Had this question come up.
A Baneblade or its variants is part of a supreme command detachment and you give it the stormtrooper doctrine.

Any reason this is not allowed? The idea of it firing its cannons and weapons for more shots (at half range) is kinda scary.

Can`t give tempestus doctrine to unit without tempestus keyword.

I can't seem to find where it says that. Do you a point of reference i can look at? Page number in the codex

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
I can't seem to find where it says that. Do you a point of reference i can look at? Page number in the codex

You've not looked hard enough then.
p84.

Militarum Tempestus isn't able to replace <Regiment>

Page 84 tells you you cannot choose to give a unit MILITARUM TEMPESTUS instead of its <REGIMENT> tag

There`s line of thinking where you make your own regiment and pick Storm Troopers doctrine for it, but I would`t use that if I where you.

Thank you gents. (Or gals or both)

You're not replacing <Regiment> with <Militarum Tempestus>. You're just using the Storm Troopers Doctrine (NOT Militarum Tempestus) as treating it like any other custom Regiment using an existing Doctrine. You don't get access to Relics, Warlord Traits and Stratagems exclusive to the Militarum Tempestus, but you CAN use the main doctrine on a custom regiment.

Note that you still can't have Scions in this detachment, because they still have <Militarum Tempestus> as their keyword.

So, in your case OP, if your Baneblade is part of the custom <Generian> Regiment, you can choose which Doctrine you can follow. It doesn't matter if it's Cadian, Catachan, Vostroyan or Militarum, because GW says you get to choose if it's a custom regiment.

However, as said above, I don't think that Doctrine is that good on Baneblade-class tanks, but it's all your choice!

That's correct, you can make the Regiment BOB'S PONY BRIGADE and pick the Storm Troopers doctrine instead.

You actually CAN take Scions in such a detachment as part of the Auxilla and Advisors bit on the same page. They (and Ogryns, Bullgryns, Ratlings, Commissars, etc) can be included in a <REGIMENT> detachment and that detachment still gets it's Doctrine. The Scions would not get Storm Troopers unless in an entirely Militarum Tempestus detachment however.

I think you'll earn more shots for a Baneblade from the Catachan Doctrine than this doctrine, but could do I think - as people say.

Actually it says right under Regimental doctrines (Excluding those in a super heavy Auxiliary detachment). Meaning if you take a Baneblade as part of a Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment it doesn't benefit from any regimental doctrines.

So for them to benefit from a regimental doctrine they have to be taken as part of either a Supreme Command Detachment which means taking 3 extra HQ's plus 1 lord of war. Or the standard Super Heavy detachment which would require you take 3 baneblades or variants to fulfill.

Edit: nevermind I re-read where you were talking about the supreme command detachment.

 Larks wrote:
You actually CAN take Scions in such a detachment as part of the Auxilla and Advisors bit on the same page. They (and Ogryns, Bullgryns, Ratlings, Commissars, etc) can be included in a <REGIMENT> detachment and that detachment still gets it's Doctrine. The Scions would not get Storm Troopers unless in an entirely Militarum Tempestus detachment however.

Just got to my codex and need to correct myself.

The rule I am referring to is actually "Militarum Tempestus" on p132.

The effect is the same, but it's important I actually point to the correct rule.

From the Designer's Commentary:

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <REGIMENT> and/or <CHAPTER> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

You still have to abide by all the rules pertaining to abilities and restrictions when choosing a doctri e, chapter tactics, etc. Yous BOBS PONY BRIGADEwith TM doctrines are "count-as" tempestus militarum army and therefore must follow all allowances and restrictions pertaining to Tempestuz militarum.

Custom regiments are not the same as counts as.

Custom regiments are exactly what they are discussing as counts as. You made up a regiment and you want it to count t as something for doctrines.

Raw you may not take storm trooper doctrine on a baneblade.

blaktoof wrote:
Custom regiments are exactly what they are discussing as counts as. You made up a regiment and you want it to count t as something for doctrines.

Raw you may not take storm trooper doctrine on a baneblade.

RaW you most certainly can.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum

If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army.

If I pick my <REGIMENT> keyword to be MR. BLOBBY'S HAPPY HAPPY FUN TIME BRIGADE, then it "does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine" and thus I "may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army." I then pick the "Storm Troopers" doctrine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Custom regiments are exactly what they are discussing as counts as. You made up a regiment and you want it to count t as something for doctrines.

Raw you may not take storm trooper doctrine on a baneblade.

RaW you most certainly can.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum

If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army.

If I pick my <REGIMENT> keyword to be MR. BLOBBY'S HAPPY HAPPY FUN TIME BRIGADE, then it "does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine" and thus I "may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army." I then pick the "Storm Troopers" doctrine.

To add to this correct statement this is different to counts as in that you can't use special characters and Stratagems from the original regiment.

While on a bane blade this seems meh.

On a Storm lord with full sponsons and a Trojan nearby I could get a decent amount of extras.

So as long as i am a custom brigade I can take storm trooper. Cool.

Something like 2x prim psyker yarrick and Baneblade variant. Which the regiment is bobs pony happpy happy fun time regiment. And he would be fine.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
While on a bane blade this seems meh.

On a Storm lord with full sponsons and a Trojan nearby I could get a decent amount of extras.

So as long as i am a custom brigade I can take storm trooper. Cool.

Something like 2x prim psyker yarrick and Baneblade variant. Which the regiment is bobs pony happpy happy fun time regiment. And he would be fine.

It's not that good on a Stormlord either, but IMO stormlords aren't that great.

You'd get more extra shots from a Banehammer with Flamer sponsons and the Catachan keyword, and you can get re-roll 1s from harker to boot, instead of needing Yarrick and a Trojan for re-roll everything.

I said yarrick i should have said any commi

Also having to be near enough to use flamers is not my idea of where I want to be. Sure it can happen but would rather have 6 shots hitting on 4s with some sort of re roll than 1d6 hits of flamer. And I can shoot at things across the board. Preference i guess.

Not having to move is also key. Parking lot.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Custom regiments are exactly what they are discussing as counts as. You made up a regiment and you want it to count t as something for doctrines.

Raw you may not take storm trooper doctrine on a baneblade.

RaW you most certainly can.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum

If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army.

If I pick my <REGIMENT> keyword to be MR. BLOBBY'S HAPPY HAPPY FUN TIME BRIGADE, then it "does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine" and thus I "may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army." I then pick the "Storm Troopers" doctrine.

There is no such thing as creating a faction, anytime any player is making up a faction that is using faction rules it is a counts as faction. Because the act of picking a non made up set of doctrines is tied to counting as zomething. The designers commentary FAQ addresses this directly saying anytime someone creates a faction you cannot use it to circumvent a rules restriction.

Creating made up regiment cheeseboard doesn't allow a player to circumvent the rules restriction that you cannot give storm trooper doctrine to unit's that normally have keyword <regiment>. Doing so goes against the designers commentary FAQ.

If a player wants to make up a regiment they can, but it cant circumvent rules to give units regimental abilities they cannot normally have. As such RAW a baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrines per the FAQ.

blaktoof wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Custom regiments are exactly what they are discussing as counts as. You made up a regiment and you want it to count t as something for doctrines.

