exist) yet here you say people shouldn't use the latest Datasheet? You know GW have instructed players to do so. So why?
(Also, arse about elbows is not a phrase. You can go arse over elbow, you can not know your arse from an elbow, but arse about elbows is not a thing. )
Khadorstompy wrote: 1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
From page 55 of 'Imperial Armour: Forces of the Astra Militarum'
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Death Korps of Krieg – presented in the box on the left. Those they can use replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all instances with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list, it cannot be from the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG, and so cannot have the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG Faction keyword.
From page 71 of 'Imperial Armour: Forces of the Astra Militarum'
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Elysian Drop Troops – presented in the box on the left. Those that do replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all instances with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS. If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list to the left, it cannot be used by models with the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword, and so cannot have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS Faction keyword.
Hey, this has been demonstrated to them before, as well as the fact that both are Regiments in fluff, but apparently this kind of hard proof is somehow not valid... go figure! I don't believe it grants abilities beyond the FW Index ones, but these Regiments ARE Regiments. Otherwise how could you replace the <REGIMENT> Keyword in the units they are permitted by their Army List to choose from the regular AM list?
JohnnyHell wrote: Why have you been such a stickler for doing exactly this in other threads (cf your belief quad Autocannon Dreads can't now exist) yet here you say people shouldn't use the latest Datasheet? You know GW have instructed players to do so. So why?
Because they are different situations and you know it. I have said from day one that Wolf Lords have to stick to using the Index entry despite there being a newer Captain entry, because the rule explicitly links to the Index entry, it's not a case of which is newer. The only time "which is newer" comes up is when you're using the actual datasheet of an actual unit that has had a replacement (i.e. Dreadnoughts, Rhinos etc). You're trying to rile me up so I shall instead ignore you from now on.
As a bit of a side note, because it points to the INDEX, which in it's own definition points then to the CODEX, it should really be irrelevant. Default to the newest rules on that model. I have a friend at my local store who plays DKoK, and he'll happily (and without argument) pull out normal guard stuff run with DKoK in the regiment slot, so they then use the DKoK rulings. And my Blood Pact do the same. No arguing, just using the most recent rules, and verifying when something new comes out. The logical way.
PS: I'm not necessarily trying to end this discussion, just add my PPS: Why isn't there a 2-cents emoji?
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.
1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>
1) no its not. Space wolves is not a <chapter> just like Deathguard is not a <legion>. They are their own keyword separate from the selectable keywords. Deathguard cannot choose to swap deathguard for alpha legion. Dkok cannot pick their regiment.
2) the rules require you to have a specific detachment to get the bonuses. Dkok cannot use cadian special rules because they are not cadians. They cannot use cadian characters, artifacts, or stratgems.
1. Acutally they are they just have specific choices.
2. And this is where you obvious haven't read the whole thread espically the posts I made to the new codex. I suggest you look at the rules in question regarding Regiments without doctrines and then revise your rebuttal.
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.
1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>
1) no its not. Space wolves is not a <chapter> just like Deathguard is not a <legion>. They are their own keyword separate from the selectable keywords. Deathguard cannot choose to swap deathguard for alpha legion. Dkok cannot pick their regiment.
2) the rules require you to have a specific detachment to get the bonuses. Dkok cannot use cadian special rules because they are not cadians. They cannot use cadian characters, artifacts, or stratgems.
1. Acutally they are they just have specific choices.
2. And this is where you obvious haven't read the whole thread espically the posts I made to the new codex. I suggest you look at the rules in question regarding Regiments without doctrines and then revise your rebuttal.
Find me a rule in any 8th ed document that says Space Wolves is a <CHAPTER> as a rule entity or DKOK is a <REGIMENT> as a rule entity. Any. Find me the quote and give me a page number and site the book it comes from. Fluff is not a rule. Just because space wolves are a chapter in the fluff does not make them a "Chapter" in the rules. Space Wolves as a rule entity are as different of a army from Space Marines as it is from AdMech.
I know the rules for regiments without doctrines and chapters without tactics. They don't apply. Because again, these are not from the same army. Deathguard do not have a Legion rule because they have their own unique rules that are separate from the Chaos Marines Legion rules. DKoK are not a regiment until a book tells you they are. No book does. One book specifically tells you to replace the <REGIMENT> keyword with Death Korps of Krieg. Replace as in REGIMENT no longer exists and DKoK takes it's place.
Unless FW gives us some ruling saying DKoK or Elysians are a <REGIMENT> they are not, and none of the other rules you are relying on apply in any capacity.
Do you own index imperium 1? Go to the back of the book. Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angles, Blood Angles. All listed with their own wargear and points pages. Exactly like each different army in each of the other indexes. Why? Because they are not a <Chapter>. They are their own army.
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.
1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>
1) no its not. Space wolves is not a <chapter> just like Deathguard is not a <legion>. They are their own keyword separate from the selectable keywords. Deathguard cannot choose to swap deathguard for alpha legion. Dkok cannot pick their regiment.
2) the rules require you to have a specific detachment to get the bonuses. Dkok cannot use cadian special rules because they are not cadians. They cannot use cadian characters, artifacts, or stratgems.
1. Acutally they are they just have specific choices.
2. And this is where you obvious haven't read the whole thread espically the posts I made to the new codex. I suggest you look at the rules in question regarding Regiments without doctrines and then revise your rebuttal.
Find me a rule in any 8th ed document that says Space Wolves is a <CHAPTER> as a rule entity or DKOK is a <REGIMENT> as a rule entity. Any. Find me the quote and give me a page number and site the book it comes from. Fluff is not a rule. Just because space wolves are a chapter in the fluff does not make them a "Chapter" in the rules. Space Wolves as a rule entity are as different of a army from Space Marines as it is from AdMech.
I know the rules for regiments without doctrines and chapters without tactics. They don't apply. Because again, these are not from the same army. Deathguard do not have a Legion rule because they have their own unique rules that are separate from the Chaos Marines Legion rules. DKoK are not a regiment until a book tells you they are. No book does. One book specifically tells you to replace the <REGIMENT> keyword with Death Korps of Krieg. Replace as in REGIMENT no longer exists and DKoK takes it's place.
Unless FW gives us some ruling saying DKoK or Elysians are a <REGIMENT> they are not, and none of the other rules you are relying on apply in any capacity.
Do you own index imperium 1? Go to the back of the book. Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angles, Blood Angles. All listed with their own wargear and points pages. Exactly like each different army in each of the other indexes. Why? Because they are not a <Chapter>. They are their own army.
Yeah they are chapters/regiment just like the others. The book tells you specifically to convert the <Chapter> just like you do for every other chapter in the game only its for a single specific one. And if you look and the new dexes It specifically excludes certian chapters and legions from getting those rules. No such exlusions are on the AM codex.
Yeah they are chapters/regiment just like the others. The book tells you specifically to convert the <Chapter> just like you do for every other chapter in the game only its for a single specific one. And if you look and the new dexes It specifically excludes certian chapters and legions from getting those rules. No such exlusions are on the AM codex.
Quote, page number, and book.
The chapters and legions excluded are not forgeworld ones. Because GW standard 40k documents never reference FW materials. A lack of exclusion is not permission.
Yeah they are chapters/regiment just like the others. The book tells you specifically to convert the <Chapter> just like you do for every other chapter in the game only its for a single specific one. And if you look and the new dexes It specifically excludes certian chapters and legions from getting those rules. No such exlusions are on the AM codex.
Quote, page number, and book.
The chapters and legions excluded are not forgeworld ones. Because GW standard 40k documents never reference FW materials. A lack of exclusion is not permission.
Again, quote, page number, and book.
Space Marine codex page 194
Note that other Space Marine Chapters, such
as the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves,
deviate significantly in terms of organisation
and fighting styles. These Chapters therefore
cannot make use of any of the rules or abilities
listed in this section, and instead have their
own rules.
Chaos marine codex page 156
Note that the Death Guard and Thousand
Sons Legions deviate significantly in terms of
organisation and therefore cannot make use
of any of the rules or abilities listed in this
section; instead they have bespoke rules and
abilities detailed in their own codexes.
Force of the AM p 71
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used
by the Elysian Drop Troops – presented in the box on the left. Those
that do replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all
instances with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS. If an Astra Militarum
unit does not appear on the list to the left, it cannot be used by
models with the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword, and so cannot
have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS Faction keyword. Models in
the list that have the AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS keywords
replace them with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS.
The only permission you quoted was to replace the <Regiment> keyword with DKoK. It's still not called a regiment, and your core argument is that "there's no restriction like there is with GWsSM Snowflake Chapters". GW never mentions FW in their rules, so that argument, while technically true, has no relevance at all.
The FW index predates the Codes, so it can't tell you how to interact with it.
Do the folks that argue that you can pick a doctrine for your DKoK army honestly think that Cult of Sacrifice is not what's supposed to be the DKoK doctrine, and that you should just combine e.g. Industrial Efficiency with Cult of Sacrifice? Or are you just arguing for the fun of it / "proving a point where the RAW is weird"?
I mean, it was pointed out that this topic really should get some FAQ responses.
No. You quoted rules that do not do the things you say they do. None of that. NONE. Grants you permission to consider DKoK a regiment. None of the rules from SM or CSM provide a single instance of a GW document referencing a FW one to provide precedent of how it MIGHT be translatable. But it's not.
The only thing we have is that DKoK makes use of Datasheets that can be found in the Astra Militarium Index. But that when you do use them as DKoK they loose the <Regiment> Keyword and replace it with DKoK. Nobody, btw, is disagreeing with any of that. But at no point, ANYWHERE, do any of those rules give you permission to treat the DKoK Keyword as a regiment,
As a sidenote, does any rule allow you to treat ULTRAMARINES, WHITE SCARS etc. as <Chapter>, as their unique characters don't have <Chapter>? Because this seems to be related to the question at hand.
Aenarian wrote: As a sidenote, does any rule allow you to treat ULTRAMARINES, WHITE SCARS etc. as <Chapter>, as their unique characters don't have <Chapter>? Because this seems to be related to the question at hand.
Yes!
Having trouble finding the page concerning all the chapter rules. But it's in the codex. This here lists all the chapter tactics. Each one has a rule that specifically states it effects units with the Faction Keyword associated with it's chapter. ULTRAMARINES, WHITESCARS etc...
While these rules are the ones released for free it is a comprehensive list of all the chapters that are a part of Codex: SM.
If a home brew chapter exists or some other chapter not in the book you are meant to, rules wise, give them the keyword of the chapter you want them to emulate. Otherwise their chapter tactics and other associated tools of the codex would not function.
Since you would need to be "WhiteScars" to use the white scars abilities and thus use the white scars characters you are incapable of being... Red Scorpions and using Red Scorpions characters while also gaining the benefits of the White Scars tactics.
Players of FW armies will have to wait for an errata to tell them they can change the wording of the rules replacing all "White Scars" with "Red Scorpions" in order to use the codex space marine rules with Red Scorpion characters.
Failing that or until then, Red Scorpion players can use the index rules for Red Scorpions or proxy the models as the rules/characters from the chapters in codex Space Marines.
Aenarian wrote: As a sidenote, does any rule allow you to treat ULTRAMARINES, WHITE SCARS etc. as <Chapter>, as their unique characters don't have <Chapter>? Because this seems to be related to the question at hand.
Yes, the SM codex gives an actual list. It avoids the issue of having to determine if an ULTRAMARINES detachment is a <CHAPTER> detachment because it simply says that ULTRAMARINES detachments get Chapter Tactics too. It is not clear if you have permission to treat your custom DEATH PONIES chapter as a <CHAPTER>.
I don't think that whether DKoK is a <REGIMENT> is as cut and dried as anyone is making it out to be. First, while the SM codex does have a list, the list doesn't say anything about custom chapters even though the rules are obviously intended to let you use these (the SM codex is kind of a mess this way -- do custom chapters get any benefit from most Tactics even assuming they can have them?). The AM codex doesn't even have a list. So what gives you permission to treat VALHALLAN as a <REGIMENT> keyword? The AM codex does give several examples (clearly meant to be non-exhaustive). So it's clear that it wants you to treat CADIAN as a <REGIMENT> keyword. But how did all of my units get the CADIAN keyword? Well, they got it in exactly the same way that DKoK units got the DKoK keyword. I "replaced" the <REGIMENT> keyword with CADIAN, as directed at the beginning of the army list.
Like I said in my first post, my belief is that RAW here is to consult the fluff. This is basically the same manifestation of the Sept ULTRAMARINES problem. In that case, we got a FAQ saying "look at the fluff: is Ultramarines actually a Tau sept?" So, VALHALLAN is a <REGIMENT> keyword because Valhallans have AM regiments, fluff-wise. RENEGADES AND HERETICS is not a <REGIMENT> keyword because that's not a regiment, fluff-wise. Are the Death Korps of Krieg a regiment, like the Valhallans and Cadians?
There are a couple other ways I think you could go with this, though. You could just say that anything that replaces the <REGIMENT> keyword and isn't abusive in the way that the FAQ outlines is a <REGIMENT> keyword. So R&H would count as a <REGIMENT>. This is perhaps not crazy -- obviously they're not a fluff regiment but they're close enough to Guard that maybe they get the same special rules. On the other hand, while one standard you could derive from the FAQ is "is this thing really a regiment?", another is, basically, "is it intended that this keyword get these buffs?" And as for that, who can say? Yes, Elysians and DKoK already have a special rule that looks a lot like a doctrine. On the other hand, they pay for it: Elysians aren't just getting Infantry squads that deep strike as a special rule, they're getting Elysian Drop Trooper squads that are different from Infantry squads in several ways (for example, they have more limited weapon options) and cost more per model.
Aenarian wrote: As a sidenote, does any rule allow you to treat ULTRAMARINES, WHITE SCARS etc. as <Chapter>, as their unique characters don't have <Chapter>? Because this seems to be related to the question at hand.
Having trouble finding the page concerning all the chapter rules. But it's in the codex. This here lists all the chapter tactics. Each one has a rule that specifically states it effects units with the Faction Keyword associated with it's chapter. ULTRAMARINES, WHITESCARS etc...
I'll just have to trust you on that. Otherwise, it just seems as if the named chapters are only <Chapter> implicitly and any characters without <Chapter> would be unable to benefit from rules referring to <Chapter>, just like in this case where Death Korps of Krieg is intended to be a regiment and count for <Regiment>, although there are no rules explicitly saying this.
I agree that RAW, you probably can't use <Regiment> stuff.
2 replies so far from GW staff. Though no real answers so far.
From FW customer service:
Q:
"Okay reading page 132 of the New IG codex it says that Regiments without Doctrines can choose a Doctrine that fits. Does that include DKoK and Elysians?"
A:
Thanks for the reply, I don't see why not however I would like to mention that we are the customer service team, we are not permitted to offer any official response to rules questions or clarification that are requested. As we have a rules team the only official rules will come directly from this team and in time.
I will forward your question over to them but I would also suggest you contact them directly on gamefaqs@gwplc.com.
From the 40k Facebook page
Q:
Question about Regimental Doctrines and the FW Regiments of Death Korps of Krieg and Elysian Drop Troops. On page 132 of the new Codex it says that "If your chosen regiment doesn't have an associated doctrine," So neither DKoK or EDT have a doctrine, seems to fit. "You may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army."
So do DKoK and Elysians have access to Doctrines and Non-unique Stratagems, Relics, and Warlord Traits from the new codex? Or do they have to wait for a specific FW book for them or something like Chapter Approved? Is FW going to have anything like a Chapter Approved even?
A:
That’s a real good question. As we in the Community Team don’t write the rules, we can’t provide official answers to rules questions on this page. But what we can do is pass them over to the kind folks in the studio to see if it needs answering in a future FAQ.
I would say that they can't use codex doctrines because they are already a specific regiment with their own doctrines, since the army-wide rules they get in their index are basically doctrines already even if they are expecting better doctrines in the next IA.
They can use generic AM stratagems from the codex though, because they are AM.
You gotta hand it to the GW customer service guys, they are polite and manage to call it a good question!
Of course keeping a straight face when answering that question is easier in written contact. =]
Maybe a quick follow-up question - Why don't special marines like FW, BA, DA and GK get chapter tactics on top? They are chapters too!