Raw you may not take storm trooper doctrine on a baneblade.

RaW you most certainly can.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum

If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army.

If I pick my <REGIMENT> keyword to be MR. BLOBBY'S HAPPY HAPPY FUN TIME BRIGADE, then it "does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine" and thus I "may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army." I then pick the "Storm Troopers" doctrine.

There is no such thing as creating a faction, anytime any player is making up a faction that is using faction rules it is a counts as faction. Because the act of picking a non made up set of doctrines is tied to counting as zomething. The designers commentary FAQ addresses this directly saying anytime someone creates a faction you cannot use it to circumvent a rules restriction.

Creating made up regiment cheeseboard doesn't allow a player to circumvent the rules restriction that you cannot give storm trooper doctrine to unit's that normally have keyword <regiment>. Doing so goes against the designers commentary FAQ.


If a player wants to make up a regiment they can, but it cant circumvent rules to give units regimental abilities they cannot normally have. As such RAW a baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrines per the FAQ.

This ^^^^^^

The example given in the codex is pretty clear. Custom regiments pick a doctrine. No differentiation is made between any of the listed doctrines. There is no keyword trickery here- they absolutely cannot be MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

I really don't like agreeing with BaconCatBug, but it's pretty clear here.

People are confusing 'Tempetus Scions' with 'The Storm Trooper Doctrine.'

Tempestus Scions Can Only Ever Have The Storm Troopers Doctrine. That's there thing, and that's cool.

There is no provision in the book what so ever to say other homebrew regiments _can't_ have the Storm Troopers Doctrine. The real restriction is that your scions can never ever Ever be Tallarn, or Cadian.

The restriction is Scions only can take stormtroopers. Not that Storm Troopers can only be taken by Scions. I know it's similar, but it's very distinct, and we've had an FAQ released which while clearly establishing you can't also pretend your a space marine chapter, or that you're all part of the air fleet, but pointedly doesn't say anything about the Storm Troopers Doctrine at all.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I really don't like agreeing with BaconCatBug, but it's pretty clear here.

People are confusing 'Tempetus Scions' with 'The Storm Trooper Doctrine.'

Tempestus Scions Can Only Ever Have The Storm Troopers Doctrine. That's there thing, and that's cool.

There is no provision in the book what so ever to say other homebrew regiments _can't_ have the Storm Troopers Doctrine. The real restriction is that your scions can never ever Ever be Tallarn, or Cadian.

The restriction is Scions only can take stormtroopers. Not that Storm Troopers can only be taken by Scions. I know it's similar, but it's very distinct, and we've had an FAQ released which while clearly establishing you can't also pretend your a space marine chapter, or that you're all part of the air fleet, but pointedly doesn't say anything about the Storm Troopers Doctrine at all.

What he said - homebrew regiment is not the same as making a tank a Scions Tank when it can't be.

At the risk of kicking a hornets nest when it's down,what are people's thoughts on doctrines interacting with the 3 forge world regiments?

Captyn_Bob wrote:
At the risk of kicking a hornets nest when it's down,what are people's thoughts on doctrines interacting with the 3 forge world regiments?

I thiiiiink it has been cleared up in an official FAQ that the FW Regiments have their own rules so don't benefit from Codex Doctrine rules too.

Edit: yup: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/imperial_armour_index_forces_of_the_astra_militarum.pdf

If you are using a rule to give an unit an ability it cannot normally have by making up a regiment name you are going against the FAQ.

RAW making up a regiment still does not allow you to give storm trooper doctrine to a baneblade because the base rules do not allow it. You are trying to give an ability to an unit that cannot normally have it which the FAQ is directly addressing.

The restriction is only militarum tempestus scions can get storm trooper doctrine, and any unit with regiment cannot pick that. In the codex a bandeblade cannot get storm trooper, so per the FAQ making up a regiment cannot allow you to give an unit an ability it normally would not be able to get.

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <REGIMENT> and/or <CHAPTER> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
At the risk of kicking a hornets nest when it's down,what are people's thoughts on doctrines interacting with the 3 forge world regiments?

I thiiiiink it has been cleared up in an official FAQ that the FW Regiments have their own rules so don't benefit from Codex Doctrine rules too.

Edit: yup: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/imperial_armour_index_forces_of_the_astra_militarum.pdf

Ah yes i'd missed that. Answers my question, still not sure if it's intended to restrict All stratagems or just regiment specific ones.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
At the risk of kicking a hornets nest when it's down,what are people's thoughts on doctrines interacting with the 3 forge world regiments?

I thiiiiink it has been cleared up in an official FAQ that the FW Regiments have their own rules so don't benefit from Codex Doctrine rules too.

Edit: yup: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/imperial_armour_index_forces_of_the_astra_militarum.pdf

Ah yes i'd missed that. Answers my question, still not sure if it's intended to restrict All stratagems or just regiment specific ones.

You can use all but the Doctrines and Regiment-specific stuff.

blaktoof wrote:
If you are using a rule to give an unit an ability it cannot normally have by making up a regiment name you are going against the FAQ.

RAW making up a regiment still does not allow you to give storm trooper doctrine to a baneblade because the base rules do not allow it. You are trying to give an ability to an unit that cannot normally have it which the FAQ is directly addressing.

The restriction is only militarum tempestus scions can get storm trooper doctrine, and any unit with regiment cannot pick that. In the codex a bandeblade cannot get storm trooper, so per the FAQ making up a regiment cannot allow you to give an unit an ability it normally would not be able to get.

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <REGIMENT> and/or <CHAPTER> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

Have you seen the example in the codex? They make up a name and assign a doctrine from the list. These is no circumventing of restrictions.

Giving baneblade Storm troopers is circumventing restrictions.

The codex may not restrict that directly, however the FAQ does.

Circumventing what restriction? There is no restriction against giving you Baneblade a homebrew regiment name that is completely different from all existing faction names. There is no restriction on which doctrine you can assign to your homebrew regiment.

Therefore, assigning your Baneblade the regiment "Banebladus Temporus" and assigning that regiment the Storm Troopers doctrine does not violate any restrictions in the book, and is perfectly legal.

blaktoof wrote:
If you are using a rule to give an unit an ability it cannot normally have by making up a regiment name you are going against the FAQ.

RAW making up a regiment still does not allow you to give storm trooper doctrine to a baneblade because the base rules do not allow it. You are trying to give an ability to an unit that cannot normally have it which the FAQ is directly addressing.

The restriction is only militarum tempestus scions can get storm trooper doctrine, and any unit with regiment cannot pick that. In the codex a bandeblade cannot get storm trooper, so per the FAQ making up a regiment cannot allow you to give an unit an ability it normally would not be able to get.

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <REGIMENT> and/or <CHAPTER> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

This.

I don't see how these round about ways suggested are not in fact "circumvent[ing] the restrictions on what abilities affect what units."

Blaktoof, did you actually read what I posted?

I definitively prove otherwise.

Militarum Tempestus can ONLY have the Storm Troopers Doctrine. However, a custom regiment, with a custom keyword, can have whichever doctrine they want - they just can't have Relic, unique Characters, or Warlord Traits.