JohnnyHell wrote: Why have you been such a stickler for doing exactly this in other threads (cf your belief quad Autocannon Dreads can't now exist) yet here you say people shouldn't use the latest Datasheet? You know GW have instructed players to do so. So why?
Because they are different situations and you know it. I have said from day one that Wolf Lords have to stick to using the Index entry despite there being a newer Captain entry, because the rule explicitly links to the Index entry, it's not a case of which is newer. The only time "which is newer" comes up is when you're using the actual datasheet of an actual unit that has had a replacement (i.e. Dreadnoughts, Rhinos etc). You're trying to rile me up so I shall instead ignore you from now on.
Noooo, I was asking a genuine question as I didn't understand your position, which seens contrary to your prior stances elsewhere. But if you thrive on adversity crack on, dude. I was querying your position, I wasn't impolite. If you feel attacked that's something you brought to the conversation. I challenged a position, and did not 'attempt to rile you'. That's not arguing in good faith ;-)
I'd let them use the psychic powers, updated data sheets and anything generic, but not any regimental abilities since they have their own rules for those.
Don't really see the point of not letting them do that other than being pedantic.
SideshowLucifer wrote: I'd let them use the psychic powers, updated data sheets and anything generic, but not any regimental abilities since they have their own rules for those.
Don't really see the point of not letting them do that other than being pedantic.
It's called following the rules of the game.
Do you also not see the point of making your opponent roll to hit with his guns, other than being pedantic?
SideshowLucifer wrote: I'd let them use the psychic powers, updated data sheets and anything generic, but not any regimental abilities since they have their own rules for those.
Don't really see the point of not letting them do that other than being pedantic.
It's called following the rules of the game.
Do you also not see the point of making your opponent roll to hit with his guns, other than being pedantic?
Codexes: Your Questions Answered
Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.
Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.
In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.
Looks like they covered using the codex for the most up to date rules with this. Strange that you're not willing to go with it, given you quoted the appropriate sentence in a different thread.
So which Datasheet replaces a Dreadnought built using 'weapons that no longer come in the box?'
That is the problem:
We have been told to use the latest Datasheets found within the Codex's
AND
We have been told that we can still use Models built using options that have changed over time
These are conflicting instructions, and all debate over which is correct will depend entirely on which set of instructions you personally prefer.
JinxDragon wrote: So which Datasheet replaces a Dreadnought built using 'weapons that no longer come in the box?'
That is the problem:
We have been told to use the latest Datasheets found within the Codex's
AND
We have been told that we can still use Models built using options that have changed over time
These are conflicting instructions, and all debate over which is correct will depend entirely on which set of instructions you personally prefer.
It's only a problem if one player adopts a reasonable position and the other one says 'you can't play with your toys even though you have perfectly valid rules and GW has said that's OK'.
JinxDragon wrote: So which Datasheet replaces a Dreadnought built using 'weapons that no longer come in the box?'
That is the problem:
We have been told to use the latest Datasheets found within the Codex's
AND
We have been told that we can still use Models built using options that have changed over time
These are conflicting instructions, and all debate over which is correct will depend entirely on which set of instructions you personally prefer.
The instructions aren't mutually exclusive. If you have an old model with a build that isn't covered in the codex but can be done with the Index, they tell you that you can use the Index. You end up handling it as a different unit than the one in the codex.
My post was in relation to BaconCatBug, however, on using the Codex Astra Militarum entries as opposed to index entries with DKoK.
Doctortom,
What’s the difference between a codex and an index book?
The indexes let you play with your Warhammer 40,000 army until the codex for your faction is released. The idea being that the rules for units in codexes eventually supersede the rules for them presented in the index books.
Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.
Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.
In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.
Codexes: Your Questions Answered is filled with wording like this, all informing us to use the latest Datasheet for any Unit found within a Codex. The only reason we have even a slimmest argument to the contrary is a single reference to 'war-gear that no longer comes in the box' in the question that also talks about Datasheets that did not make it into the Index at all. We are the ones extending this half a sentence to the logical conclusion of 'Models with war-gear options that have changed between Index and Codex' in order to allow old war-gear options to be valid. While I am more then willing to continue using this to allow us to categorize such Models as 'Legacy,' I like duel plasma pistols myself, the number of questions being answered in the exact opposite way is problematic.
Thus, best case situation: We have been told conflicting information and simply choose what we like best
Worse case situation: We have to break off those arms and update that Dreadnaughts weapons even though it was specifically mentioned....
SideshowLucifer wrote: I'd let them use the psychic powers, updated data sheets and anything generic, but not any regimental abilities since they have their own rules for those.
Don't really see the point of not letting them do that other than being pedantic.
It's called following the rules of the game.
Do you also not see the point of making your opponent roll to hit with his guns, other than being pedantic?
Believe it or not, some of us play this game for fun. I don't see the big deal about letting my opponent use the updated data sheets. I wouldn't let them choose a doctrine since they basically already have their own, but the other generic stuff I'm good with. I want my opponent to have fun too and I honestly can not fathom how letting them do this would in any way be cheating. It's a game where we want to have fun. Allowing them this is more fun for both of us.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Believe it or not, some of us play this game for fun. I don't see the big deal about letting my opponent use the updated data sheets. I wouldn't let them choose a doctrine since they basically already have their own, but the other generic stuff I'm good with. I want my opponent to have fun too and I honestly can not fathom how letting them do this would in any way be cheating. It's a game where we want to have fun. Allowing them this is more fun for both of us.
Why is one OK and the other isn't? Serious question, explain your reasoning. Why are you, personally, the ultimate arbitrator of what is and isn't acceptable?
If you want to make up House Rules, go right ahead, but that isn't what YMDC is for discussing (that's Proposed Rules), nor can you ever expect others to use your house rules.
Let's go back to the facts: The IA books tell you to use the Index, they do not mention the codex at all. Because they are Forge World books and explicitly link to the Index (like Space Wolf Wolf Lords do, or Various Deathwatch entries do), you must use the Index rules. Therefore you do not benefit from any of the special rules found in the Codex.
These are the facts and rules as laid out by the rulebooks. If you wish to house rule them, go ahead, much like I can house rule my Conscripts to have 30 wounds, but don't expect anyone outside your group to agree to it.
Because I'm not convinced it isn't raw to allow the data sheets. The rest of course is just me being a nice guy. The data sheets are expressly given permission to be used though as they are the most updated ones.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Because I'm not convinced it isn't raw to allow the data sheets. The rest of course is just me being a nice guy. The data sheets are expressly given permission to be used though as they are the most updated ones.
Only if you're using the codex. DKoK don't use the codex.
This is where the disconnect is on RAW. I'm not sure I agree with you or not there. Any time something says to see the index, and the index has been updated, then I believe you use the most recent.
SideshowLucifer wrote: This is where the disconnect is on RAW. I'm not sure I agree with you or not there. Any time something says to see the index, and the index has been updated, then I believe you use the most recent.
Totally agree. Though if you don't own the Codex because you're waiting for the proper Space Wolf Codex you're free to use the Index profiles and points (unless your opponent is a completely unfun being).
doctortom wrote: My post was in relation to BaconCatBug, however, on using the Codex Astra Militarum entries as opposed to index entries with DKoK.
The IA books override this, because GW don't acknowledge FW exist in their base rules.
Nope. IA books refer back to the index. The quotes I gave above say that it's okay to use the latest datasheets from the codex instead of the index (barring, of course, any configuraton for a unit you might want from an index datasheet that you can't do with a corresponding codex datasheet). It doesn't matter that you think GW doesn't acknowledge FW exists; what they said still applies in the case of FW lists referring back to index entries. Therefore, IA books don't override it.
SideshowLucifer wrote: This is where the disconnect is on RAW. I'm not sure I agree with you or not there. Any time something says to see the index, and the index has been updated, then I believe you use the most recent.
By that logic then Wolf Lords use the Codex.
I wasn't aware the space marine codex had wolf lord data sheet.
A better comparison would be that the space wolves use the landraider profile from the codex.
Found this. It's relevant, but I imagine it won't completely solve the issue at hand.
Please read the Tenets of YMDC. Facebook is not a valid source.
I don't agree with the answer off of facebook, but it's very disingenuous to point to the Tenets of YMDC when said Tenets were last updated in 2014, well before GW started using facebook in such a way.
I certainly won't take the social media teams word for it, but it is a valid source for answers. I hope they'll correct it because it just doesn't make any sense. The question was worded in a very leading way, just outright claiming that DKoK don't have a doctrine, and the logical answer for the social team was "sure, if they don't have a doctrine they should be able to pick one".
nekooni wrote: I don't agree with the answer off of facebook, but it's very disingenuous to point to the Tenets of YMDC when said Tenets were last updated in 2014, well before GW started using facebook in such a way.
How about this from the 'About' section of their Facebook page?..
And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.
DKoK, Elysians and R&H all seem to have Doctrine-like abilities already in the FW Index. And in the case of R&H they're not even a pure AM force. I don't think these lists should get Codex AM Doctrines and Stratagems, though they will of course use the Codex Datasheets for any regular AM vehicles updated from the Index that they are permitted to choose.
nekooni wrote: I don't agree with the answer off of facebook, but it's very disingenuous to point to the Tenets of YMDC when said Tenets were last updated in 2014, well before GW started using facebook in such a way.
Not really. In addition to the above mention of the "About" page, the first half of rule 2 "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs." means Facebook, MySpace and literally any other source other than the rulebooks and FAQs are invalid for discussion here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: DKoK, Elysians and R&H all seem to have Doctrine-like abilities already in the FW Index. And in the case of R&H they're not even a pure AM force. I don't think these lists should get Codex AM Doctrines and Stratagems, though they will of course use the Codex Datasheets for any regular AM vehicles updated from the Index that they are permitted to choose.
Not unless Forge World errata or otherwise give permission to do so. Until they update via errata or FAQ you use the Index.
JohnnyHell wrote: DKoK, Elysians and R&H all seem to have Doctrine-like abilities already in the FW Index. And in the case of R&H they're not even a pure AM force. I don't think these lists should get Codex AM Doctrines and Stratagems, though they will of course use the Codex Datasheets for any regular AM vehicles updated from the Index that they are permitted to choose.
Not unless Forge World errata or otherwise give permission to do so. Until they update via errata or FAQ you use the Index.
If you don't want incorrect info, why did you post said incorrect info in this thread?
DKoK are found in the IA book, which tells you to use the Index. Nothing about using the most current rules matters here because the IA book explicitly tells you to ignore that and use the Index.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you don't want incorrect info, why did you post said incorrect info in this thread?
DKoK are found in the IA book, which tells you to use the Index. Nothing about using the most current rules matters here because the IA book explicitly tells you to ignore that and use the Index.
Nothing tells you to ignore the instruction to use the most up to date Datasheet. You're fabricating that - please cite the exact passages over in the thread where it's on topic to continue discussing. So far you've tried one 'by the same logic' that has an express exemption for SW, and just called me wrong. Lay me out all your reasoning with backup in the other thread. It would be refreshing.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you don't want incorrect info, why did you post said incorrect info in this thread?
DKoK are found in the IA book, which tells you to use the Index. Nothing about using the most current rules matters here because the IA book explicitly tells you to ignore that and use the Index.
Yes and you have been ignoring arguments that anyone makes about the case for as long as you have been on this thread to the point I do my best to ignore anything you bother to type. You have said your piece I respectfully ask that you please bother a different thread now.
nekooni wrote: I don't agree with the answer off of facebook, but it's very disingenuous to point to the Tenets of YMDC when said Tenets were last updated in 2014, well before GW started using facebook in such a way.
Not really. In addition to the above mention of the "About" page, the first half of rule 2 "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs." means Facebook, MySpace and literally any other source other than the rulebooks and FAQs are invalid for discussion here.
No, it's not invalid for discussion. It's invalid for RAW, but it can be included as a non-official suggestion of how GW might be leaning on the subject, and could be used by people as a basis for HIWPI. According to the tenets of YMDC, you are allowed to discuss HIPWI here. In the case of Facebook, just the qualifier that it's not official should be enough. That doesn't mean that any mention of an answer from Facebook should be forbidden, though.
JohnnyHell wrote: DKoK, Elysians and R&H all seem to have Doctrine-like abilities already in the FW Index. And in the case of R&H they're not even a pure AM force. I don't think these lists should get Codex AM Doctrines and Stratagems, though they will of course use the Codex Datasheets for any regular AM vehicles updated from the Index that they are permitted to choose.
Not unless Forge World errata or otherwise give permission to do so. Until they update via errata or FAQ you use the Index.
According to the quotes that had been provided, yes, they can use updated codex datasheets for units that are duplicated in the index with the same name as the codex would be the most recent datasheet for that unit. The permissions to do this have already been given by GW, and is independent on whether it's meant for a GW or a FW army.
doctortom wrote: According to the quotes that had been provided, yes, they can use updated codex datasheets for units that are duplicated in the index with the same name as the codex would be the most recent datasheet for that unit. The permissions to do this have already been given by GW, and is independent on whether it's meant for a GW or a FW army.
Please, open the IA book and the IA Errata and FAQ, and please point to me any mention of the AM codex. If you can do that, I will concede the point.
doctortom wrote: According to the quotes that had been provided, yes, they can use updated codex datasheets for units that are duplicated in the index with the same name as the codex would be the most recent datasheet for that unit. The permissions to do this have already been given by GW, and is independent on whether it's meant for a GW or a FW army.
Please, open the IA book and the IA Errata and FAQ, and please point to me any mention of the AM codex. If you can do that, I will concede the point.
- There is mention of "Astra Militarum Datasheets" in the FWIA Index permitted unit lists.
- We know these were in Index Imperium 2 and are getting updated in Codex Astra Militarum.
- We know you must use the most recent Datasheet for any given unit name, and that these overwrite the Index Datasheets (Warhammer Community article you've already been linked to).
- We know your Space Wolves comparison is irrelevant due to the special paragraph about non-Codex Chapters in the same WHC article.
- So we know that when the Codex is released the Codex Datasheets overwrite the Index ones, and that anything previously using Index Imperium 2 Astra Militarum Datasheets now uses the Codex ones.
- So we know that R&H, for example, can use Codex AM Baneblades.
It does seem to only be you not following this now.
JohnnyHell wrote: - We know you must use the most recent Datasheet for any given unit name, and that these overwrite the Index Datasheets (Warhammer Community article you've already been linked to).
Except when the rules explicitly link to an index entry, otherwise you could claim you can charge after advancing, even though a rule says you can't, because another rule says you can.
-Shrug- People are free to play however they like and break whatever rules they like, but if you want to play by the actual rules, you use the Index for DKoK until FW update their books.
JohnnyHell wrote: - We know you must use the most recent Datasheet for any given unit name, and that these overwrite the Index Datasheets (Warhammer Community article you've already been linked to).
Except when the rules explicitly link to an index entry, otherwise you could claim you can charge after advancing, even though a rule says you can't, because another rule says you can.
-Shrug- People are free to play however they like and break whatever rules they like, but if you want to play by the actual rules, you use the Index for DKoK until FW update their books.
It's not breaking a rule. That is arguing in bad faith. Please don't do that. Nor the strawman - I reject that again (kid yourself it's a reductio ad absurdum all you will: it's not comparable so it's a strawman).
Even if you insist on the FWIA Index > Index 2 link being the crux, you're still not correct:
- IA links to Index Datasheet
- Datasheet is overwritten by new Codex version
- To all intents and purposes the Codex Datasheet now *is* the Index Datasheet. That's what overwritten means here and what GW is telling us should happen in the WHC article. Anything that pointed here now points to the new Datasheet that is overwriting it.
Your overly-literal reading of the IA Index pointing to the then-current Index Imperium 2 version is clouding your ability to get this right. That link is necessarily mutable. You need to let that bit go. The Datasheets get overwritten on Codex release, thus 'redirecting' what units the FWIA lists can pick from to the new Datasheets of the same names in the Codex. R&H can use Codex Baneblades. DKoK can use Codex Tank Commanders. Etc, etc.
I'm lost as to other ways to explain this same thing to you. If all you have to offer in return is "you're breaking the rules" with no actual counter-argument (that stands up to scrutiny, as I disproved the SW tangent) then please don't just tell me I'm cheating. Because I'm not, and neither are the others who are correctly following GW's instructions.
BaconCatBug wrote: P]lease, open the IA book and the IA Errata and FAQ, and please point to me any mention of the AM codex. If you can do that, I will concede the point.
Why in the world should the IA books mention the AM codex?!
If you play a "Aeldari, Drukhari, Kabal of the whatever floats your boat" detachment from Index Xenos 1 you could very well include a Tantalus from IA Xenos although the Xenos 1 book does not mention the IA Xenos book at all...
Read the rules on building a battleforged detachment on page 240 in the BRB:
All units belong to one or more of the many Factions that fight for dominance across the galaxy. A unit’s Faction is important when building a Battle-forged army because some Detachments require all units included in it to be from the same Faction. The Factions that a unit belongs to will be listed in the keywords section of its datasheet. For example, a Space Marine Captain has the IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES keywords, so belongs to both the Imperium and Adeptus Astartes Factions. This means that if a Space Marine Captain was part of a Detachment with the restriction that all units must be from the same Faction, all other units in that Detachment must either be from the Imperium Faction, or they must all be from the Adeptus Astartes Faction. On the same page it reads
To include a particular Detachment in your army, simply organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed for that particular Detachment. A unit cannot belong to more than one Detachment, and you will often need to use additional information found on a unit’s datasheet, such as Faction and Battlefield Role (see below and right) to determine where it fits in a Detachment. One the next page it reads
"Restrictions"
This section of a Detachment’s rules lists any additional restrictions that apply to the units you can include as part of the Detachment. If a datasheet does not adhere to a particular restriction, it cannot be included as part of the Detachment. The most common restriction is that all of the units included in a Detachment must be from the same Faction.
Notice: There is not a single word on one book mentioning another book or whatever... the only thing relevant for building batteforged detachments is faction keywords and the restrictions of the specfic detachment you are going to use!
The Astra Militarum Codex defines what a Astra Militarum detachment is... I cannot quote the rule as I dont have the book but it basically requires you to belong to the Astra Militarium and every unit in the detachment must have the same <REGIMENT>.
Elysian Drop Troops belong to "Astra Militarum" and all have "Elysian Drop Troops" as faction keywords (which is stated to be their <REGIMENT> on page 71 of IA - Astra Militarum) which is -by the rules from the new codex- everything they need to be part of a Astra Militarum Detachment!
Then the "Regimental Doctrines" rule from the codex says, if your army is battleforged (which it is!) all <Regiment> units (which EDT are!) in an Astra Militarum Detachment (which EDT belong to!), some blablabla, gain a regimental doctrin!
So, neither the Rulebook, nor the Codex Astra Militarum nor the IA: Astra Militarum says a word about units have to belong to one book or another or mentioning one book or another or whatelse for being part of a battleforged detachment (although you still insist on it as if it were some kind of god given law)... they clearly lineout which criteria you need to fulfill to be part of a battleforge detachment in general and an Astra Militarium detachment in special. EDT do fulfill those criteria so they logical conclusion when following the written rules is: they can benefit from the "Regimental Doctrines" rule!
blaktoof wrote: Most keyword rules have a rule specifically calling out which factions fall into that keyword.
Anything not listed wouldn't benefit.
Much like space wolves, dark angels, blood angles would not benefit from chapter tactics.
Or deathguard thousand sons would not benefit from legion traits.
If the AM codex has similiar rules than neither DKOK or elysians would get doctrine access., And likely would not get access to Strategems.
It's generally the opposite of this, actually. The army list in Codex: SM gives a non-exhaustive list of Chapters which it implies can't be used to replace <CHAPTER> , and then the section that covers special rules for "Space Marines Detachments" is explicit that non-codex compliant Chapters don't use these rules. Codex: CSM's army list places no general restriction on <LEGION>, but does give some special rules for a few specific Legions, such as that WORLD EATERS units must have KHORNE if possible. Its special rules section says Death Guard and Thousand Sons can't use these rules, but is otherwise wide open. It is not clear if all custom CSM armies must be Renegade Chapters, but there is no rule allowing custom <LEGION> keywords to gain a trait other than the Renegades one. Codex: AdMech is completely unrestricted in how you replace <FORGE WORLD> or <HOUSEHOLD> for the army list. Its special rules section is also completely unrestricted, although it does not appear that custom forge worlds get access to a unique stratagem or warlord trait.
The only keyword I saw in glancing over these that specifically tells you what you can replace it with is <MARK OF CHAOS>, which isn't relevant for determining access to stratagems or tactics.
The Guard codex is most like the AdMech codex. There is absolutely no restriction placed on what you can choose for <REGIMENT>, and the special rules section is explicit that if you've chosen a regiment which it doesn't provide a doctrine for, you can pick whichever doctrine you like. And while I don't see the stratagem boilerplate for Guard anywhere, the AdMech one doesn't even require that the detachment belong to a <FORGE WORLD> -- you can get access to AdMech stratagems even if you do not have a detachment that qualifies for a dogma.
If the wording is similar to C:SM , you probably cannot use stratagems because a Space Marine Detachment is defined using SM units, which are units with ADEPTUS ASTARTES and <CHAPTER> (or any of the mentioned ones) keywords. If it is the same for C:AM, you will not be able to use them because you don't have <REGIMENT>. However, you can use Warlord Traits (because it only requires ADEPTUS ASTARTES CHARACTER), although not relics because they want a Space Marines CHARACTER warlord.
Nonetheless, you will be able to use the vehicles from the codex because you can just create a detachment including any IMPERIUM units of which I presume the new codex Leman Russes and other units are. They might not have a doctrine, but neither DKoK or EDT lose their bonuses if they are in a mixed detachment.
I guess we'll see tomorrow how they write it out in the book.
Found this. It's relevant, but I imagine it won't completely solve the issue at hand.
Please read the Tenets of YMDC. Facebook is not a valid source.
What does that have to do with anything? It's not like he said "Yo this is what Facespace said, so this is the answer." It IS relevant to the topic, as it has to do with *shock* DKoK and the new AM codex, but it is not a valid source, thus "it won't completely solve the issue".
What a twist! Following the rules means following the rules!
See what I mean when I said Facebook, Twitter etc shouldn't be used? Because we get 6 mutually exclusive answers to the same question. It's almost like the rules of YMDC were made with that in mind!
blaktoof wrote: Most keyword rules have a rule specifically calling out which factions fall into that keyword.
Anything not listed wouldn't benefit.
Much like space wolves, dark angels, blood angles would not benefit from chapter tactics.
Or deathguard thousand sons would not benefit from legion traits.
If the AM codex has similiar rules than neither DKOK or elysians would get doctrine access., And likely would not get access to Strategems.
It's generally the opposite of this, actually. The army list in Codex: SM gives a non-exhaustive list of Chapters which it implies can't be used to replace <CHAPTER> , and then the section that covers special rules for "Space Marines Detachments" is explicit that non-codex compliant Chapters don't use these rules. Codex: CSM's army list places no general restriction on <LEGION>, but does give some special rules for a few specific Legions, such as that WORLD EATERS units must have KHORNE if possible. Its special rules section says Death Guard and Thousand Sons can't use these rules, but is otherwise wide open. It is not clear if all custom CSM armies must be Renegade Chapters, but there is no rule allowing custom <LEGION> keywords to gain a trait other than the Renegades one. Codex: AdMech is completely unrestricted in how you replace <FORGE WORLD> or <HOUSEHOLD> for the army list. Its special rules section is also completely unrestricted, although it does not appear that custom forge worlds get access to a unique stratagem or warlord trait.
The only keyword I saw in glancing over these that specifically tells you what you can replace it with is <MARK OF CHAOS>, which isn't relevant for determining access to stratagems or tactics.
The Guard codex is most like the AdMech codex. There is absolutely no restriction placed on what you can choose for <REGIMENT>, and the special rules section is explicit that if you've chosen a regiment which it doesn't provide a doctrine for, you can pick whichever doctrine you like. And while I don't see the stratagem boilerplate for Guard anywhere, the AdMech one doesn't even require that the detachment belong to a <FORGE WORLD> -- you can get access to AdMech stratagems even if you do not have a detachment that qualifies for a dogma.
I am not sure what book you are looking at. P.194 of adeptus astartes clearly states specifically which chapters are adeptus astartes units to gain rules in that codex.
Similar for CSM.
Ad mech does say you can pick a dogma if you have a forgeworld not on that list.
There is a big difference here, having a "forgeworld not on that list" aka a Homebrew FW, you are using the rules from that book for all of your units. DKOK and Elysians are completely not in that boat as they have their own rules much like blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, death guard and thousand sons.
The leaks I have seen of the regiment rule is not worded the same as ad mech, and doesn't give permission to pick one if your regiment doesn't appear in the list. The text is obviously cut off before and after however so far it appears RAW if your not a listed regiment you don't get to pick.
Even if that text is in there it seems RAI based on CSM and SM that if your keyword is so divergent that it uses an army list outside of the codex you don't get to use the codex rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Looking at a YouTube review of the AM codex, it is clear that it absolutely does not contain wording similiar to the ad mech codex that you can pick a regiment doctrine. The ad mech codex has written permission for picking, the AM codex has zero permission to do so.
RAWDKOK and Elysians do not get any doctrines from the AM codex.
I am not sure what book you are looking at. P.194 of adeptus astartes clearly states specifically which chapters are adeptus astartes units to gain rules in that codex.
Similar for CSM.
Ad mech does say you can pick a dogma if you have a forgeworld not on that list.
There is a big difference here, having a "forgeworld not on that list" aka a Homebrew FW, you are using the rules from that book for all of your units. DKOK and Elysians are completely not in that boat as they have their own rules much like blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, death guard and thousand sons.
The leaks I have seen of the regiment rule is not worded the same as ad mech, and doesn't give permission to pick one if your regiment doesn't appear in the list. The text is obviously cut off before and after however so far it appears RAW if your not a listed regiment you don't get to pick.
Even if that text is in there it seems RAI based on CSM and SM that if your keyword is so divergent that it uses an army list outside of the codex you don't get to use the codex rules.
p194 of Codex: SM does not give an exhaustive list of possible replacements for the <CHAPTER> keyword. It explicitly includes <CHAPTER>, indicating that you can use these rules for anything that you can replace <CHAPTER> with. People are supposed to be able to use their SPACE PONIES.
C:CSM likewise explicitly includes <LEGION>.
The full text of the doctrines page in the Guard codex does in fact say that "If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army". Refer to winters SEO's review at 18:27, for example. Death Korps of Krieg is a regiment, I can replace <REGIMENT> with the name of any regiment, and nowhere does it say that I can't replace <REGIMENT> with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG for these purposes (the DKoK army list only says I can't replace <REGIMENT> with DKoK on particular datasheets). And there's no doctrine given for DKoK. So...
But yes, as I've said before in this thread, I think that probably DKoK is not intended to get access to doctrines -- presumably their special rule is intended to fill that role. Though note that the rules are very clear that they get access to stratagems, and it seems kind of dickish to try to prevent a DKoK player from using them on the basis of a pretty shaky RAI argument.
Edit: I'm not sure what youtube review you're referencing. Are you sure that you're looking at a shot of the codex where the full page is actually visible?
BaconCatBug wrote: What a twist! Following the rules means following the rules!
See what I mean when I said Facebook, Twitter etc shouldn't be used? Because we get 6 mutually exclusive answers to the same question. It's almost like the rules of YMDC were made with that in mind!
Wait, does this mean you're also taking something from Facebook as gospel?
I am not sure what book you are looking at. P.194 of adeptus astartes clearly states specifically which chapters are adeptus astartes units to gain rules in that codex.
Similar for CSM.
Ad mech does say you can pick a dogma if you have a forgeworld not on that list.
There is a big difference here, having a "forgeworld not on that list" aka a Homebrew FW, you are using the rules from that book for all of your units. DKOK and Elysians are completely not in that boat as they have their own rules much like blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, death guard and thousand sons.
The leaks I have seen of the regiment rule is not worded the same as ad mech, and doesn't give permission to pick one if your regiment doesn't appear in the list. The text is obviously cut off before and after however so far it appears RAW if your not a listed regiment you don't get to pick.
Even if that text is in there it seems RAI based on CSM and SM that if your keyword is so divergent that it uses an army list outside of the codex you don't get to use the codex rules.
p194 of Codex: SM does not give an exhaustive list of possible replacements for the <CHAPTER> keyword. It explicitly includes <CHAPTER>, indicating that you can use these rules for anything that you can replace <CHAPTER> with. People are supposed to be able to use their SPACE PONIES.
C:CSM likewise explicitly includes <LEGION>.
The full text of the doctrines page in the Guard codex does in fact say that "If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army". Refer to winters SEO's review at 18:27, for example. Death Korps of Krieg is a regiment, I can replace <REGIMENT> with the name of any regiment, and nowhere does it say that I can't replace <REGIMENT> with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG for these purposes (the DKoK army list only says I can't replace <REGIMENT> with DKoK on particular datasheets). And there's no doctrine given for DKoK. So...
But yes, as I've said before in this thread, I think that probably DKoK is not intended to get access to doctrines -- presumably their special rule is intended to fill that role. Though note that the rules are very clear that they get access to stratagems, and it seems kind of dickish to try to prevent a DKoK player from using them on the basis of a pretty shaky RAI argument.
Edit: I'm not sure what youtube review you're referencing. Are you sure that you're looking at a shot of the codex where the full page is actually visible?
Looking at the same video as you, I had only made it ten minutes in and at that point the discussion of regiments around the 5min mark does not indicate any permission to pick doctrines.
Looking where you referenced it does say you can pick. It then goes on to list a completely made up regiment that uses the same army list as the normal AM regiments, much like a successor chapter.
DKOK and Elysians already have a regiment with it's own bonuses. I don't see any TO allowing them to double dip and effectively grab a 2nd doctrine from the AM codex. The RAI is so obvious I don't see the need to split hairs over the RAW
Likewise saying the you lose grinding advance vehicle updates in the codex because the FW index references them to the AM index is BS because the AM codex updates all identical entries in the AM index. RAW there is a clear case that Russ variations that are only in the FW index don't get grinding advance, but the AM index ones do get it. RAI they both get it, but RAW clearly contradicts with the variations that are only in the FW dex.
schadenfreude wrote: DKOK and Elysians already have a regiment with it's own bonuses. I don't see any TO allowing them to double dip and effectively grab a 2nd doctrine from the AM codex. The RAI is so obvious I don't see the need to split hairs over the RAW
Likewise saying the you lose grinding advance vehicle updates in the codex because the FW index references them to the AM index is BS because the AM codex updates all identical entries in the AM index. RAW there is a clear case that Russ variations that are only in the FW index don't get grinding advance, but the AM index ones do get it. RAI they both get it, but RAW clearly contradicts with the variations that are only in the FW dex.
Sigh I was hoping that they would be reasonable with the update but seems like they are going to be asinine about it. So I guess to spit in their face I am going to be spaming nothing but command squads with 3 damage Overcharged Plasma guns since they don't want to fix the obvious problems. Yeah I'm a little salty.
All discussion of <Regiment> aside, I still haven't seen a plausible way that explains how DKoK would access the Regimental Doctrines rule.
As far as I understand it, the argument goes:
1) FW provided instructions on how to adapt GWAM Index Datasheets (Master of Ordnance, Hydras, Tank Commander, Hellhounds, Basilisks, nothing else).
AM Infantry units - so only the Master of Ordnance - gains Cult of Sacrifice.
2) GW instructed us to use codex datasheets instead of index datasheets.
3) AM Codex Datasheets presumeably include a reference to the new Regimental Doctrines from the AM army special rules.
Therefore,
- an AM Codex Hydra, Tank Commander, Hellhound or Basilisk would retain the AM Regimental Doctrine, even when used in an DKoK army list and
- an AM Codex Master of Ordnance would retain AM Regimental Doctrine, but gain Cult of Sacrifice on top.
I hope I got that correct.
Now, that is all nice and tidy, but it makes some false assumptions:
a) GW considers interactions with FW rules in their publications
b) FW updates their rules reliably and promptly when GW changes something.