The exact same thing happens with Space Marine Chapters. Say I have Celestial Lions. They're a canon chapter with no set doctrines. According to GW, I can use ANY Chapter Tactics to represent them, but they don't have the actual Keyword of that Chapter. For example, I want my CL to have Ultramarines doctrines. However, they DON'T get the <Ultramarines> keyword - they don't get to take Guilliman or anything like that.

So, back to guardsmen. I have the <Salvar Chem-Dogs>. Canon regiment, no rules. GW SAYS I can pick whichever doctrine I want to represent them. There is NOTHING stopping me from picking the Storm Troopers Doctrine. However, there IS something stopping me from making my keyword <Militarum Tempestus> - but unless I want Relics and Warlord Traits, I don't need it.

Your example of "no picking a keyword for in game benefit" doesn't work here. Your example is from two seperate armies entirely. You're trying to make Space Marines have a <regiment> keyword. Whatever the wording of the Space Marine keyword is, it CANNOT interact with something that's an entirely different faction. So sure, you CAN have <Emperor's Chosen> Chapter and <Emperor's Chosen> Regiment, but because one is a CHAPTER and the other is a REGIMENT, they can't interact.

With OP's situation, no keywords are involved at all.

Thanks Smudge. I think that was a better way of phrasing it than I had.

Here's the logic, step by step. If you don't believe you can give your Baneblade the Storm Troopers doctrine, please point out which step you think is wrong, and explain your rules basis for believing it's wrong.

1. For any unit with the <REGIMENT> faction keyword, you can select a cannon regiment or make up your own regiment, so long as it isn't on the list of excluded options.

2. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS is a cannon regiment and is not an excluded option.

3. Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> faction keyword.

4. Based on 1, 2, and 3: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment.

5. If your regiment does not have a pre-defined doctrine, you can select a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum for your regiment to use.

6. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS do not have a pre-defined doctrine.

7. Storm Troopers is a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum.

8. Based on 5, 6, and 7: You can select the Storm Troopers doctrine for the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment to use.

9. Based on 4 and 8: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment and use the Storm Troopers doctrine.

Medicinal Carrots and others have the analysis spot on. As much as we may want to believe that this is an oversight on GW's part, the RAW makes it completely legal. Just remember that if you put Tempestus Scions in the same detachment as your Stormtrooper Doctrine SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS that they don't get to benefit from Stormtrooper Doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
Giving baneblade Storm troopers is circumventing restrictions.

The codex may not restrict that directly, however the FAQ does.

Which restriction is being circumvented, Blacktoof?

The Storm Troopers Doctrine does not limit itself to only the MT. The MT are restricted to only using the Storm Troopers Doctrine. A limit for one keyword does not limit units without that keyword.

Giving an unit an ability it cannot normally have is circumventing a restriction.

Can a baneblade have the storm trooper doctrine with any of the non-made up regiments?

The only answer is no.

If you try to circumvent that by making up a regiment you have broken the FAQ rules as written. The baneblade is an unit, you are trying to give it an ability it cannot normally have, storm trooper, by making up a regiment. The FAQ specifically is addressing that when it says you can't make up a regiment to give units abilities they cannot normally have.

The "analysis" above by others do not take into account the designers commentary FAQ, nor do they take into account that a baneblade cannot normally be given the ability stormtrooper- making them all flawed.

The only way to give them stormtrooper doctrine would be if it was a valid choice for a normal baneblade in a non made up regiment.

So again it is not a valid option.

I'd say it would be circumventing a restriction when you can say " you cant give a unit a certain ability normally, but if you do this instead, you can give it this ability"

It's not a matter of "is the net benefit positive/negative, as in, are there trade off being made i.e. no relics or named characters" but simply, "is the unit gaining something it otherwise cant normally?"

blaktoof wrote:
Giving an unit an ability it cannot normally have is circumventing a restriction.

Can a baneblade have the storm trooper doctrine with any of the non-made up regiments?

The only answer is no.

Why? Where does it state this? Where does it state the Baneblade cannot have the Storm Trooper Doctrine?

Regimental Doctrines do not restrict any Vehicle from using it. The Doctrine itself does not restrict any Vehicle from using it. The Doctrine does not exclude any homemade <Regiments> from using the Storm Troopers Doctrine. The only restriction the codex provides is trying to give <Regiment: Armageddon> the Storm Trooper Doctrine or from allowing Militarum Tempestus to use any Doctrine BUT Storm Troopers, and then only if all other units are <Regiment: Militarum Tempestus> as well.

blaktoof wrote:
The "analysis" above by others do not take into account the designers commentary FAQ, nor do they take into account that a baneblade cannot normally be given the ability stormtrooper- making them all flawed.

The only way to give them stormtrooper doctrine would be if it was a valid choice for a normal baneblade in a non made up regiment.

So again it is not a valid option.

Again, why? Where does it state this restriction?

The only Designer's Commentary quote provided so far is about combining <Regiment> and <Chapter> Keywords to be the same thing in a detachment or about treating a <Regiment> as something different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
I'd say it would be circumventing a restriction when you can say " you cant give a unit a certain ability normally, but if you do this instead, you can give it this ability"

It's not a matter of "is the net benefit positive/negative, as in, are there trade off being made i.e. no relics or named characters" but simply, "is the unit gaining something it otherwise cant normally?"

Which is true, but where is the circumvention actually happening? Where does it state that homemade <Regiments> cannot use the Storm Trooper Doctrine?

Agree with Charistoph, the FAQ only really made clear that if you give a chapter and a regiment the same custom name, you can’t use that similar keyword to use, for example, guard stratagems on space marine units


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is literally nothing wrong with giving a Baneblade or any other unit the storm troopers doctrine.

Blaktoof, tell me what restriction this circumvents.

The only restrictions I see are:
1. Units cannot have the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword as their <Regiment> keyword.
2. Units with the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword can only use the Storm Troopers doctrine.
3. Relics, Warlord Traits and Strategems can only be used by units with the respective <Regiment>, not if they use the associated Doctrine.
4. Keywords cannot be used to give a Faction bonuses from a different Faction's keywords (ie, using a custom <Regiment> keyword to benefit from a <Chapter> keyword).

So, which rule does this break?

Also, if you're so insistent that <Salvar Chem-Dogs> can't have the Storm Troopers doctrine, what doctrine DO the <Salvar Chem-Dogs> get? None? That stands in opposition to what GW has said about Space Marines AND Guardsmen.
So me using the Born Soldiers doctrine (the one <Cadians> are locked into) is okay for the <Salvar Chem-Dogs>, but taking Storm Troopers is bad because...?

The ONLY restriction is that Storm Troopers HAS to be taken by units with the <Militarum Tempestus> (which is exactly the same as every other pre-generated <Regiment>, and that <Militarum Tempestus> cannot be chosen as a <Regiment>. This does not matter at all.

Can a baneblade be given the stormtrooper doctrine without making up a regiment?

If the answer is no, then per the FAQ you are circumventing the rules to give an unit an ability it normally cannot take.

That is the rule you are breaking, normally a baneblade is restricted to taking only certain doctrines, you are trying to give it one it cannot normally take by making up a regiment. Which the FAQ says you cannot do..

Can an unit baneblade normally take the ability stormtrooper as it's doctrine without making up a regiment to get that ability?

If the answer is yes, then you are allowed to take stormtrooper for a baneblade when you make up a regiment.