Because of a), the GW instruction to use codex rather than index cannot be argued to modify the FW instruction in the DKoK army list.
Because of b), we cannot expect to get an FAQ on this from FW in any resaonable time.
Since at the time of writing of the DKoK army list there was no Codex and no Regimental Doctrines, the conversion rule does not take those into account.
The way I see it:
RAW, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. No doctrines.
RAI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. There were no doctrines when the FW rule was written.
HIWPI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by index or codex datasheets for points and stats, but obviously don't get Regimental Doctrines.
Stephanius wrote: All discussion of <Regiment> aside, I still haven't seen a plausible way that explains how DKoK would access the Regimental Doctrines rule.
As far as I understand it, the argument goes:
1) FW provided instructions on how to adapt GWAM Index Datasheets (Master of Ordnance, Hydras, Tank Commander, Hellhounds, Basilisks, nothing else).
AM Infantry units - so only the Master of Ordnance - gains Cult of Sacrifice.
2) GW instructed us to use codex datasheets instead of index datasheets.
3) AM Codex Datasheets presumeably include a reference to the new Regimental Doctrines from the AM army special rules.
Therefore,
- an AM Codex Hydra, Tank Commander, Hellhound or Basilisk would retain the AM Regimental Doctrine, even when used in an DKoK army list and
- an AM Codex Master of Ordnance would retain AM Regimental Doctrine, but gain Cult of Sacrifice on top.
I hope I got that correct.
Now, that is all nice and tidy, but it makes some false assumptions:
a) GW considers interactions with FW rules in their publications
b) FW updates their rules reliably and promptly when GW changes something.
Because of a), the GW instruction to use codex rather than index cannot be argued to modify the FW instruction in the DKoK army list.
Because of b), we cannot expect to get an FAQ on this from FW in any resaonable time.
Since at the time of writing of the DKoK army list there was no Codex and no Regimental Doctrines, the conversion rule does not take those into account.
The way I see it:
RAW, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. No doctrines.
RAI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. There were no doctrines when the FW rule was written.
HIWPI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by index or codex datasheets for points and stats, but obviously don't get Regimental Doctrines.
You're conflating two things.
The Index Datasheets get overwritten by the Codex ones. The Datasheets themselves don't cover regimental Doctrines - that's Rules material in the Codex.
So FW variant IG armies use the updated Datasheets where applicable, but as the armies already have Doctrine-esque rules from the FWIA Index they don't get additional Codex Doctrines. .
Stephanius wrote: All discussion of <Regiment> aside, I still haven't seen a plausible way that explains how DKoK would access the Regimental Doctrines rule.
As far as I understand it, the argument goes:
1) FW provided instructions on how to adapt GWAM Index Datasheets (Master of Ordnance, Hydras, Tank Commander, Hellhounds, Basilisks, nothing else).
AM Infantry units - so only the Master of Ordnance - gains Cult of Sacrifice.
2) GW instructed us to use codex datasheets instead of index datasheets.
3) AM Codex Datasheets presumeably include a reference to the new Regimental Doctrines from the AM army special rules.
Therefore,
- an AM Codex Hydra, Tank Commander, Hellhound or Basilisk would retain the AM Regimental Doctrine, even when used in an DKoK army list and
- an AM Codex Master of Ordnance would retain AM Regimental Doctrine, but gain Cult of Sacrifice on top.
I hope I got that correct.
Now, that is all nice and tidy, but it makes some false assumptions:
a) GW considers interactions with FW rules in their publications
b) FW updates their rules reliably and promptly when GW changes something.
Because of a), the GW instruction to use codex rather than index cannot be argued to modify the FW instruction in the DKoK army list.
Because of b), we cannot expect to get an FAQ on this from FW in any resaonable time.
Since at the time of writing of the DKoK army list there was no Codex and no Regimental Doctrines, the conversion rule does not take those into account.
The way I see it:
RAW, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. No doctrines.
RAI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. There were no doctrines when the FW rule was written.
HIWPI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by index or codex datasheets for points and stats, but obviously don't get Regimental Doctrines.
I think your characterization of the argument that DKoK gets doctrines isn't right. None of (1), (2), or (3) are at all relevant, I think. (3) is not even true. The new datasheets make no mention of doctrines at all -- doctrines are not mentioned anywhere in the army list, afaik. This is just like how similar rules were handled in the other codices; Space Marines units don't get Chapter Tactics because their datasheets say they do. I suspect you've been confused by a couple of arguments going on in this thread in parallel: does DKoK get doctrines, does DKoK get stratagems, do DKoK units use updated datasheets, and do DKoK units use updated points? The third and maybe fourth arguments are reliant on this idea that codex datasheets supersede index datasheets, but that's it.
The RAW argument that DKoK gets doctrines is relatively simple. The codex tells us they get them, all by itself and entirely on one page, ignoring for the moment any argument that DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is not a <REGIMENT>.
1) The codex contains a section that tells us it provides rules for all armies containing ASTRA MILITARUM detachments.
2) This section says that units in such detachments get a doctrine, if they're all from the same <REGIMENT> (with some listed exceptions like Commissars).
There's no RAW issue with DKoK getting a doctrine in addition to Cult of Sacrifice. Cult of Sacrifice is clearly not a doctrine. It's a special rule like Voice of Command or Grinding Advance -- units get it by virtue of having it on their datasheets, and it's so common to units in the army list that it was convenient for the writers to define it at the start rather than on each datasheet.
The RAW argument that DKoK gets doctrines is relatively simple. The codex tells us they get them, all by itself and entirely on one page, ignoring for the moment any argument that DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is not a <REGIMENT>.
Except you don't get to ignore it.
This argument is like me saying "A flyer with a minimum move attribute can choose not to move, ignoring for the moment any argument that the minimum move value says it has to move, the rules for movement say the model can move UP TO it's move attribute and not moving is part of up to."
It's nonsense.
FW forces are and always have been their own forces. You don't get to ignore that.
The RAW argument that DKoK gets doctrines is relatively simple. The codex tells us they get them, all by itself and entirely on one page, ignoring for the moment any argument that DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is not a <REGIMENT>.
Except you don't get to ignore it.
This argument is like me saying "A flyer with a minimum move attribute can choose not to move, ignoring for the moment any argument that the minimum move value says it has to move, the rules for movement say the model can move UP TO it's move attribute and not moving is part of up to."
It's nonsense.
FW forces are and always have been their own forces. You don't get to ignore that.
I mean, I was responding to someone who wanted to set that aside, so of course I get to ignore it in the context of the conversation I was having. I would refer you to my other posts in this thread if you're interested in understanding why DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is a <REGIMENT>, RAW. But in short: it's a regiment, so it satisfies the FAQ's requirement that we not replace keywords with unfluffy things, and we're otherwise told that we can replace <REGIMENT> with whatever we like. What you're saying seems obviously way too strong; surely you can replace <CHAPTER> with RAPTORS, even though this is a FW-specific chapter. But also I'm not sure where on earth this supposed rule about GW/FW separation you're claiming is coming from.
Edit: Like, remember that they had to issue a FAQ to say that I couldn't have my Tau come from sept ULTRAMARINES. It seems pretty unlikely that that was allowed, RAW, but treating DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG as a <REGIMENT> isn't.
The RAW argument that DKoK gets doctrines is relatively simple. The codex tells us they get them, all by itself and entirely on one page, ignoring for the moment any argument that DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is not a <REGIMENT>.
Except you don't get to ignore it.
This argument is like me saying "A flyer with a minimum move attribute can choose not to move, ignoring for the moment any argument that the minimum move value says it has to move, the rules for movement say the model can move UP TO it's move attribute and not moving is part of up to."
It's nonsense.
FW forces are and always have been their own forces. You don't get to ignore that.
I mean, I was responding to someone who wanted to set that aside, so of course I get to ignore it in the context of the conversation I was having. I would refer you to my other posts in this thread if you're interested in understanding why DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is a <REGIMENT>, RAW. But in short: it's a regiment, so it satisfies the FAQ's requirement that we not replace keywords with unfluffy things, and we're otherwise told that we can replace <REGIMENT> with whatever we like. What you're saying seems obviously way too strong; surely you can replace <CHAPTER> with RAPTORS, even though this is a FW-specific chapter. But also I'm not sure where on earth this supposed rule about GW/FW separation you're claiming is coming from.
Edit: Like, remember that they had to issue a FAQ to say that I couldn't have my Tau come from sept ULTRAMARINES. It seems pretty unlikely that that was allowed, RAW, but treating DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG as a <REGIMENT> isn't.
The fact that your <Regiment> keyword is meant to be fluffy does not make a established Keyword a <Regiment> as a rules entity.
FW/GW separation is a fact of the way GW runs it's business. You will notice on the community site that the categories are not 40k, AoS, LotR. It's 40k, AoS, LotR, FW. As though FW is a game all on it's own despite providing material for every game system.
You will notice no codex... ever to my understanding, has ever acknowledged that any FW force has ever existed.
You might remember that the Necron FW force from 7th could not make use of the formations and Decurion from Codex Necrons. Because despite being necrons FW forces are their own forces and function off their own rules separate from the codex rules.
The only people who have ever referenced across the gap is FW itself. And the only likely source we will get will be FW. FW could have put out an FAQ saying that DKoK and Elysians and Red Scorpions, and all the other FW armies are meant to use the Chapter tactics, doctrines, etc etc... of their appropriate codex. But instead they have decided to tell us they will be making a book "soon". Which in fact tells us nothing. And since we are working off a permission based rule set, without having direct permission to treat Death Korps of Krieg as a <Regiment> you are not actually allowed to do so any more then you would be allowed to treat Dark Angles or Grey Knights as a <Chapter> or Thousand Sons as a <Legion>
The fact that your <Regiment> keyword is meant to be fluffy does not make a established Keyword a <Regiment> as a rules entity.
FW/GW separation is a fact of the way GW runs it's business. You will notice on the community site that the categories are not 40k, AoS, LotR. It's 40k, AoS, LotR, FW. As though FW is a game all on it's own despite providing material for every game system.
You will notice no codex... ever to my understanding, has ever acknowledged that any FW force has ever existed.
You might remember that the Necron FW force from 7th could not make use of the formations and Decurion from Codex Necrons. Because despite being necrons FW forces are their own forces and function off their own rules separate from the codex rules.
The only people who have ever referenced across the gap is FW itself. And the only likely source we will get will be FW. FW could have put out an FAQ saying that DKoK and Elysians and Red Scorpions, and all the other FW armies are meant to use the Chapter tactics, doctrines, etc etc... of their appropriate codex. But instead they have decided to tell us they will be making a book "soon". Which in fact tells us nothing. And since we are working off a permission based rule set, without having direct permission to treat Death Korps of Krieg as a <Regiment> you are not actually allowed to do so any more then you would be allowed to treat Dark Angles as a <Chapter> or Thousand Sons as a <Legion>
This is of course purely a RAI argument until the very end, where it's completely wrong. I've noticed that people do this kind of thing a lot in YMDC threads, where they don't actually have any rules support for their position so they try to instead argue by analogy to some other situation that people know doesn't work the same way, but then they seem to forget to actually check the rules for that other situation. If they did they would notice that the situations aren't analogous.
So, yes, it's a permission-based rules set, but I think you've misunderstood what this means. What permission do I have to replace <REGIMENT>? I don't see that the rules are anywhere explicit about this and we probably should be guided by the FAQ. The army list mentions replacing <REGIMENT> with the name of your regiment on datasheets. The section we're interested in doesn't mention replacing <REGIMENT> at all, but does give an example that clearly assumes that a detachment of "Ventrillian Nobles" would qualify as all being from the same <REGIMENT>. There's nothing about DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG not being a <REGIMENT>, just the DKoK army list telling you that some units aren't allowed to replace <REGIMENT> with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG (which does not appear to be different in kind from the codex army list's prohibition on giving MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to many units). So I think there's clearly implicit permission here to treat the identifying keyword of any regiment as <REGIMENT>, and nowhere does it say that that can't be DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. No additional permission would appear to be needed: you don't get to stop your opponent from shooting by asking where it says he can shoot on a Monday, specifically. I guess my question to you is: if I don't have permission to treat DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG as <REGIMENT> for purposes of determining eligibility for tactics, what gives me permission to treat MORDIAN as <REGIMENT> for same? What about VENTRILLIAN NOBLES, which the rules clearly intend to allow?
You then mention that you can't use the Chapter Tactics rules for Dark Angels or the Legion Traits rules for Thousand Sons. While correct, this is obviously not relevant, or if anything shows why DKoKdo get doctrines. p194 of the SM codex says that Chapters which "deviate significantly in terms of organization and fighting styles" from the codex don't get to use these rules. It provides a non-exhaustive list, explicitly naming the Blood Angels and Space Wolves. This is clearly requiring a fluff judgment: do Dark Angels deviate sufficiently to qualify? Most people think yes. The Chaos codex is simply explicit that "...the Death Guard and Thousand Sons Legions deviate significantly... and therefore cannot make use of any of the rules or abilities listed in this section..." This appears to be what the writers do when there's something which is clearly a <CHAPTER> or <LEGION> but which they don't want to give these rules to. Of course, there's nothing like this for DKoK or Elysians, or indeed for any possible regiment no matter how much it deviates from the norm. All regiments get doctrines.
This is of course purely a RAI argument until the very end, where it's completely wrong. I've noticed that people do this kind of thing a lot in YMDC threads, where they don't actually have any rules support for their position so they try to instead argue by analogy to some other situation that people know doesn't work the same way, but then they seem to forget to actually check the rules for that other situation. If they did they would notice that the situations aren't analogous.
So, yes, it's a permission-based rules set, but I think you've misunderstood what this means. What permission do I have to replace <REGIMENT>? I don't see that the rules are anywhere explicit about this and we probably should be guided by the FAQ.
This is of course, purely a RAI argument until the very end, where it's completely wrong. You are using a FAQ "as a guide" for where permission is lacking. That is you looking for intent instead of looking for RAW. The RAW for what regiments exist is in the list of which regiments are acknowledged by the codex itself.
The army list mentions replacing <REGIMENT> with the name of your regiment on datasheets. The section we're interested in doesn't mention replacing <REGIMENT> at all, but does give an example that clearly assumes that a detachment of "Ventrillian Nobles" would qualify as all being from the same <REGIMENT>. There's nothing about DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG not being a <REGIMENT>, just the DKoK army list telling you that some units aren't allowed to replace <REGIMENT> with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG (which does not appear to be different in kind from the codex army list's prohibition on giving MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to many units). So I think there's clearly implicit permission here to treat the identifying keyword of any regiment as <REGIMENT>, and nowhere does it say that that can't be DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
Again, RAI arguments. Also, I think it's fair to restate that there is no reason why, in a permission based rule set, that the rule granting permission would mention that you cannot use this rule in conjunction with those guys from that book we refuse to acknowledge exists.
No additional permission would appear to be needed: you don't get to stop your opponent from shooting by asking where it says he can shoot on a Monday, specifically. I guess my question to you is: if I don't have permission to treat DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG as <REGIMENT> for purposes of determining eligibility for tactics, what gives me permission to treat MORDIAN as <REGIMENT> for same? What about VENTRILLIAN NOBLES, which the rules clearly intend to allow?
The rules in the codex do. They actually have a list of the regiments they acknowledge and the rules associated with them.
You then mention that you can't use the Chapter Tactics rules for Dark Angels or the Legion Traits rules for Thousand Sons. While correct, this is obviously not relevant, or if anything shows why DKoKdo get doctrines. p194 of the SM codex says that Chapters which "deviate significantly in terms of organization and fighting styles" from the codex don't get to use these rules.
Except DA Don't deviate significantly. DA actually, historically, go super far out of their way to appear as codex compliant as possible so as to not draw attention to the fact that they are legion building with their successor chapters. BA likewise, are codex compliant. Red Scorpions, the codex is their crack. Never could use any of the Sm codex stuff before. Can't now either.
It provides a non-exhaustive list, explicitly naming the Blood Angels and Space Wolves. This is clearly requiring a fluff judgment: do Dark Angels deviate sufficiently to qualify? Most people think yes. The Chaos codex is simply explicit that "...the Death Guard and Thousand Sons Legions deviate significantly... and therefore cannot make use of any of the rules or abilities listed in this section..." This appears to be what the writers do when there's something which is clearly a <CHAPTER> or <LEGION> but which they don't want to give these rules to. Of course, there's nothing like this for DKoK or Elysians, or indeed for any possible regiment no matter how much it deviates from the norm. All regiments get doctrines.