If the answer is no then you are circumventing a restriction normally in the rules to give the unit an ability it cannot normally get.

The answer is either yes or no.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lithuex wrote:
Agree with Charistoph, the FAQ only really made clear that if you give a chapter and a regiment the same custom name, you can’t use that similar keyword to use, for example, guard stratagems on space marine units


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is literally nothing wrong with giving a Baneblade or any other unit the storm troopers doctrine.

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units.

An unit getting an ability it normally is restricted from having by making up a faction name is what the FAQ verbatim covers.

blaktoof wrote:
Can a baneblade be given the stormtrooper doctrine without making up a regiment?

If the answer is no, then per the FAQ you are circumventing the rules to give an unit an ability it normally cannot take.

That is the rule you are breaking, normally a baneblade is restricted to taking only certain doctrines, you are trying to give it one it cannot normally take by making up a regiment. Which the FAQ says you cannot do..

Can an unit baneblade normally take the ability stormtrooper as it's doctrine without making up a regiment to get that ability?

If the answer is yes, then you are allowed to take stormtrooper for a baneblade when you make up a regiment.

If the answer is no then you are circumventing a restriction normally in the rules to give the unit an ability it cannot normally get.

The answer is either yes or no.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lithuex wrote:
Agree with Charistoph, the FAQ only really made clear that if you give a chapter and a regiment the same custom name, you can’t use that similar keyword to use, for example, guard stratagems on space marine units


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is literally nothing wrong with giving a Baneblade or any other unit the storm troopers doctrine.

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units.

An unit getting an ability it normally is restricted from having by making up a faction name is what the FAQ verbatim covers.

1) Yes. The Baneblade can be given the Storm Trooper Doctrine without making up a regiment. Here is my example.

My regiment is Savlar Chem-Dogs. That is a Games Workshop Regiment, with art and a fluff blurb in the Games Workshop codex.
My Games Workshop regiment has no proscribed Regimental Doctrine, so I choose one.
I choose the Storm Troopers Doctrine.
My Savlar Chem-Dogs Baneblade now has the Storm Troopers Doctrine, but is not Militarum Tempestus, and I have made nothing up.

2) Baneblades are not restricted to specific Doctrines; they receive the same doctrine as their <Regiment>, so they are as restricted as whatever Regiment you choose is, unless they are in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment.

3) Yes, a Baneblade can normally take the Storm Trooper Doctrine while using a G.W. official Regiment. The answer is yes.

blaktoof wrote:Can a baneblade be given the stormtrooper doctrine without making up a regiment?

If the answer is no, then per the FAQ you are circumventing the rules to give an unit an ability it normally cannot take.

That is the rule you are breaking, normally a baneblade is restricted to taking only certain doctrines, you are trying to give it one it cannot normally take by making up a regiment. Which the FAQ says you cannot do..

Can an unit baneblade normally take the ability stormtrooper as it's doctrine without making up a regiment to get that ability?

If the answer is yes, then you are allowed to take stormtrooper for a baneblade when you make up a regiment.

If the answer is no then you are circumventing a restriction normally in the rules to give the unit an ability it cannot normally get.

The answer is either yes or no.

You're making rules up here. Making up a regiment and choosing a doctrine is 100% encouraged by GW. Why don't you understand this?

The Baneblade can ABSOLUTELY get the ability, because of the example I showed. You choose the doctrine (which you can always do UNLESS the regiment you have locks you into one) which best suits what you want. It just so happens that the pre-generated regiment associated with one of the abilities CANNOT be chosen as the <Regiment> - their Doctrine can.
Therefore, the Baneblade can 100% get this Doctrine.

It's no different to saying "I have <Salvar Chem-Dogs> and they'll use the Born Soldiers doctrine. Or is that banned by you because...?

You're pretending that all Regiments MUST be one of the pre-generated ones, and that this is the only way to get Doctrines. This is not true.

Lithuex wrote:
Agree with Charistoph, the FAQ only really made clear that if you give a chapter and a regiment the same custom name, you can’t use that similar keyword to use, for example, guard stratagems on space marine units


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is literally nothing wrong with giving a Baneblade or any other unit the storm troopers doctrine.

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units.

An unit getting an ability it normally is restricted from having by making up a faction name is what the FAQ verbatim covers.

So then, what is your view on actually having a keyword that isn't <Cadia> <Catacha> <Mordian> <Valhalla> <Tallarn> <Vostroya> <Armageddon> or <Militarum Tempestus>? That they can't EVER have a Doctrine, because they don't have the right keyword? Is that it? You must be so lovely to people with homebrew factions.

Let's apply this to another example: Space Marine Chapters.

I want Guilliman in my <Chapter>, but I can't have him without making my keyword something specific. The only way to have <Guilliman> is to have the <Ultramarines> keyword. By what you say, I'm circumventing the rules by making my keyword <Ultramarines> so I can have something I can't normally access?

I mean, let's just change a few words around in your main piece of "evidence": "Can I take Guilliman in my army without choosing a Chapter?"
No?! Well in that case, I'm circumventing the rules by changing my keyword to give me something I can't normally take!

The FAQ deals with things like having the <Ultramarines> Regiment benefit from Guilliman's aura. It is NOT there to say "yeah, your custom guard regiment can't have any doctrines because they're a custom regiment".

So, I'll direct you back to what I posted - what am I missing on my list?

Heck, you can even point to the Praetorian Guard, who have official GW models you can play in GW stores and can choose the Storm Troopers Doctrine.

In fact, I think that'd be a neat way of demonstrating their difference from Mordians. If Mordians are Prussians with the Dreyse Needle Gun, then the Praetorians are Brits with the Martini-Henry .45 calibre breachloader, which would in fact have a higher rate of fire and therefore a 6+ to hit could let your trooper snag in that extra shot over, say, a Mordian.

Those are made up regiments in 8th.

A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword.

Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper.

You are trying to circumvent a restriction in place by the rules by making up a chapter.

Which the FAQ says you cannot do.

blaktoof wrote:
Those are made up regiments in 8th.

A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword.

Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper.

You are trying to circumvent a restriction in place by the rules by making up a chapter.

Which the FAQ says you cannot do.

How the hell is Savlar Chem-Dogs a "made up regiment"? Should I point you to the spot in the codex where their name, artwork, and fluff blurb is? Or the Warhammer Community article that talks about them?

"A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword. Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper." - these statements show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Guard Codex works.

1) Is correct. Militarum Tempestus cannot be chosen as a replacement for the <Regiment> keyword. This is why a regular Company Commander can't have the MT warlord trait, and why a unit of Veterans will never benefit from the Superior Intelligence stratagem.

2) is not correct. You do not have to take Militarum Tempestus as your regiment keyword to get the Storm Troopers doctrine any more than you have to pick Armageddon as your regiment to have the Industrial Efficiency doctrine. My 2nd Concordian Armoured has the "Brutal Strength" doctrine, but is not Catachan. Similarly, the Savlar Chem-Dogs could have the "Storm Troopers" doctrine without being Militarum Tempestus.

In fact, to suggest that a regiment Keyword is the same thing as a doctrine choice is to completely disallow people from playing anything other than the existing 8 (I think) regiments, because you could never replace the keyword with anything other than Armageddon, Cadia, Mordian, etc. and still get the doctrine.