Your missing the major point here. GW will mention GW codex armies in their codex books. But at no point do they, or have they ever, mentioned FW forces. Of course the IG codex does not mention DKoK. They are not a codex army. In the same way that the Necron codex does not and will not mention the Maynarhk. The SM codex doesn't mention Red Scorpions, Minotaurs etc etc...
Their absence is not permission. You don't get to assume permission because you were not specifically denied it. You were never granted permission to use the DKoK army list as a IG codex list.
I would like to note that I think this is a REALLY dumb way for GW to handle their property. This separation of GW and FW is dumb as feth. FW should just make models for GW publications instead of this insanity. DKoK and Elysians should be in the IG codex. But they are not. And that is important.
We are not talking about forces that have no rules to themselves like the vast majority of the chapters/regiments/dynasties/craftworlds/etc out there. We are talking about an army that has a very specific army list of which units it can and cannot take and which has it's own characters and special rules that separates them from everyone else. DKoK are to Cadians what Dark Angels are to Ultramarines. Again, own characters, rules, army list.
You don't have permission, and no rules you have quoted have given it to you.
Again: the rules clearly intend that I can treat VENTRILLIAN NOBLES as <REGIMENT>. They talk about having a regiment that doesn't have an associated doctrine. I assume you're okay with this. What is giving me permission to do that, or to use some other made-up regiment that they don't use as an example specifically, but not DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG?
I think you're confusing a couple different senses of RAI. It is of course very often the case that the RAW, in the most literal sense, simply don't work. There's a typo, say. It is obviously an argument about intent to say that, well, clearly they didn't really mean "ULTARMARINES". But nobody's going to argue that this is a serious problem. We just don't have to do much interpretation to figure out what's up.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are intent arguments that depend on really trying to dig into the psychology of the GW writers.
There's a lot of room in the middle here. There are a lot of things where it's obvious from the text alone that RAW isn't quite right, even if you know basically nothing about the history of the game or the fluff or GW. Like with the shooting rules, where, RAW, pistols don't appear to work within 1" of the enemy since the unit firing them can't shoot. As with typos, nobody's arguing that there's a serious problem here. The rules clearly envision units shooting with pistols within 1" of the enemy. Likewise the rules clearly envision using a regiment other than one of the ones that have particular associated doctrines. Once more, they even use a made-up regiment of Ventrillian Nobles as an example. The rules must be interpreted such that they're consistent with that.
I note that it of course still is an intent argument to say that you can treat MORDIAN as <REGIMENT> because it has a listed doctrine. This is just an example of how you're also very comfortable with this kind of argument where the intent is very clear from the text alone.
Dionysodorus wrote: Again: the rules clearly intend that I can treat VENTRILLIAN NOBLES as <REGIMENT>. They talk about having a regiment that doesn't have an associated doctrine. I assume you're okay with this. What is giving me permission to do that, or to use some other made-up regiment that they don't use as an example specifically, but not DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG?
Because VN and homebrews don't have their own rules. In the case of regiments that either a) don't exist or b) don't matter enough to get unique models/rules you are meant to pick the doctrines that most closely resemble and go. DKoK HAVE their own rules and HAVE their own list and will be getting their own book or at the very least be a part of a book that has yet to be released.
I think you're confusing a couple different senses of RAI. It is of course very often the case that the RAW, in the most literal sense, simply don't work. There's a typo, say. It is obviously an argument about intent to say that, well, clearly they didn't really mean "ULTARMARINES". But nobody's going to argue that this is a serious problem. We just don't have to do much interpretation to figure out what's up.
I am not confusing anything. You are searching for intent to justify the use of the codex rules for a army that is not from the codex. That is you looking for RAI and calling it RAW. I play nids, where RAW for 2 editions pyrovores blew up the entire game table with their volatile rule. I understand the difference between RAW and RAI. Here, on YMDC, we discuss the RAW. You can say HIWPI if you want to, but thats all it is and it's meaningless. The entire time I played nids I was a loud proponent for how ridiculous the RAW of Pyrovores was and HIWPI but that has no baring AT ALL on the actual rules.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are intent arguments that depend on really trying to dig into the psychology of the GW writers.
There's a lot of room in the middle here. There are a lot of things where it's obvious from the text alone that RAW isn't quite right, even if you know basically nothing about the history of the game or the fluff or GW. Like with the shooting rules, where, RAW, pistols don't appear to work within 1" of the enemy since the unit firing them can't shoot. As with typos, nobody's arguing that there's a serious problem here. The rules clearly envision units shooting with pistols within 1" of the enemy. Likewise the rules clearly envision using a regiment other than one of the ones that have particular associated doctrines.
Except they clearly don't. Because FW has said DKoK and Elysians will be getting their own publication down the line. Which means in the exact same way that Space wolves, Tsons, and BA have to wait for their books DKoK and Elysians have to wait for theirs.
I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.
Dionysodorus wrote: I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.
No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.
DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".
DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.
VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.
Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.
Dionysodorus wrote: I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.
No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.
DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".
DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.
VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.
Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.
Huh? This doesn't make any sense. We have an updated publication that tells us it provides rules to use with DKoK detachments. Like, do you ignore the FAQs because the codices don't tell you to refer to them?
Dionysodorus wrote: I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.
No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.
DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".
DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.
VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.
Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.
Huh? This doesn't make any sense. We have an updated publication that tells us it provides rules to use with DKoK detachments. Like, do you ignore the FAQs because the codices don't tell you to refer to them?
DATASLATES for the individual models. Yes. DKoK get to use the latest version of any of the units they have access to through their Imperial Armor Index army list. Just like everyone, they are expected to use the most recent profile. So the newest profiles get used with the newest costs.
Dionysodorus wrote: I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.
No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.
DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".
DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.
VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.
Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.
Huh? This doesn't make any sense. We have an updated publication that tells us it provides rules to use with DKoK detachments. Like, do you ignore the FAQs because the codices don't tell you to refer to them?
DATASLATES for the individual models. Yes. DKoK get to use the latest version of any of the units they have access to through their Imperial Armor Index army list. Just like everyone, they are expected to use the most recent profile. So the newest profiles get used with the newest costs.
That has nothing to do with doctrines.
What? No. The doctrines page clearly says it applies to DKoK detachments. Right at the top: it's giving rules for any detachments that contain only ASTRA MILITARUM units.
Again, the interpretive method I'm proposing here is I think pretty simple and intuitive. It's just: "if there's an up-to-date, official Warhammer 40k rule that says it applies to you, you should follow it"
Dionysodorus wrote: I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.
No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.
DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".
DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.
VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.
Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.
Huh? This doesn't make any sense. We have an updated publication that tells us it provides rules to use with DKoK detachments. Like, do you ignore the FAQs because the codices don't tell you to refer to them?
DATASLATES for the individual models. Yes. DKoK get to use the latest version of any of the units they have access to through their Imperial Armor Index army list. Just like everyone, they are expected to use the most recent profile. So the newest profiles get used with the newest costs.
That has nothing to do with doctrines.
What? No. The doctrines page clearly says it applies to DKoK detachments. Right at the top: it's giving rules for any detachments that contain only ASTRA MILITARUM units.
So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, Since Dark Angels are Astartes they get to pick a chapter tactic to use in conjunction with their other special rules and have access to relics, warlord traits, and strategems?
I like the idea that GW publications only apply to GW produced stuff. I mean, GW does not acknowledge FW in their rules, so I guess I don't have to follow the rules other than the explicitly listed rulebook and can safely ignore any Chapter Approved or other errata?
Aenarian wrote: I like the idea that GW publications only apply to GW produced stuff. I mean, GW does not acknowledge FW in their rules, so I guess I don't have to follow the rules other than the explicitly listed rulebook and can safely ignore any Chapter Approved or other errata?
Pointless straw man. Especially since Errata and chapter approved are GW publications. Way to contribute.
Aenarian wrote: I like the idea that GW publications only apply to GW produced stuff. I mean, GW does not acknowledge FW in their rules, so I guess I don't have to follow the rules other than the explicitly listed rulebook and can safely ignore any Chapter Approved or other errata?
Pointless straw man. Especially since Errata and chapter approved are GW publications. Way to contribute.
Wouldn't that be the (un)reasonable continutation from agreeing that GW publications don't apply to FW?
I mean, I'm all for that we don't get regimental doctrines and warlord traits because it requires <REGIMENT> and the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG keyword isn't listed as a regiment or a keyword that replaces <REGIMENT>*, but since everything else (more or less) only requires ASTRA MILITARUM, I don't see why those rules wouldn't apply. It seems to me that we are then ignoring rules for the sake of differing between publications, i.e. the straw man you claimed.
*I mean, nowhere is it written that e.g. Pask has replaces his <REGIMENT> with CADIAN, only that some datasheets have specified what regiment they are from but never which datasheets. You could argue that ADEPTUS MINISTORUM is a regiment or that Pask does not have one and that his CADIAN is just another keyword, not a <REGIMENT>-keyword from what I've gathered.
Aenarian wrote: I like the idea that GW publications only apply to GW produced stuff. I mean, GW does not acknowledge FW in their rules, so I guess I don't have to follow the rules other than the explicitly listed rulebook and can safely ignore any Chapter Approved or other errata?
Pointless straw man. Especially since Errata and chapter approved are GW publications. Way to contribute.
Wouldn't that be the (un)reasonable continutation from agreeing that GW publications don't apply to FW?
I mean, I'm all for that we don't get regimental doctrines and warlord traits because it requires <REGIMENT> and the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG keyword isn't listed as a regiment or a keyword that replaces <REGIMENT>*, but since everything else (more or less) only requires ASTRA MILITARUM, I don't see why those rules wouldn't apply. It seems to me that we are then ignoring rules for the sake of differing between publications, i.e. the straw man you claimed.
*I mean, nowhere is it written that e.g. Pask has replaces his <REGIMENT> with CADIAN, only that some datasheets have specified what regiment they are from but never which datasheets. You could argue that ADEPTUS MINISTORUM is a regiment or that Pask does not have one and that his CADIAN is just another keyword, not a <REGIMENT>-keyword from what I've gathered.
I would have had to have made the argument that GW publications don't apply to FW to begin with.
Which I never did. Which is what makes it a straw man.
I said GW publications don't acknowledge FW exists. Which is a very different thing.
HIWPI is that yes, DKoK and Elysians could use generic IG strategems, warlord traits, and relics. I think that is very reasonable during the unknown and probably very long wait for a IA publication or a clarification from FW on what if any of the codex rules those armies have access to. But there is also no way in hell I would allow doctrines or any of the more specific regiment related things. But again, that is just HIWPI and is meaningless in a RAW discussion.
DKoK and Elysians and any other FW army continues to be their own army, in the same way that they always have been. Red Scorpion don't fall under Codex space marines. DKoK don't fall under Codex IG. The Maynarhk Dynasty doesn't fall under Codex Necrons.
They pull from Dataslates in other GW publication (Namely the codexes) to build their army lists but that those army lists are their own army. Much in the way the Tsons are not Codex CSM and Dark Angles are not Codex Space Marine.
Until GW/FW gives us permission to treat them otherwise they are their own army and they have to wait for their own updates to get official rules.
DKoK and Elysians and any other FW army continues to be their own army, in the same way that they always have been. Red Scorpion don't fall under Codex space marines. DKoK don't fall under Codex IG. The Maynarhk Dynasty doesn't fall under Codex Necrons.
They pull from Dataslates in other GW publication (Namely the codexes) to build their army lists but that those army lists are their own army. Much in the way the Tsons are not Codex CSM and Dark Angles are not Codex Space Marine.
Until GW/FW gives us permission to treat them otherwise they are their own army and they have to wait for their own updates to get official rules.
Which means they don't get goodies like Strats, Traits, and Doctrines but they also don't get price bumps (Plasma and mortars), restrictions (no 1 command squad per officer), and get to keep playing oversights (Damage 3 Overcharge plasma guns).
Fun eh? Take a look at my Salt list in Armylists to see how you can abuse this.
So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, Since Dark Angels are Astartes they get to pick a chapter tactic to use in conjunction with their other special rules and have access to relics, warlord traits, and strategems?
This does not seem like a sincere question, since we already went back and forth on this exact issue within the last 24 hours and at this point you should probably be able to produce my response yourself. It is frustrating to be asked to repeat myself for no other reason than -- I suppose -- to drag out the argument over multiple posts instead of reaching at least a reasonable point where we can both say we understand what the other is saying but still disagree. If you'll recall, last time you made this same flawed analogy I pointed out that the SM codex, unlike the IG codex, explicitly states that certain chapters are ineligible for tactics, stratagems, etc., and gives what is clearly a non-exhaustive list of excluded chapters, with the criterion for exclusion being the extent to which the chapters depart from standard organization and fighting style. ISTM that the Dark Angels having Ravenwing and Deathwing means that they'd count. Like, I'm not that up on SM fluff but are the Dark Angels really so much more codex-compliant than the Blood Angels, who are explicitly excluded? At the very least surely you can see that it is ambiguous whether Chapter Tactics apply to Dark Angels whereas there's no similar language that would bar any IG regiment from getting a doctrine.
I'm a little curious about this. The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications, so it seems to me that any rules that are given in a codex or other select publication (White Dwarf, website releases or whatever they choose) would apply to anything the rule itself lists as a requirement. I.e. a rule that states that ASTRA MILITARUM units gain +1 BS would apply to all units with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, even if it came from Codex: Tyranids. But I can also see why it would not, because some publications are somewhat self-containing, and it might be weird to list Space Marine rules in Codex: Tau Empire.
But anyway, if I understand your RAW-thoughts correctly, my question is if you have any official support for this interpretation because I'm a bit curious where it comes from.
Aenarian wrote: The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications,
The rules also don't say I can drop kick a puppy 60 yards for +2 to my wound rolls either.
The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.
In fact, the DKoK rules are super extra permissive, they explicitly tell you to use the Index and NOTHING else. Until FW issue an errata or faq, that's all they get to use.
Aenarian wrote: The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications,
The rules also don't say I can drop kick a puppy 60 yards for +2 to my wound rolls either.
The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.
Of course, but the rules tell me that I can do this when I have that. For example, if I have an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment, I can use the stratagems. DKoK have this keyword, and I guess I can declare it an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment then. So why would I not be able to use the AM stratagems? Do the rules tell me I can use rules from other sources (i.e. White Dwarf), if it is not said in the magazine itself?
What if I mix units from the Codex and Index: FotAM? Does it become less of an AM detachment if some of my AM units come from the Codex and some from the IA index?
...
What? No. The doctrines page clearly says it applies to DKoK detachments. Right at the top: it's giving rules for any detachments that contain only ASTRA MILITARUM units.
Again, the interpretive method I'm proposing here is I think pretty simple and intuitive. It's just: "if there's an up-to-date, official Warhammer 40k rule that says it applies to you, you should follow it"
Your method is simple and intuitive, but it's wrong.
Let me show you my reasoning.
A) A DKoK army has no access to AM army list rules.
When building a DKoK army you start at the FWDKoK Army List, which tells you explicitly what rules and unit you have access to.
Anything that isn't mentioned isn't permitted. You have no permission to go fishing for rules in other books.
It can be argued that the five AM Index datasheets that the DKoK list grants access to can be replaced with the Codex datasheets, but that doesn't permit you to access anything else in the book.
Therefore, you don't get to read about boni applicable to AM detachments - if you bother to follow your army list's permissions.
Yes, that means anything the AM codex says does indeed not apply to FW army lists like Elysians or the Death Korps.
(Also, unlike Power from Pain et al, the AM Codex does not include a reference to regimental doctrines in the datasheets, so forget about that line of argument which I falsely assumed you were using.)
B) A DKoK army list detachment is not an AM detachment
The way I understand your argument is like this:
1) the AM codex says AM detachments get regimental doctrines.
2) the DKoK datasheets have, besides Imperium and DKoK, the AM faction keyword, making them AM detachments. (false)
3) therefore AM Codex rules are applicable to DKoK armies. (false).
You are conflating two things: Faction Keywords and Army Lists/Codices.
When GW says AM Detachment, they say <Codex Name> detachment, i.e. a detachment formed following the rules in this codex/army list.
With FW, it's an <Army List> detachment. Like Corsairs, Elysians, Armoured Company, Unending Host - or DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
If you build a detachment using the DKoK army list, you end up with a DEATH KORPS of KRIEG Detachment, not with an Astra Militarum Detachment, even though the AM faction keyword is there.
If you build a detachment using the GK codex, you end up with a GREY KNIGHTS Detachment, not with a Adeptus Astartes Detachment, even though the AA (hic!) faction keyword is there.
Yes, the SM Codex explains explictly that special marine chapters like SW/GK/BA/DA/etc. do not get chapter tactics. That is because GW rules do consider other GW rules, and therefore
explain that IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> should not be conflated with IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, GREY KNIGHTS.
This AM/DKoK situation is exactly the same thing, except for the fact that GW does not ever consider FW rules. That means for them DKoK, Elysians and FWAM units do not exist.
Therefore GW does not explain in the AM Codex that IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, <REGIMENT> should not be conflated with IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
They do explain how this works with Militarum Tempestus, Advisors and Auxilia units, since those are all relevant GW mini-army lists which could be conflated. See the pattern?
C) Death Korps of Krieg is (ruleswise) an allied, but completely indepentent faction from Astra Militarum
Now, assuming for arguments sake I am mostly wrong above - how do you explain the rules we do find in the IA book?
ASTRA MILITARUM ARMY LIST
This section serves as an addendum to the Astra Militarum army list found in Warhammer 40.000 - Index: Imperium 2, and features all of the additional datasheets for the Astra Militarum range of models produced by Forge World.
...
IA: Index Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 7
DEATH KORPS of KRIEG ARMY LIST
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Death Korps of Krieg - presented in the box on the left.
(List with 5 gerneric AM datasheets from the GW index and 9 generic AM datasheets from the FW index.)
...
If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list, it cannot be from the Death Korps of Krieg, and so cannot have the Death Korps of Krieg Faction keyword.
...
IA: Index Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 55
Clearly, ForgeWorld considers the Death Korps of Krieg NOT to be part of the Astra Militarum army list, but it's own, completely seperate thing.
What if I start with an AM detachment and add one unit (or more) from Krieg, which is allowed since they have shared keywords? What kind of detachment does that become? Where can I find anything that says that when GW is referring to a <Faction> detachment, it means <Codex: Faction> detachment since this is, as far as I know, only specified in the C:SM? Why are GW rules so inconsistently written? Why can't they just talk to each other?
I'm actually curious about this and not trying to debate you.
What if I start with an AM detachment and add one unit (or more) from Krieg, which is allowed since they have shared keywords? What kind of detachment does that become?
If you add a Krieg unit to a detachment built using the AM army list, it is no longer an AM detachment and loses any Boni that require this, such as Regimental Doctrines. Compare with adding a GK unit to a SM detachment.
Where can I find anything that says that when GW is referring to a <Faction> detachment, it means <Codex: Faction> detachment since this is, as far as I know, only specified in the C:SM? Why are GW rules so inconsistently written? Why can't they just talk to each other?
I'm actually curious about this and not trying to debate you.
I don't have a source that explicitly states this.
However, the implication is quite clear:
- the scheme is that you get special rules for building a detachment from a single army list instead of cherry picking from multiple sources. Therefore it is logical that the rules granting the special rules refer to the army list.
-the SM and AM codices, which explain that all other units from all other GW army lists that share the <codex name> Faction Keyword are either not eligible, break the bonus or may be included but do not get the bonus
- GW never acknowledges FW rules, therefore no such statements regarding DKoK or Elysians army lists are logical.
What if I start with an AM detachment and add one unit (or more) from Krieg, which is allowed since they have shared keywords? What kind of detachment does that become?
If you add a Krieg unit to a detachment built using the AM army list, it is no longer an AM detachment and loses any Boni that require this, such as Regimental Doctrines. Compare with adding a GK unit to a SM detachment.
Where can I find anything that says that when GW is referring to a <Faction> detachment, it means <Codex: Faction> detachment since this is, as far as I know, only specified in the C:SM? Why are GW rules so inconsistently written? Why can't they just talk to each other?
I'm actually curious about this and not trying to debate you.
I don't have a source that explicitly states this.
However, the implication is quite clear: - the scheme is that you get special rules for building a detachment from a single army list instead of cherry picking from multiple sources. Therefore it is logical that the rules granting the special rules refer to the army list. -the SM and AM codices, which explain that all other units from all other GW army lists that share the <codex name> Faction Keyword are either not eligible, break the bonus or may be included but do not get the bonus - GW never acknowledges FW rules, therefore no such statements regarding DKoK or Elysians army lists are logical.
But why, since they have all the same keywords except one? Will adding a CATACHAN unit to a CADIAN detachment remove the ASTRA MILITARUM boni?
- What if they create a ROBOUTE GUILLIUMAN BATTLE TANK vehicle and just add the datasheet to the box? Or White Dwarf? That's a different source - Do you have a page reference? And do you mean AdMech or AsMil? - Sure, I can get behind that. But not all things in the rules are logical, and I think there would be more substantial arguments than that.
Your method is simple and intuitive, but it's wrong.
Let me show you my reasoning.
A) A DKoK army has no access to AM army list rules.
When building a DKoK army you start at the FWDKoK Army List, which tells you explicitly what rules and unit you have access to.
Anything that isn't mentioned isn't permitted. You have no permission to go fishing for rules in other books.
It can be argued that the five AM Index datasheets that the DKoK list grants access to can be replaced with the Codex datasheets, but that doesn't permit you to access anything else in the book.
Therefore, you don't get to read about boni applicable to AM detachments - if you bother to follow your army list's permissions.
Yes, that means anything the AM codex says does indeed not apply to FW army lists like Elysians or the Death Korps.
(Also, unlike Power from Pain et al, the AM Codex does not include a reference to regimental doctrines in the datasheets, so forget about that line of argument which I falsely assumed you were using.)
I don't think we're talking about army lists. The standard AM army list is in an entirely separate section of the codex. This section looks like the same sort of thing as the DKoK army list -- it's a bunch of datasheets that share a faction keyword. Nothing in either army list says anything about doctrines or stratagems, etc. There is, however, an entirely different section of the AM codex that explicitly says that it is there to provide rules for AM detachments. It even defines "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment", just in case there's any confusion, and the definition clearly encompasses DKoK detachments.
I just feel like this isn't a plausible method for reading the rules. Like, obviously if GW releases Chapter Approved and there's a section that says "this section will provide updated rules for Death Korps of Krieg", then those rules apply. Right? It's not "fishing for rules in other books" when GW releases a new book with a rule that says it applies to my army.
B) A DKoK army list detachment is not an AM detachment
The way I understand your argument is like this:
1) the AM codex says AM detachments get regimental doctrines.
2) the DKoK datasheets have, besides Imperium and DKoK, the AM faction keyword, making them AM detachments. (false)
3) therefore AM Codex rules are applicable to DKoK armies. (false).
You are conflating two things: Faction Keywords and Army Lists/Codices.
When GW says AM Detachment, they say <Codex Name> detachment, i.e. a detachment formed following the rules in this codex/army list.
With FW, it's an <Army List> detachment. Like Corsairs, Elysians, Armoured Company, Unending Host - or DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
If you build a detachment using the DKoK army list, you end up with a DEATH KORPS of KRIEG Detachment, not with an Astra Militarum Detachment, even though the AM faction keyword is there.
If you build a detachment using the GK codex, you end up with a GREY KNIGHTS Detachment, not with a Adeptus Astartes Detachment, even though the AA (hic!) faction keyword is there.
Yes, the SM Codex explains explictly that special marine chapters like SW/GK/BA/DA/etc. do not get chapter tactics. That is because GW rules do consider other GW rules, and therefore
explain that IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> should not be conflated with IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, GREY KNIGHTS.
I don't understand what's motivating this. Again, the AM codex explicitly defines what it means by "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment". An ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment is "any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units". Literally everywhere else in the rules we read this sort of language as pointing to the keywords that units have. DKoK units have the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword -- they are ASTRA MILITARUM units, and therefore a DKoK Detachment is an AM Detachment. The rules themselves are very clear in rejecting your interpretation of "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment" as a Detachment produced using only the AM army list.
What's the point of deciding whether a GK Detachment is an ADEPTUS ASTARTES Detachment? What rules difference does this make? What matters is that a GK Detachment is not a "Space Marines Detachment", as defined in the section of the SM codex that hands out Chapter Tactics.
This AM/DKoK situation is exactly the same thing, except for the fact that GW does not ever consider FW rules. That means for them DKoK, Elysians and FWAM units do not exist.
Therefore GW does not explain in the AM Codex that IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, <REGIMENT> should not be conflated with IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
They do explain how this works with Militarum Tempestus, Advisors and Auxilia units, since those are all relevant GW mini-army lists which could be conflated. See the pattern?
C) Death Korps of Krieg is (ruleswise) an allied, but completely indepentent faction from Astra Militarum
Now, assuming for arguments sake I am mostly wrong above - how do you explain the rules we do find in the IA book?
ASTRA MILITARUM ARMY LIST
This section serves as an addendum to the Astra Militarum army list found in Warhammer 40.000 - Index: Imperium 2, and features all of the additional datasheets for the Astra Militarum range of models produced by Forge World.
...
IA: Index Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 7
DEATH KORPS of KRIEG ARMY LIST
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Death Korps of Krieg - presented in the box on the left.
(List with 5 gerneric AM datasheets from the GW index and 9 generic AM datasheets from the FW index.)
...
If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list, it cannot be from the Death Korps of Krieg, and so cannot have the Death Korps of Krieg Faction keyword.
...
IA: Index Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 55
Clearly, ForgeWorld considers the Death Korps of Krieg NOT to be part of the Astra Militarum army list, but it's own, completely seperate thing.
I don't see what it is I have to explain. Surely this suggests that I'm right -- the "army list" is the datasheets. GW additionally released rules separate from the AM army list that apply to all detachments made up entirely of ASTRA MILITARUM units.
But why, since they have all the same keywords except one? Will adding a CATACHAN unit to a CADIAN detachment remove the ASTRA MILITARUM boni?
"...all <Regiment> units in an Astra Militarum Detachment ... gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."
Codex AM, p. 132.
Aenarian wrote: - What if they create a ROBOUTE GUILLIUMAN BATTLE TANK vehicle and just add the datasheet to the box? Or White Dwarf? That's a different source
- Do you have a page reference? And do you mean AdMech or AsMil?
- Sure, I can get behind that. But not all things in the rules are logical, and I think there would be more substantial arguments than that.
Thank you for the help
If there is something for an army list in a White Dwarf, it will state clearly that it is an addendum to that army list. Just like FW adds the datasheets for their AM models to the AM army list and explicitly says so.
But why, since they have all the same keywords except one? Will adding a CATACHAN unit to a CADIAN detachment remove the ASTRA MILITARUM boni?
"...all <Regiment> units in an Astra Militarum Detachment ... gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment." Codex AM, p. 132.
Sure, but that only goes for the Regimental Doctrine, does it not? Nothing about it removing the ability to take stratagems, relics or anything else? As a (fairly reasonable imho) DKoK player, I agree that we have presudo-doctrines and shouldn't get additional ones (although we should have ours changed). But I would like to be able to play with relics, stratagems and warlord traits other than the generic ones.
And I hope you're right about the WD argument, because I have no reason to believe that a) GW will just release something with clear rules and b) that it will spark another debate.
DKoK and Elysians and any other FW army continues to be their own army, in the same way that they always have been. Red Scorpion don't fall under Codex space marines. DKoK don't fall under Codex IG. The Maynarhk Dynasty doesn't fall under Codex Necrons.
They pull from Dataslates in other GW publication (Namely the codexes) to build their army lists but that those army lists are their own army. Much in the way the Tsons are not Codex CSM and Dark Angles are not Codex Space Marine.
Until GW/FW gives us permission to treat them otherwise they are their own army and they have to wait for their own updates to get official rules.
Which means they don't get goodies like Strats, Traits, and Doctrines but they also don't get price bumps (Plasma and mortars), restrictions (no 1 command squad per officer), and get to keep playing oversights (Damage 3 Overcharge plasma guns).
Fun eh? Take a look at my Salt list in Armylists to see how you can abuse this.
It's not about what they can or cannot abuse. It's what it is.
I'm a little curious about this. The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications, so it seems to me that any rules that are given in a codex or other select publication (White Dwarf, website releases or whatever they choose) would apply to anything the rule itself lists as a requirement. I.e. a rule that states that ASTRA MILITARUM units gain +1 BS would apply to all units with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, even if it came from Codex: Tyranids. But I can also see why it would not, because some publications are somewhat self-containing, and it might be weird to list Space Marine rules in Codex: Tau Empire.
But anyway, if I understand your RAW-thoughts correctly, my question is if you have any official support for this interpretation because I'm a bit curious where it comes from.
As said, permission based rules don't need to tell you everything you cannot do. They just tell you what you can do. Nothing tells you to treat FW armies as codex armies. So they arn't.
Aenarian wrote: The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications,
The rules also don't say I can drop kick a puppy 60 yards for +2 to my wound rolls either.
The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.
Of course, but the rules tell me that I can do this when I have that. For example, if I have an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment, I can use the stratagems. DKoK have this keyword, and I guess I can declare it an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment then. So why would I not be able to use the AM stratagems? Do the rules tell me I can use rules from other sources (i.e. White Dwarf), if it is not said in the magazine itself?
What if I mix units from the Codex and Index: FotAM? Does it become less of an AM detachment if some of my AM units come from the Codex and some from the IA index?
I disagree with BCB on this. Use the most recent dataslate for the unit.
Consider that DkoK do not get to use the units available to Codex IG. They get to use SOME of the same unit's in the same way that Deathguard can use deamon princes, nurglings, etc... while other chaos factions can also use them. But DKoK has a very specific list of all the dataslates that make up their army list. If a new model comes out for astra militarium DKoK do not get to use it unless they specifically say they can. You cannot build a 2k army out of all the dataslates in the codex and then replace <Regiment> with DKoK and have it work. Because DKoK cannot use all those dataslates. Because again, they are not a <Regiment>.
Your method is simple and intuitive, but it's wrong.
Let me show you my reasoning.
A) A DKoK army has no access to AM army list rules.
When building a DKoK army you start at the FWDKoK Army List, which tells you explicitly what rules and unit you have access to.
Anything that isn't mentioned isn't permitted. You have no permission to go fishing for rules in other books.
It can be argued that the five AM Index datasheets that the DKoK list grants access to can be replaced with the Codex datasheets, but that doesn't permit you to access anything else in the book.
Therefore, you don't get to read about boni applicable to AM detachments - if you bother to follow your army list's permissions.
Yes, that means anything the AM codex says does indeed not apply to FW army lists like Elysians or the Death Korps.
(Also, unlike Power from Pain et al, the AM Codex does not include a reference to regimental doctrines in the datasheets, so forget about that line of argument which I falsely assumed you were using.)
I don't think we're talking about army lists. The standard AM army list is in an entirely separate section of the codex. This section looks like the same sort of thing as the DKoK army list -- it's a bunch of datasheets that share a faction keyword. Nothing in either army list says anything about doctrines or stratagems, etc. There is, however, an entirely different section of the AM codex that explicitly says that it is there to provide rules for AM detachments. It even defines "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment", just in case there's any confusion, and the definition clearly encompasses DKoK detachments.
No, you are misunderstanding army list. Rules wise FW army list and GW codex (minus fluff) are equivalent.
If you look at the IA Index referring to the AM army list in the GW Index Imperium 2, you see that FW calls that army list.
If you look at the Index Imperium 2 p.10, you see that GW even calls it Astra Miilitarum Army List and under that heading you find <Regiment>, Orders and Wargear lists, followed by the datasheets.
It is immaterial that the Codex fills more pages with more headlines and recycled graphics, it is still the AM army list = the AM codex.