Your number 2 point is false.

You are taking an ability on an unit that cannot normally take it by creating a regiment. The FAQ directly addresses this as not being allowed.

Your final point is not what is being discussed at all.

You can make up a regiment and use any doctrine that is a normal choice for a regiment, however stormtrooper is not one of those due to it not being an option for any of the non made up regiments ie you cannot replace regiment with militarum tempestus so normally any unit with regiment cannot get stormtrooper.

P.84 of the guard codex tells the reader that regiment cannot be replaced with militarum Tempestus, therefore any unit with regiment is normally restricted to not being able to select stormtrooper.

blaktoof wrote:
Those are made up regiments in 8th.

A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword.

Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper.

You are trying to circumvent a restriction in place by the rules by making up a chapter.

Which the FAQ says you cannot do.

The FAQ says you can't choose a Regiment or Chapter keyword to try to circumvent restrictions. That FAQ question does not, however, state that you have any limit on the Doctrine you can choose. If Storm Troopers is listed as a Doctrine and you are told that you can choose that Doctrine if you are playing a regiment that is not listed for what doctrine it uses, then you can choose the Storm Troopers doctrine. You need to cite something that puts a restriction on the doctrine in order to keep a regiment from taking that doctrine. So far, there has not been anything so specify that only Militarum Tempestus may have the Storm Troopers doctrine. Until that is so, it is a legitimate choice. Somebody could name their regiment Clone War Survivors With Trademarks Deliberately Filed Off, and it's perfectly legal for them to choose the Storm Troopers doctrine.

If you are going to disagree, please provide the rules quote that [specifically states that only Militarum Tempestus can take the Storm Troopers doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
Your number 2 point is false.

You are taking an ability on an unit that cannot normally take it by creating a regiment. The FAQ directly addresses this as not being allowed.

Your final point is not what is being discussed at all.

You can make up a regiment and use any doctrine that is a normal choice for a regiment, however stormtrooper is not one of those due to it not being an option for any of the non made up regiments ie you cannot replace regiment with militarum tempestus so normally any unit with regiment cannot get stormtrooper.

Can you prove that the Storm Trooper Doctrine cannot be taken by any regiment other than Militarum Tempestus? Because all I see is proof that Militarum Tempestus has to take stormtrooper, and cannot replace the regiment keywords.

Nowhere does it say "Only" Militarum Tempestus can have the Storm Trooper doctrine.

Other than the restriction on point.84 of the Astra militarum codex that prevents a player from replacing regiment with militarum Tempestus, which prevents units with regiment keyword such as a baneblade from taking the storm trooper doctrine.

Can a baneblade normally replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to take storm trooper?

Yes or no?

If the answer is no then making up a regiment to take stormtrooper is circumvententing a restriction to get an ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Your number 2 point is false.

You are taking an ability on an unit that cannot normally take it by creating a regiment. The FAQ directly addresses this as not being allowed.

Your final point is not what is being discussed at all.

You can make up a regiment and use any doctrine that is a normal choice for a regiment, however stormtrooper is not one of those due to it not being an option for any of the non made up regiments ie you cannot replace regiment with militarum tempestus so normally any unit with regiment cannot get stormtrooper.

Can you prove that the Storm Trooper Doctrine cannot be taken by any regiment other than Militarum Tempestus? Because all I see is proof that Militarum Tempestus has to take stormtrooper, and cannot replace the regiment keywords.

Nowhere does it say "Only" Militarum Tempestus can have the Storm Trooper doctrine.

You mean other than p.84 that says regiment cannot be replaced with militarum Tempestus? And p.133 that lists the storm troopers doctrine as militarum tempestus?

You cannot make up a regiment to give an unit a doctrine it could not normally take.

All of the doctrines other than stormtrooper are valid possible options for any unit with regiment keyword as those units could be given any of the regiment options. However they cannot normally be given militarum tempestus to get stormtrooper. Making up a regiment to try and circumvent that is not a valid option per the FAQ

A Baneblade cannot replace its Regiment Keyword with Militarum Tempestus.

However, there is nothing that states the "Storm Trooper doctrine" cannot be a regimental doctrine for a regiment that isn't Militarum Tempestus.

That's my argument.

We're not talking about keywords anymore. I agree with you on that point, but the keyword a unit has has nothing to do with what regimental doctrine it uses, unless that keyword is one of the 8 proscribed ones that must use the associated doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
Other than the restriction on point.84 of the Astra militarum codex that prevents a player from replacing regiment with militarum Tempestus...

Your initial premise is flawed, and thus your argument is invalid. No-one is saying that they're replacing the <REGIMENT> keyword with MILITARUM TEMPESTUS. That is not the only way to get the Storm Troopers doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
Other than the restriction on point.84 of the Astra militarum codex that prevents a player from replacing regiment with militarum Tempestus, which prevents units with regiment keyword such as a baneblade from taking the storm trooper doctrine.

Can a baneblade normally replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to take storm trooper?

Yes or no?

If the answer is no then making up a regiment to take stormtrooper is circumvententing a restriction to get an ability.

Incorrect. You are making an assumption here. You can not replace regiment with Militarum Tempestus. Where does it say, however that a unit can not choose Storm Troopers as a Doctrine? It is not in what you are talking about, so it is not a restriction.

blaktoof wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Your number 2 point is false.

You are taking an ability on an unit that cannot normally take it by creating a regiment. The FAQ directly addresses this as not being allowed.

Your final point is not what is being discussed at all.

You can make up a regiment and use any doctrine that is a normal choice for a regiment, however stormtrooper is not one of those due to it not being an option for any of the non made up regiments ie you cannot replace regiment with militarum tempestus so normally any unit with regiment cannot get stormtrooper.

Can you prove that the Storm Trooper Doctrine cannot be taken by any regiment other than Militarum Tempestus? Because all I see is proof that Militarum Tempestus has to take stormtrooper, and cannot replace the regiment keywords.

Nowhere does it say "Only" Militarum Tempestus can have the Storm Trooper doctrine.

You mean other than p.84 that says regiment cannot be replaced with militarum Tempestus? And p.133 that lists the storm troopers doctrine as militarum tempestus?

You cannot make up a regiment to give an unit a doctrine it could not normally take.

blaktoof wrote:Those are made up regiments in 8th.

A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword.

Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper.

You are trying to circumvent a restriction in place by the rules by making up a chapter.

Which the FAQ says you cannot do.

Incorrect.

You are correct in that Militarum Tempestus cannot take any other Doctrine, and that <Militarum Tempestus> cannot be taken as a <Regiment>. Show me where GW have said "ONLY units with the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword can take the Storm Troopers doctrine." Go on. I'll be waiting.

You are INcorrect that a regiment cannot have the Storm Troopers doctrine. This is because anyone can have any doctrine, provided their <Regiment> allows it. In the case of every pre-gen <Regiment>, they are locked into certain choices (including Militarum Tempestus). The only difference is that <Militarum Tempestus> cannot be a chosen <Regiment>. This doesn't affect the fact that a custom Regiment can access ANY Doctrine, because they're not locked out of any.

There is no reason I can't take the Storm Troopers doctrine instead of ANY OTHER DOCTRINE. What about Storm Troopers is any different to Born Soldiers?

The only difference between the two is that you can pick Cadian your <Regiment>, but not Militarum Tempestus. However, this has no effect on what doctrines you can take

Again, blaktoof, reply to my comment - can I take <Salvar Chem-Dogs> with the Born Soldiers or not?

So normally a baneblade can take stormtrooper doctrine without using a regiment that has no assigned doctrine?

No one wants to face the truth?

You are taking a doctrine on an unit that cannot normally replace it's faction keyword with the faction that gets the ability you are trying to take. You are circumventibg the rules to get said ability by making up a regiment, regardless of what the codex days the faw specifies this is not allowed.

Savlar chem dogs can take any of the regiment doctrines for any unit with the regiment keyword that an unit with the regiment keyword could normally take, that would include born soldiers as units with the regiment keyword could get that, but would exclude storm trooper because that is normally excluded for units with the regiment keyword per the FAQ.

You are trying to give a faction keyword <regiment> a rule, stormtrooper, which cannot normally be taken by units with keyword <regiment> by using a regiment with no associated doctrine, which the FAQ directly states is not allowed.

Your last statement:

"Stormtrooper cannot be taken by units with keyword <Regiment>"

can you explain why you believe this is the case, while also remembering that "Storm Trooper" and the "Militarum Tempestus Keyword" are two different things?

blaktoof wrote:
So normally a baneblade can take stormtrooper doctrine without using a regiment that has no assigned doctrine?

No one wants to face the truth?

Let us know when you want to face it.

blaktoof wrote:
You are taking a doctrine on an unit that cannot normally replace it's faction keyword with the faction that gets the ability you are trying to take

But can be normally taken by choosing the Storm Troopers doctrine if you do not have a doctrine associated with your regiment. You have permission for this in the rules. You can't take the faction. You can take the doctrine as you are given permission and there has not been a specific revoking of the permission to take that doctrine (not getting to choose a faction is not the same at all as not getting to choose a doctrine).

blaktoof wrote:
. You are circumventibg the rules to get said ability by making up a regiment, regardless of what the codex days the faw specifies this is not allowed.

Rules citation please for where selecting Storm Toopers is not allowed that does not involve the factions. Prohibition to choose a faction is not prohibition to choose a doctrine when you have already been given permission to choose any doctrine. Until then, your claim of RAW is unsubstantiaed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Your last statement:

"Stormtrooper cannot be taken by units with keyword <Regiment>"

can you explain why you believe this is the case, while also remembering that "Storm Trooper" and the "Militarum Tempestus Keyword" are two different things?

Isn't that because the doctrine blurb reads "Militarum Tempestus: Stormtrooper"
It seems like it shares a mutual exclusivity, from the fact that Militarum Tempestus can only use Stromtrooper doctrine, and thus has a fixed keyword <militarum tempestus>, which cannot be swapped out for any other <regiment> keyword. It seems a bit off that the arguments are based on that the exclusivity is only applied regiment-to-doctrine direction, but not doctrine-to-regiment.

A certain unit can take on any doctrine, regardless of what regiment keyword it has as long as its not one of the primary ones.
A certain unit of certain regiment keyword can only take on the doctrine available to it.

I get the RAW, but doesn't this sound a bit off?

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So normally a baneblade can take stormtrooper doctrine without using a regiment that has no assigned doctrine?

No one wants to face the truth?

Let us know when you want to face it.

blaktoof wrote:
You are taking a doctrine on an unit that cannot normally replace it's faction keyword with the faction that gets the ability you are trying to take

But can be normally taken by choosing the Storm Troopers doctrine if you do not have a doctrine associated with your regiment. You have permission for this in the rules. You can't take the faction. You can take the doctrine as you are given permission and there has not been a specific revoking of the permission to take that doctrine (not getting to choose a faction is not the same at all as not getting to choose a doctrine).

blaktoof wrote:
. You are circumventibg the rules to get said ability by making up a regiment, regardless of what the codex days the faw specifies this is not allowed.

Rules citation please for where selecting Storm Toopers is not allowed that does not involve the factions. Prohibition to choose a faction is not prohibition to choose a doctrine when you have already been given permission to choose any doctrine. Until then, your claim of RAW is unsubstantiaed.

Lol.

You might as well be saying you can take ultramarine chapter tactics at this point and then claim I can't cite where the rules say it isn't allowed. You are specifcaly trying to give units abilities they cannot normally get as they cannot normally switch regiment to the non made up faction which has stormtrooper.

The FAQ specifically calls out not being able to use a faction with no assigned faction rules to give an unit abilities it cannot normally have.

You cannot give anything with the regiment keyword stormtrooper normally because normally anything with regiment keyword cannot replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get that ability.

The only way you can try to achieve that with only the codex rules is by using a regiment with no assigned regiment rules,. The FAQ specifically addresses this as not allowing you to give units abilities they could not normally take.

Could a baneblade normally take militarum tempestus to get storm trooper? The raw answer is no. Therefore per the faq any regiment you use cannot give that unit that ability regardless of what you name it.

blaktoof wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So normally a baneblade can take stormtrooper doctrine without using a regiment that has no assigned doctrine?

No one wants to face the truth?

Let us know when you want to face it.

blaktoof wrote:
You are taking a doctrine on an unit that cannot normally replace it's faction keyword with the faction that gets the ability you are trying to take

But can be normally taken by choosing the Storm Troopers doctrine if you do not have a doctrine associated with your regiment. You have permission for this in the rules. You can't take the faction. You can take the doctrine as you are given permission and there has not been a specific revoking of the permission to take that doctrine (not getting to choose a faction is not the same at all as not getting to choose a doctrine).

blaktoof wrote:
. You are circumventibg the rules to get said ability by making up a regiment, regardless of what the codex days the faw specifies this is not allowed.

Rules citation please for where selecting Storm Toopers is not allowed that does not involve the factions. Prohibition to choose a faction is not prohibition to choose a doctrine when you have already been given permission to choose any doctrine. Until then, your claim of RAW is unsubstantiaed.

Lol.

You might as well be saying you can take ultramarine chapter tactics at this point and then claim I can't cite where the rules say it isn't allowed. You are specifcaly trying to give units abilities they cannot normally get as they cannot normally switch regiment to the non made up faction which has stormtrooper.

The FAQ specifically calls out not being able to use a faction with no assigned faction rules to give an unit abilities it cannot normally have.

You cannot give anything with the regiment keyword stormtrooper normally because normally anything with regiment keyword cannot replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get that ability.

The only way you can try to achieve that with only the codex rules is by using a regiment with no assigned regiment rules,. The FAQ specifically addresses this as not allowing you to give units abilities they could not normally take.

Could a baneblade normally take militarum tempestus to get storm trooper? The raw answer is no. Therefore per the faq any regiment you use cannot give that unit that ability regardless of what you name it.

You can absolutely take <Ultramarines> as a Regiment. Nothing stops you from taking that.

What it DOES stop you from is taking <Ultramarines> as a Regiment, and then benefiting off of rules for the <Ultramarines> Chapter. This is not the same.

You are still under the illusion that that only "proper" way to get Storm Troopers is via the <Militarum Tempestus> Regiment. This is not true - it is no different to me having ANY OTHER DOCTRINE.