The AM Codex defines an AM detachment as "any Detachment that includes only Astra Militarum units".
You assume that what is meant is "any units with the Faction Keyword Astra Miilitarum". I assume that what is meant is "only units from this codex".
If your reading was right, why would they have to add the exceptions for units from other army lists that share the Faction Keywords?
Those are clarifications to avoid conflation, or in the AM codex case actually additional permissions for some units.
I just feel like this isn't a plausible method for reading the rules. Like, obviously if GW releases Chapter Approved and there's a section that says "this section will provide updated rules for Death Korps of Krieg", then those rules apply. Right? It's not "fishing for rules in other books" when GW releases a new book with a rule that says it applies to my army.
Obviously, if GW releases a rule that states something new explicitly or overrides other rules, then that goes.
The AM codex only replaces the Index Imperium 2 Astra Militarum army list. It does not in any way mention or claim that it updates the Death Korps of Krieg army list.
Your claim that DKoK gets to double dip, unlike any other army list is implausible and inconsistent with any other current GW rules.
B) A DKoK army list detachment is not an AM detachment
The way I understand your argument is like this:
1) the AM codex says AM detachments get regimental doctrines.
2) the DKoK datasheets have, besides Imperium and DKoK, the AM faction keyword, making them AM detachments. (false)
3) therefore AM Codex rules are applicable to DKoK armies. (false).
You are conflating two things: Faction Keywords and Army Lists/Codices.
When GW says AM Detachment, they say <Codex Name> detachment, i.e. a detachment formed following the rules in this codex/army list.
With FW, it's an <Army List> detachment. Like Corsairs, Elysians, Armoured Company, Unending Host - or DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
If you build a detachment using the DKoK army list, you end up with a DEATH KORPS of KRIEG Detachment, not with an Astra Militarum Detachment, even though the AM faction keyword is there.
If you build a detachment using the GK codex, you end up with a GREY KNIGHTS Detachment, not with a Adeptus Astartes Detachment, even though the AA (hic!) faction keyword is there.
Yes, the SM Codex explains explictly that special marine chapters like SW/GK/BA/DA/etc. do not get chapter tactics. That is because GW rules do consider other GW rules, and therefore
explain that IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> should not be conflated with IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, GREY KNIGHTS.
I don't understand what's motivating this. Again, the AM codex explicitly defines what it means by "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment". An ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment is "any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units". Literally everywhere else in the rules we read this sort of language as pointing to the keywords that units have. DKoK units have the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword -- they are ASTRA MILITARUM units, and therefore a DKoK Detachment is an AM Detachment. The rules themselves are very clear in rejecting your interpretation of "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment" as a Detachment produced using only the AM army list.
What's the point of deciding whether a GK Detachment is an ADEPTUS ASTARTES Detachment? What rules difference does this make? What matters is that a GK Detachment is not a "Space Marines Detachment", as defined in the section of the SM codex that hands out Chapter Tactics.
See above, you are misunderstanding the definitiion of Astra Militarum Detachment and insisting that it's not consistent with any other similar case between army lists.
This AM/DKoK situation is exactly the same thing, except for the fact that GW does not ever consider FW rules. That means for them DKoK, Elysians and FWAM units do not exist.
Therefore GW does not explain in the AM Codex that IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, <REGIMENT> should not be conflated with IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
They do explain how this works with Militarum Tempestus, Advisors and Auxilia units, since those are all relevant GW mini-army lists which could be conflated. See the pattern?
C) Death Korps of Krieg is (ruleswise) an allied, but completely indepentent faction from Astra Militarum
Now, assuming for arguments sake I am mostly wrong above - how do you explain the rules we do find in the IA book?
ASTRA MILITARUM ARMY LIST
This section serves as an addendum to the Astra Militarum army list found in Warhammer 40.000 - Index: Imperium 2, and features all of the additional datasheets for the Astra Militarum range of models produced by Forge World.
...
IA: Index Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 7
DEATH KORPS of KRIEG ARMY LIST
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Death Korps of Krieg - presented in the box on the left.
(List with 5 gerneric AM datasheets from the GW index and 9 generic AM datasheets from the FW index.)
...
If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list, it cannot be from the Death Korps of Krieg, and so cannot have the Death Korps of Krieg Faction keyword.
...
IA: Index Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 55
Clearly, ForgeWorld considers the Death Korps of Krieg NOT to be part of the Astra Militarum army list, but it's own, completely seperate thing.
I don't see what it is I have to explain. Surely this suggests that I'm right -- the "army list" is the datasheets. GW additionally released rules separate from the AM army list that apply to all detachments made up entirely of ASTRA MILITARUM units.
As explained above, the army list isn't just datasheets, but the entire set of rules for fielding such an army. So you are simply wrong there.
GW only talks about GW rules. Them not mentioning DKoK is as shocking as only American Baseball teams winning the World Series.
So if one thing is certain, is that they were not thinking of DKoK when writing their rules.
What is the RAI acccording to you
"Let's not mention that DKoK - unlike all other cases with GW army lists sharing the codex name faction keyword - doesn't get doctrines. Get popcorn, they will argue for our entertainment! MUAHAHA!"? If they meant to treat DKoK better than any other army list, why wouldn't they have explicitly said so?
No, the logical explanation is that GW does not mention FW army lists or rules.
The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.
Edit2: Just to make things clear, if anything is fully capitalised, ex. DKOK or ASTRA MILITARUM, it refers to the keywords while DKoK or Astra Militarum would refer to the army, and AM is always Astra Militarum.
Certainly, but the rules in this case are a bit unclear depending on how you look at different publications applying to each other.
Codex: Astra Militarum tells us a few things, namely that an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment is composed solely of ASTRA MILITARUM units, but does not really define the latter (at least from what I have seen). Now, I presume that an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is then one with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, but I could be wrong (e.g, it could refer to those within the Codex only, or from GW publications, or whatever). But, if my interpretation is correct, we could argue like this:
1) If a detachment consists solely of units from the AM codex with this keyword, or includes the explicit exceptions given in the codex (priests etc.) it is an AM detachment. a) If a detachment includes 9 units from C:AM and 1 from any other codex, it is not an AM detachment.
2) If we include one or more units from the Death Korps list in this original detachment, everything still has the AM keyword. a) Following my interpretation, this is then still an AM detachment.
3) Because we have an AM detachment, we can use the stratagems.
4) Because we have the required keyword on most of our units (e.g. the Jury Rigging stratagem requires an AM VEHICLE), we can use them on our Krieg units that fulfill these requirements.
This, of course, falls apart if we do not consider DKoKAM units, but this is also the root of my question. Nothing actually specifies this, and the codex just gives us rules with very little requirements that my DKoK force would fulfill if we follow my reasoning. So, is there actually anything that gives a clear answer, because right now, point 2) seems to be the point of contention here and I haven't found a strictly defined answer. I understand the point about it being different books and GW ignoring FW rules, but that argument is not really logically sound in my opinion. We have some apocalypse rules for FW units. And I see the case where the Codex would not refer to anything outside of it, but nowhere is this stated and if we just look at the rulebook, codices and other publications as a library of rules, I should be able to apply it from any book if I can apply it from one, provided I fulfill any requirements and follow any restrictions.
I noticed that the relics just requires a) an AM warlord and then any AM CHARACTER can take one, does the DKoK Marshal fulfill this requirement as he is techincally an AM CHARACTER? If not, why? If I had a mixed detachment, I could have 1 AM CHARACTER as warlord and he could take the relic.
And then, one more thing. The Warlord Traits requires either a <REGIMENT>, MILITARUM TEMPESTUS or OFFICIO PREFECTUS CHARACTER. The DKOK keyword is about as defined as a <REGIMENT> as the other ones, could my DKOK officer take a Warlord trait? If not, is it because DKOK is not literally a <REGIMENT> or is it because of different publications? Can my DKOK Commisar with the OP CHARACTER keyword take one instead?
Thank you for all your help everyone, and the continued discussion.
Edit: I saw your point about the DKoK and usage of dataslates. Thing is, I don't need everything to have DKOK. I could have some DKoK units, because their "doctrine" is not dependent on it being a pure detachment, and if I wanted say Veterans, Pask or whatever in my Brigade, those specific C:AM units would not be able to take the DKoK keyword but I could still include them in the brigade as they share the AM or IMPERIUM keywords. I'm not asking whether or not I can actually take a DKOK Taurox, the list on pg. 55 is perfectly clear (and we could argue whether or not I am allowed to choose from the codex instead of the Index, but this is not what I am interested in, as I only use the Hydra unit from the Codex). Edit123626: And just to be perfectly clear in my intentions, I don't want double doctrines. I want to be able to use stratagems, relics and warlord traits with my heavily gimped variant of the Imperial Guard, because Forge World is terrible at updating rules. Releasing errata next week fixing these issues would take very little time and solve a lot of problems, but it will probably happen somewhere along the release of 10th ed.
This, of course, falls apart if we do not consider DKoKAM units, but this is also the root of my question. Nothing actually specifies this, and the codex just gives us rules with very little requirements that my DKoK force would fulfill if we follow my reasoning.
This is the issue right here. 1) It requires you to be correct on what you call a unclear statement and 2) nothing actually specifies that DKoK are AM units.
Nothing actually says DKoK are a <Regiment>.
Unfortunately, bring a permission based rule set, you very much need that one thing to go anywhere. And you don't have it.
This is the issue right here. 1) It requires you to be correct on what you call a unclear statement and 2) nothing actually specifies that DKoK are AM units.
Nothing actually says DKoK are a <Regiment>.
Unfortunately, bring a permission based rule set, you very much need that one thing to go anywhere. And you don't have it.
But then, does anything specify what an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is? I haven't found anything, and of course everyone knows that it is intended for it to be at least units from the codex itself, but if there is no such mention, does that mean that RAW units in the codex cannot benefit from the rules that refer to AM units? Codex: Space Marines actually tells you what a Space Marine unit is on pg. 194, but not what a SPACE MARINE unit is. I would like something like this.
No, you are misunderstanding army list. Rules wise FW army list and GW codex (minus fluff) are equivalent.
If you look at the IA Index referring to the AM army list in the GW Index Imperium 2, you see that FW calls that army list.
If you look at the Index Imperium 2 p.10, you see that GW even calls it Astra Miilitarum Army List and under that heading you find <Regiment>, Orders and Wargear lists, followed by the datasheets.
It is immaterial that the Codex fills more pages with more headlines and recycled graphics, it is still the AM army list = the AM codex.
The AM Codex defines an AM detachment as "any Detachment that includes only Astra Militarum units".
You assume that what is meant is "any units with the Faction Keyword Astra Miilitarum". I assume that what is meant is "only units from this codex".
I think you're switching between two completely different things here. You're not really providing any reason to think that the army list is more than the datasheets and some information useful for interpreting them. I've been fine with that throughout this thread. What you want to show but haven't is that the completely separate section of the AM codex that discusses doctrines is part of an "army list".
But yes, if you interpret "ASTRA MILITARUM unit" in a completely different way than is obviously meant by the rules in literally every other context where they refer to <keyword> units, then you can deny stratagems to DKoK detachments. I simply don't see where you have any reason at all to do this, though.
If your reading was right, why would they have to add the exceptions for units from other army lists that share the Faction Keywords?
Those are clarifications to avoid conflation, or in the AM codex case actually additional permissions for some units.
I can't make heads or tails of this. What other army lists are you talking about? And this seems backwards -- it's the exception that proves the rule, in its old-fashioned sense. The existence of exceptions suggests that those exceptions are necessary in order for the text to have the intended meaning.
Later in your post you talk about my take on RAI but I don't see that we disagree on this re: doctrines, though I fully expect FW to at some point explicitly state that DKoK can use generic AM stratagems.
This is the issue right here. 1) It requires you to be correct on what you call a unclear statement and 2) nothing actually specifies that DKoK are AM units.
Nothing actually says DKoK are a <Regiment>.
Unfortunately, bring a permission based rule set, you very much need that one thing to go anywhere. And you don't have it.
But then, does anything specify what an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is? I haven't found anything, and of course everyone knows that it is intended for it to be at least units from the codex itself, but if there is no such mention, does that mean that RAW units in the codex cannot benefit from the rules that refer to AM units? Codex: Space Marines actually tells you what a Space Marine unit is on pg. 194, but not what a SPACE MARINE unit is. I would like something like this.
You are assigning value to the keywords they do not have. Faction keywords are only there to help define what can and cannot go into a detachment. They have no rules baring outside of that in terms of what does and does not compose a specific army list.
Something is a ASTRA MILITARUM unit because it has that faction keyword which only means it can be included in a Astra Militarum Detachment. Similarly, Deathwing Knights and Sanguinary Guard can join a Ultramarines Predator in a Adeptus Astartes detachment because they all have the ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction keyword.
That is it. That is the extent of the meaning and value of Faction Keywords.
It doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.
Dark Angles are their own army list. As are Grey Knights. Sharing ADEPTUS ASTARTES does not allow them to pull from codex SM rules.
Lance845 wrote: You are assigning value to the keywords they do not have. Keywords, and specifically faction keywords, are only there to help define what can and cannot go into a detachment. They have no rules baring outside of that.
Something is a ASTRA MILITARUM unit because it has that faction keyword which only means it can be included in a Astra Militarum Detachment. Similarly, Deathwing Knights and Sanguinary Guard can join a Ultramarines Predator in a Adeptus Astartes detachment because they all have the ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction keyword.
That is it. That is the extent of the meaning and value of Faction Keywords.
It doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.
Alright, then follow my train of thought and please point out the mistakes for each one
1) By your above definition then, a Death Korps Marshal is an ASTRA MILITARUM unit because he has the relevant ASTRA MILITARUM keyword and is a unit. 2) If he and his friends, which are all AM units form a detachment, they would be an AM detachment as everyone has the AM keyword and I declared it as such. Maybe I had one unit that could not take the DKOK keyword but had the AM one, so I couldn't declare DKOK. 3) The Codex states that AM detachments can use stratagems and whatnot from the codex, exactly what they gain is less important here. Our detachment from 2) is an AM detachment.
If the first point is correct, we can continue. If not, a lot of stuff breaks as we don't actually know what an AM unit is unless we guess that it refers to units specifically within the codex that have the relevant keywords If the second is correct, we can continue. If not, is there an argument as to why I can only do this with units from C:AM?
And finally, the third one. This one falls apart if we cannot apply the codex rules to our list from sources outside the codex. But if we just say that publications don't always apply to each other within the game, wouldn't there just be a lot of other pitfalls? If I fulfill requirements for rules from the codex but I cannot use them because I'm not allowed to actually use the book, what says that I'm allowed follow rules from a possible Cities of Death expansion book or other future publications, as I might not have explicit permission?
Am I correct in that your objection lies with point 3, as explained above?
The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.
Edit2: Just to make things clear, if anything is fully capitalised, ex. DKOK or ASTRA MILITARUM, it refers to the keywords while DKoK or Astra Militarum would refer to the army, and AM is always Astra Militarum.
Certainly, but the rules in this case are a bit unclear depending on how you look at different publications applying to each other.
Codex: Astra Militarum tells us a few things, namely that an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment is composed solely of ASTRA MILITARUM units, but does not really define the latter (at least from what I have seen). Now, I presume that an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is then one with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, but I could be wrong (e.g, it could refer to those within the Codex only, or from GW publications, or whatever). But, if my interpretation is correct, we could argue like this:
1) If a detachment consists solely of units from the AM codex with this keyword, or includes the explicit exceptions given in the codex (priests etc.) it is an AM detachment.
a) If a detachment includes 9 units from C:AM and 1 from any other codex, it is not an AM detachment.
2) If we include one or more units from the Death Korps list in this original detachment, everything still has the AM keyword.
a) Following my interpretation, this is then still an AM detachment.
3) Because we have an AM detachment, we can use the stratagems.
4) Because we have the required keyword on most of our units (e.g. the Jury Rigging stratagem requires an AM VEHICLE), we can use them on our Krieg units that fulfill these requirements.