So, under your "units which don't have access to it can't have it" rule - that should mean ANY custom regiment can't ever have a Doctrine? I mean, if they want a Doctrine, they need to have the appropriate Keyword, which they can't have, because they're custom. Therefore, no custom regiment can have a Doctrine, right? Right?

Your argument relies on the false supposition that Storm Troopers can only be obtained via the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword. This is false, which therefore disproves your argument.

So you believe a baneblade using a regiment with assigned doctrines can select one of those options and normally take storm trooper doctrine?

blaktoof wrote:
So you believe a baneblade using a regiment with assigned doctrines can select one of those options and normally take storm trooper doctrine?

No, because the regiments with assigned doctrines must take the doctrines assigned to them.

However, a regiment without an assigned doctrine (such as the Praetorians) can pick from any Doctrine, while having the <Praetorian> keyword.

blaktoof wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So normally a baneblade can take stormtrooper doctrine without using a regiment that has no assigned doctrine?

No one wants to face the truth?

Let us know when you want to face it.

blaktoof wrote:
You are taking a doctrine on an unit that cannot normally replace it's faction keyword with the faction that gets the ability you are trying to take

But can be normally taken by choosing the Storm Troopers doctrine if you do not have a doctrine associated with your regiment. You have permission for this in the rules. You can't take the faction. You can take the doctrine as you are given permission and there has not been a specific revoking of the permission to take that doctrine (not getting to choose a faction is not the same at all as not getting to choose a doctrine).

blaktoof wrote:
. You are circumventibg the rules to get said ability by making up a regiment, regardless of what the codex days the faw specifies this is not allowed.

Rules citation please for where selecting Storm Toopers is not allowed that does not involve the factions. Prohibition to choose a faction is not prohibition to choose a doctrine when you have already been given permission to choose any doctrine. Until then, your claim of RAW is unsubstantiaed.

Lol.

You might as well be saying you can take ultramarine chapter tactics at this point and then claim I can't cite where the rules say it isn't allowed. You are specifcaly trying to give units abilities they cannot normally get as they cannot normally switch regiment to the non made up faction which has stormtrooper.

The FAQ specifically calls out not being able to use a faction with no assigned faction rules to give an unit abilities it cannot normally have.

You cannot give anything with the regiment keyword stormtrooper normally because normally anything with regiment keyword cannot replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get that ability.

The only way you can try to achieve that with only the codex rules is by using a regiment with no assigned regiment rules,. The FAQ specifically addresses this as not allowing you to give units abilities they could not normally take.

Could a baneblade normally take militarum tempestus to get storm trooper? The raw answer is no. Therefore per the faq any regiment you use cannot give that unit that ability regardless of what you name it.

So, in other words you don't have a rules quotation prohibiting you from taking the Storm Troopers doctrine. You are merely assuming that you can't take the doctrine because you can't take the regiment name, despite the fact that by RAW you can choose any doctrine for a regiment that doesn't have one, be it one of GW's names like the Chem Dogs, or a home brew one like the Terrain Paisley Unicorns. Prohibition against taking a regiment is not prohibition against taking. a doctrine. And when asked for proof you just want to double down on the faction while ignoring that we have permission to take any doctrine. Let us know when you're ready to face the truth.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you believe a baneblade using a regiment with assigned doctrines can select one of those options and normally take storm trooper doctrine?

No, because the regiments with assigned doctrines must take the doctrines assigned to them.

However, a regiment without an assigned doctrine (such as the Praetorians) can pick from any Doctrine, while having the <Praetorian> keyword.

Then per the FAQ the baneblade cannot have stormtrooper.

blaktoof wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you believe a baneblade using a regiment with assigned doctrines can select one of those options and normally take storm trooper doctrine?

No, because the regiments with assigned doctrines must take the doctrines assigned to them.

However, a regiment without an assigned doctrine (such as the Praetorians) can pick from any Doctrine, while having the <Praetorian> keyword.

Then per the FAQ the baneblade cannot have stormtrooper.

Your continued lack of proof is astounding.

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So normally a baneblade can take stormtrooper doctrine without using a regiment that has no assigned doctrine?

No one wants to face the truth?

Let us know when you want to face it.

blaktoof wrote:
You are taking a doctrine on an unit that cannot normally replace it's faction keyword with the faction that gets the ability you are trying to take

But can be normally taken by choosing the Storm Troopers doctrine if you do not have a doctrine associated with your regiment. You have permission for this in the rules. You can't take the faction. You can take the doctrine as you are given permission and there has not been a specific revoking of the permission to take that doctrine (not getting to choose a faction is not the same at all as not getting to choose a doctrine).

blaktoof wrote:
. You are circumventibg the rules to get said ability by making up a regiment, regardless of what the codex days the faw specifies this is not allowed.

Rules citation please for where selecting Storm Toopers is not allowed that does not involve the factions. Prohibition to choose a faction is not prohibition to choose a doctrine when you have already been given permission to choose any doctrine. Until then, your claim of RAW is unsubstantiaed.

Lol.

You might as well be saying you can take ultramarine chapter tactics at this point and then claim I can't cite where the rules say it isn't allowed. You are specifcaly trying to give units abilities they cannot normally get as they cannot normally switch regiment to the non made up faction which has stormtrooper.

The FAQ specifically calls out not being able to use a faction with no assigned faction rules to give an unit abilities it cannot normally have.

You cannot give anything with the regiment keyword stormtrooper normally because normally anything with regiment keyword cannot replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get that ability.

The only way you can try to achieve that with only the codex rules is by using a regiment with no assigned regiment rules,. The FAQ specifically addresses this as not allowing you to give units abilities they could not normally take.

Could a baneblade normally take militarum tempestus to get storm trooper? The raw answer is no. Therefore per the faq any regiment you use cannot give that unit that ability regardless of what you name it.

So, in other words you don't have a rules quotation prohibiting you from taking the Storm Troopers doctrine. You are merely assuming that you can't take the doctrine because you can't take the regiment name, despite the fact that by RAW you can choose any doctrine for a regiment that doesn't have one, be it one of GW's names like the Chem Dogs, or a home brew one like the Terrain Paisley Unicorns. Prohibition against taking a regiment is not prohibition against taking. a doctrine. And when asked for proof you just want to double down on the faction while ignoring that we have permission to take any doctrine. Let us know when you're ready to face the truth.

You have been given rules quotes, you have opted to not bother looking at them. You are also misquoting the faq, which clearly states you cannot give units abilities they could not normally take by assigning a made up regiment or a regiment with unassigned faction rules.

You have permission to take a doctrine in the codex, and the faq modifies that by specifically calling out that cannot be used to give an unit an ability it could not normally take by using keywords with assigned rules.

You cannot normally replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get stormtrooper, therefore per the FAQ you cannot use a regiment with unassigned doctrines to get stormtrooper as that is not a valid option for the same unit when it has a normal regiment with assigned rules.

Your only basis for argument is by completely ignoring the faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you believe a baneblade using a regiment with assigned doctrines can select one of those options and normally take storm trooper doctrine?

No, because the regiments with assigned doctrines must take the doctrines assigned to them.