This, of course, falls apart if we do not consider DKoKAM units, but this is also the root of my question. Nothing actually specifies this, and the codex just gives us rules with very little requirements that my DKoK force would fulfill if we follow my reasoning. So, is there actually anything that gives a clear answer, because right now, point 2) seems to be the point of contention here and I haven't found a strictly defined answer. I understand the point about it being different books and GW ignoring FW rules, but that argument is not really logically sound in my opinion. We have some apocalypse rules for FW units. And I see the case where the Codex would not refer to anything outside of it, but nowhere is this stated and if we just look at the rulebook, codices and other publications as a library of rules, I should be able to apply it from any book if I can apply it from one, provided I fulfill any requirements and follow any restrictions.
I noticed that the relics just requires a) an AM warlord and then any AM CHARACTER can take one, does the DKoK Marshal fulfill this requirement as he is techincally an AM CHARACTER? If not, why? If I had a mixed detachment, I could have 1 AM CHARACTER as warlord and he could take the relic.
And then, one more thing. The Warlord Traits requires either a <REGIMENT>, MILITARUM TEMPESTUS or OFFICIO PREFECTUS CHARACTER. The DKOK keyword is about as defined as a <REGIMENT> as the other ones, could my DKOK officer take a Warlord trait? If not, is it because DKOK is not literally a <REGIMENT> or is it because of different publications? Can my DKOK Commisar with the OP CHARACTER keyword take one instead?
Thank you for all your help everyone, and the continued discussion.
Edit: I saw your point about the DKoK and usage of dataslates. Thing is, I don't need everything to have DKOK. I could have some DKoK units, because their "doctrine" is not dependent on it being a pure detachment, and if I wanted say Veterans, Pask or whatever in my Brigade, those specific C:AM units would not be able to take the DKoK keyword but I could still include them in the brigade as they share the AM or IMPERIUM keywords. I'm not asking whether or not I can actually take a DKOK Taurox, the list on pg. 55 is perfectly clear (and we could argue whether or not I am allowed to choose from the codex instead of the Index, but this is not what I am interested in, as I only use the Hydra unit from the Codex).
Edit123626: And just to be perfectly clear in my intentions, I don't want double doctrines. I want to be able to use stratagems, relics and warlord traits with my heavily gimped variant of the Imperial Guard, because Forge World is terrible at updating rules. Releasing errata next week fixing these issues would take very little time and solve a lot of problems, but it will probably happen somewhere along the release of 10th ed.
Sorry for not quoting cleanly, but there is a logic error in your detachment building above. You do not have any permission to add a DKoK unit to a battleforged AM list. As stated on page 84 of the AM Codex: "...the codex contains all of the datasheets that you will need to fight battles with your Astra Militarum miniatures,..."
Certainly a White Dwarf or in fact the IA Indexes AM addendum can add units to your selection, but without such a permission "all AM datasheets" is defined as AM Codex content only.
Sorry for not quoting cleanly, but there is a logic error in your detachment building above. You do not have any permission to add a DKoK unit to a battleforged AM list. As stated on page 84 of the AM Codex: "...the codex contains all of the datasheets that you will need to fight battles with your Astra Militarum miniatures,..."
Certainly a White Dwarf or in fact the IA Indexes AM addendum can add units to your selection, but without such a permission "all AM datasheets" is defined as AM Codex content only.
But a battle-forged army list just requires that they must have keywords in common, which they have (both IMPERIUM and AM), pg. 214 of the rulebook. This also states that you must fulfill the requirements of pg. 240. This says that I must organise all units into detachments, and how I go about doing that (battlefield role and faction limitations), and then it refers to the detachment rules. All of the listed ones require my units to be of the same factions, and my DKoK units have at least three factions they belong to: IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM and DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
As such, I could just say that they are all IMPERIUM and use them together with Dark Angels in a detachment, or say that they are all ASTRA MILITARUM and use them together with Astopaths or other units from the codex, or just say that they are all DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG and use only the provided list, no? It even gives an example with a Space Marine Captain, which states that it could be a part of either a Detachment where everyone is the IMPERIUM, or one where everyone is from ADEPTUS ASTARTES.
Anyway, I'm off to bed and will probably continue tomorrow. Have a good day or night, wherever all of you are from!
Edit: also the wording on pg 84 is just states that these are all I need, but not all that I am allowed, so I'm not sure how much I would trust it.
Aenarian wrote: The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications,
The rules also don't say I can drop kick a puppy 60 yards for +2 to my wound rolls either.
The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.
In fact, the DKoK rules are super extra permissive, they explicitly tell you to use the Index and NOTHING else. Until FW issue an errata or faq, that's all they get to use.
Are you still banging this drum?
They do the same thing any Index does: point to Datasheets. And what do we know happens to Datasheets after a Codex is launched? They get overwritten (GW's word) by the Codex ones. You're still ignoring GW's own directions.
You may think you're being clever but you're just being incorrect. The Astra Militarum Datasheets that DKoK et al can select from were in Index Imperium 2, but once updated it's assumed you're using the Codex versions. This is what GW have told us, and I'm STILL waiting for any cogent argument to support your POV. Been about two days and two threads so I'm assuming you don't have anything you can back up with rules.
The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.
Edit2: Just to make things clear, if anything is fully capitalised, ex. DKOK or ASTRA MILITARUM, it refers to the keywords while DKoK or Astra Militarum would refer to the army, and AM is always Astra Militarum.
Certainly, but the rules in this case are a bit unclear depending on how you look at different publications applying to each other.
Codex: Astra Militarum tells us a few things, namely that an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment is composed solely of ASTRA MILITARUM units, but does not really define the latter (at least from what I have seen). Now, I presume that an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is then one with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, but I could be wrong (e.g, it could refer to those within the Codex only, or from GW publications, or whatever). But, if my interpretation is correct, we could argue like this:
1) If a detachment consists solely of units from the AM codex with this keyword, or includes the explicit exceptions given in the codex (priests etc.) it is an AM detachment.
a) If a detachment includes 9 units from C:AM and 1 from any other codex, it is not an AM detachment.
2) If we include one or more units from the Death Korps list in this original detachment, everything still has the AM keyword.
a) Following my interpretation, this is then still an AM detachment.
3) Because we have an AM detachment, we can use the stratagems.
4) Because we have the required keyword on most of our units (e.g. the Jury Rigging stratagem requires an AM VEHICLE), we can use them on our Krieg units that fulfill these requirements.
This, of course, falls apart if we do not consider DKoKAM units, but this is also the root of my question. Nothing actually specifies this, and the codex just gives us rules with very little requirements that my DKoK force would fulfill if we follow my reasoning. So, is there actually anything that gives a clear answer, because right now, point 2) seems to be the point of contention here and I haven't found a strictly defined answer. I understand the point about it being different books and GW ignoring FW rules, but that argument is not really logically sound in my opinion. We have some apocalypse rules for FW units. And I see the case where the Codex would not refer to anything outside of it, but nowhere is this stated and if we just look at the rulebook, codices and other publications as a library of rules, I should be able to apply it from any book if I can apply it from one, provided I fulfill any requirements and follow any restrictions.
I noticed that the relics just requires a) an AM warlord and then any AM CHARACTER can take one, does the DKoK Marshal fulfill this requirement as he is techincally an AM CHARACTER? If not, why? If I had a mixed detachment, I could have 1 AM CHARACTER as warlord and he could take the relic.
And then, one more thing. The Warlord Traits requires either a <REGIMENT>, MILITARUM TEMPESTUS or OFFICIO PREFECTUS CHARACTER. The DKOK keyword is about as defined as a <REGIMENT> as the other ones, could my DKOK officer take a Warlord trait? If not, is it because DKOK is not literally a <REGIMENT> or is it because of different publications? Can my DKOK Commisar with the OP CHARACTER keyword take one instead?
Thank you for all your help everyone, and the continued discussion.
Edit: I saw your point about the DKoK and usage of dataslates. Thing is, I don't need everything to have DKOK. I could have some DKoK units, because their "doctrine" is not dependent on it being a pure detachment, and if I wanted say Veterans, Pask or whatever in my Brigade, those specific C:AM units would not be able to take the DKoK keyword but I could still include them in the brigade as they share the AM or IMPERIUM keywords. I'm not asking whether or not I can actually take a DKOK Taurox, the list on pg. 55 is perfectly clear (and we could argue whether or not I am allowed to choose from the codex instead of the Index, but this is not what I am interested in, as I only use the Hydra unit from the Codex).
Edit123626: And just to be perfectly clear in my intentions, I don't want double doctrines. I want to be able to use stratagems, relics and warlord traits with my heavily gimped variant of the Imperial Guard, because Forge World is terrible at updating rules. Releasing errata next week fixing these issues would take very little time and solve a lot of problems, but it will probably happen somewhere along the release of 10th ed.
Sorry for not quoting cleanly, but there is a logic error in your detachment building above. You do not have any permission to add a DKoK unit to a battleforged AM list. As stated on page 84 of the AM Codex: "...the codex contains all of the datasheets that you will need to fight battles with your Astra Militarum miniatures,..."
Certainly a White Dwarf or in fact the IA Indexes AM addendum can add units to your selection, but without such a permission "all AM datasheets" is defined as AM Codex content only.
And that is an overly-literal reading of what amounts to sales copy; taking it as rules isn't appropriate. The sheer existence of the FWIA Index demonstrates that the AM Codex *isn't* the sole source of AM Datasheets. The sentence you quote is in no way part of the rules. It also doesn't define "all AM Datasheets" - it simply tells you the book has all you need if you're a regular Guard player... which for DKoK isn't true, so see above.
Lance845 wrote: You are assigning value to the keywords they do not have. Keywords, and specifically faction keywords, are only there to help define what can and cannot go into a detachment. They have no rules baring outside of that.
Something is a ASTRA MILITARUM unit because it has that faction keyword which only means it can be included in a Astra Militarum Detachment. Similarly, Deathwing Knights and Sanguinary Guard can join a Ultramarines Predator in a Adeptus Astartes detachment because they all have the ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction keyword.
That is it. That is the extent of the meaning and value of Faction Keywords.
It doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.
Alright, then follow my train of thought and please point out the mistakes for each one
1) By your above definition then, a Death Korps Marshal is an ASTRA MILITARUM unit because he has the relevant ASTRA MILITARUM keyword and is a unit. 2) If he and his friends, which are all AM units form a detachment, they would be an AM detachment as everyone has the AM keyword and I declared it as such. Maybe I had one unit that could not take the DKOK keyword but had the AM one, so I couldn't declare DKOK.
Here is your first mistake. When you pick a detachment you choose a faction keyword that defines it. It does not inherently become a AM detachment because everyone happens to be AM. You pick what it is and then you work with the restrictions and benefits you have given yourself. All units must have that keyword to be battleforged. A Astra Militarum detachment gains no doctrine. However, a Cadian one does.
3) The Codex states that AM detachments can use stratagems and whatnot from the codex, exactly what they gain is less important here. Our detachment from 2) is an AM detachment.
See above. A pure AM detachment gets the permissions of a purely AM detachment. But if you choose to make your detachment DKoK then it is NOT a AM detachment and gains no rules allowances from the codex.
Sorry for not quoting cleanly, but there is a logic error in your detachment building above. You do not have any permission to add a DKoK unit to a battleforged AM list. As stated on page 84 of the AM Codex: "...the codex contains all of the datasheets that you will need to fight battles with your Astra Militarum miniatures,..."
Certainly a White Dwarf or in fact the IA Indexes AM addendum can add units to your selection, but without such a permission "all AM datasheets" is defined as AM Codex content only.
And that is an overly-literal reading of what amounts to sales copy; taking it as rules isn't appropriate. The sheer existence of the FWIA Index demonstrates that the AM Codex *isn't* the sole source of AM Datasheets. The sentence you quote is in no way part of the rules. It also doesn't define "all AM Datasheets" - it simply tells you the book has all you need if you're a regular Guard player... which for DKoK isn't true, so see above.
Agree with this. There are other sources for AM datasheets otherwise none of the FW stuff would work at all. DKoK CAN be a part of a AM detachment. AM detachments do not gain doctines. <Regiment> detachments do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am going to reiterate my position here for clarification because we seem to be coming to a head here.
1) DKoK are not part of the AM codex and are not a <regiment> as a rules entity. None of the forgeworld armies are a part of their codex groups.
2) RAW, a DKoK Detachment gains no benefit what-so-ever from the codex. But HIWPI is to allow them the use of generic Warlord traits, relics, and strategems. That seems reasonable to me. But it's not RAW. It's just me being a good sport.
3) A AM detachment gets all the generic stuff by RAW which can be composed of any AM units. DKoK and Elysians have the AM Keyword. They can be included in the detachment. But that doesn't make it a DKoK army. And nobody in this detachment gets a doctrine.
This thread is about if DKoK or Elysians get doctrines. RAW, they don't. And there is no way for you to give one to them.
Well, the question I had was always whether I get non-doctrinal benefits such as the ability to get stratagems, the ability to pick relics and the ability to pick warlord traits, not if I get doctrines which seem to be what you are trying to answer, also I think you've misunderstood my questions.
Here is your first mistake. When you pick a detachment you choose a faction keyword that defines it. It does not inherently become a AM detachment because everyone happens to be AM. You pick what it is and then you work with the restrictions and benefits you have given yourself. All units must have that keyword to be battleforged. A Astra Militarum detachment gains no doctrine. However, a Cadian one does.
Isn't this exactly what I said? That I pick it as an AM detachment, which would mean that I would get the codex benefits that only require this (stratagems) unless something forbids me from accessing them because they are "codex rules".
I am going to reiterate my position here for clarification because we seem to be coming to a head here.
1) DKoK are not part of the AM codex and are not a <regiment> as a rules entity. None of the forgeworld armies are a part of their codex groups.
2) RAW, a DKoK Detachment gains no benefit what-so-ever from the codex. But HIWPI is to allow them the use of generic Warlord traits, relics, and strategems. That seems reasonable to me. But it's not RAW. It's just me being a good sport.
3) A AM detachment gets all the generic stuff by RAW which can be composed of any AM units. DKoK and Elysians have the AM Keyword. They can be included in the detachment. But that doesn't make it a DKoK army. And nobody in this detachment gets a doctrine.
This thread is about if DKoK or Elysians get doctrines. RAW, they don't. And there is no way for you to give one to them.
So, what I gather from this is simply that I RaW do not get access to the codex benefits I want (stratagems) because I am not part of the codex group, correct? Well, then it answers my question anyway although it becomes a bit unclear why. Anyway, I'll start a new thread
So, what I gather from this is simply that I RaW do not get access to the codex benefits I want (stratagems) because I am not part of the codex group, correct? Well, then it answers my question anyway although it becomes a bit unclear why. Anyway, I'll start a new thread
If you make a AM detachment and decide to fill it with nothing but DKoK you would get the AM general benefits including the generic warlord traits, strategems and relics. BUT if any of DKoKs rules requires a DKoK detachment you will loose those. You give up specific faction bonuses for broader faction options. Not making use of those units is your choice at that point. That would be the RAW.
Again, I personally would be fine with a DKoK making use of those traits as a DKoK detachment until such time as they get their own traits from their own book. But it's not technically allowed and you cannot expect that from your opponents.
So, what I gather from this is simply that I RaW do not get access to the codex benefits I want (stratagems) because I am not part of the codex group, correct? Well, then it answers my question anyway although it becomes a bit unclear why. Anyway, I'll start a new thread
If you make a AM detachment and decide to fill it with nothing but DKoK you would get the AM general benefits including the generic warlord traits, strategems and relics. BUT if any of DKoKs rules requires a DKoK detachment you will loose those. You give up specific faction bonuses for broader faction options. Not making use of those units is your choice at that point. That would be the RAW.
Again, I personally would be fine with a DKoK making use of those traits as a DKoK detachment until such time as they get their own traits from their own book. But it's not technically allowed and you cannot expect that from your opponents.
Alright, thank you. I started another thread but it seems my question got answered anyway. And just as a note, all units from the Death Korps list has the keywords IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM and DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG, with two units also having ORDO PREFECTUS.
I wish the question and subsequent answer addressed non-regiment specific strategems, relics, and warlord traits. The answer seems to be saying that the DKoK and Elysian entries in the IA index and C:AM are separate and can't be used in conjunction with one another, but since it's only addressing "regiment specific" stuff, that's still grey area issues left unresolved.
)