However, a regiment without an assigned doctrine (such as the Praetorians) can pick from any Doctrine, while having the <Praetorian> keyword.

Then per the FAQ the baneblade cannot have stormtrooper.

Your continued lack of proof is astounding.

Your continued burying of your head in the sand is astounding.

Blaktoof, can you tell me why a Baneblade cannot have the Storm Trooper doctrine, without referencing Militarum Tempestus at all?

Because Militarum Tempestus is the name of a Regiment, not a Doctrine, and we are talking about Doctrines, so it's irrelevant.

You are falling into the "All rectangles are squares" fallacy.

All squares are rectangles. True premise.
All Militarum Tempestus units can only take the Storm Troopers doctrine. This is true. Militarum Tempestus units cannot choose any other doctrines.

Therefore all rectangles are squares. Faulty conclusion.
Therefore the Storm Toopers doctrine can only be used by Militarum Tempestus units. This is false. There is no such restriction on the doctrine.

Let me re-iterate the logic. Please point out which premise is false, or how a conclusion does not follow from a premise. Please provide a rules justification for why you think it's wrong:

Premise 1. For any unit with the <REGIMENT> faction keyword, you can select a cannon regiment or make up your own regiment, so long as it isn't on the list of excluded options.

Premise 2. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS is a cannon regiment and is not an excluded option.

Premise 3. Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> faction keyword.

Conclusion A. Based on 1, 2, and 3: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment.

Premise 4. If your regiment does not have a pre-defined doctrine, you can select a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum for your regiment to use.

Premise 5. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS do not have a pre-defined doctrine.

Premise 6. Storm Troopers is a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum.

Conclusion B. Based on 4, 5, and 6: You can select the Storm Troopers doctrine for the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment to use.

Final Conclusion. Based on A and B: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment and use the Storm Troopers doctrine.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
You are falling into the "All rectangles are squares" fallacy.

All squares are rectangles. True premise.
All Militarum Tempestus units can only take the Storm Troopers doctrine. This is true. Militarum Tempestus units cannot choose any other doctrines.

Therefore all rectangles are squares. Faulty conclusion.
Therefore the Storm Toopers doctrine can only be used by Militarum Tempestus units. This is false. There is no such restriction on the doctrine.

Let me re-iterate the logic. Please point out which premise is false, or how a conclusion does not follow from a premise. Please provide a rules justification for why you think it's wrong:

Premise 1. For any unit with the <REGIMENT> faction keyword, you can select a cannon regiment or make up your own regiment, so long as it isn't on the list of excluded options.

Premise 2. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS is a cannon regiment and is not an excluded option.

Premise 3. Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> faction keyword.

Conclusion A. Based on 1, 2, and 3: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment.

Premise 4. If your regiment does not have a pre-defined doctrine, you can select a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum for your regiment to use.

Premise 5. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS do not have a pre-defined doctrine.

Premise 6. Storm Troopers is a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum.

Conclusion B. Based on 4, 5, and 6: You can select the Storm Troopers doctrine for the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment to use.

Final Conclusion. Based on A and B: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment and use the Storm Troopers doctrine.

Your logic isn't actually logical.

There are regiments with assigned doctrines, then there are regiments with unassigned doctrines.

Some of those regiments with unassigned doctrines are Cannon, some are not. Regardless of Cannon or not, their doctrines are unassigned and they can be given doctrines.

By the AM codex alone RAW they could take stormtrooper.

Due to the FAQ there is an issue.

Normally units with regiment cannot select the faction keyword that allows for stormtrooper- this within the rules restricts stormtrooper to only units with the militarum tempestus keyword when dealing with units that have assigned doctrines.

The FAQ clearly states you cannot use a regiment with unassigned doctrines to get an ability it would not normally be able to take.

Any unit with the regiment keyword would not normally be able to get the stormtrooper ability outside of using a regiment with unassigned doctrines. The FAQ clearly says this is not allowed, so your logical path is only valid within the confines of the codex, it had to if or the FAQ for your logic to be valid.

Please quote the exact FAQ wording you're relying on. I do not think it says what you think it saya.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think you'll earn more shots for a Baneblade from the Catachan Doctrine than this doctrine, but could do I think - as people say.

I also think you'll get more accuracy and more shots from Cadian between Order to rerolling your d6 to shoot your turret, rerolling ones for being stationary, +1 to hit from overlapping fields of fire.

blaktoof wrote:So you believe a baneblade using a regiment with assigned doctrines can select one of those options and normally take storm trooper doctrine?

No. A regiment with assigned Doctrines has no choice in selection.

As default, NO AM UNIT has an assigned Doctrine. Only when a pre-gen <Regiment> is decided can a doctrine be permanently assigned.

If I have a custom Regiment, there is absolutely no limit to what I can choose - this includes Storm Troopers.

blaktoof wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you believe a baneblade using a regiment with assigned doctrines can select one of those options and normally take storm trooper doctrine?

No, because the regiments with assigned doctrines must take the doctrines assigned to them.

However, a regiment without an assigned doctrine (such as the Praetorians) can pick from any Doctrine, while having the <Praetorian> keyword.

Then per the FAQ the baneblade cannot have stormtrooper.

Okay, you've not responded to any of my comments. I only ask you to respond to a one word reply.

How.

blaktoof wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
You are falling into the "All rectangles are squares" fallacy.

All squares are rectangles. True premise.
All Militarum Tempestus units can only take the Storm Troopers doctrine. This is true. Militarum Tempestus units cannot choose any other doctrines.

Therefore all rectangles are squares. Faulty conclusion.
Therefore the Storm Toopers doctrine can only be used by Militarum Tempestus units. This is false. There is no such restriction on the doctrine.

Let me re-iterate the logic. Please point out which premise is false, or how a conclusion does not follow from a premise. Please provide a rules justification for why you think it's wrong:

Premise 1. For any unit with the <REGIMENT> faction keyword, you can select a cannon regiment or make up your own regiment, so long as it isn't on the list of excluded options.

Premise 2. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS is a cannon regiment and is not an excluded option.

Premise 3. Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> faction keyword.

Conclusion A. Based on 1, 2, and 3: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment.

Premise 4. If your regiment does not have a pre-defined doctrine, you can select a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum for your regiment to use.

Premise 5. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS do not have a pre-defined doctrine.

Premise 6. Storm Troopers is a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum.

Conclusion B. Based on 4, 5, and 6: You can select the Storm Troopers doctrine for the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment to use.

Final Conclusion. Based on A and B: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment and use the Storm Troopers doctrine.

Your logic isn't actually logical.

There are regiments with assigned doctrines, then there are regiments with unassigned doctrines.

Some of those regiments with unassigned doctrines are Cannon,

I think you mean "Canon", unless you're talking about a regiment composed entirely of Leman Russes

blaktoof wrote:
[some are not. Regardless of Cannon or not, their doctrines are unassigned and they can be given doctrines.

By the AM codex alone RAW they could take stormtrooper.

Due to the FAQ there is an issue.

Normally units with regiment cannot select the faction keyword that allows for stormtrooper- this within the rules restricts stormtrooper to only units with the militarum tempestus keyword when dealing with units that have assigned doctrines.

The FAQ clearly states you cannot use a regiment with unassigned doctrines to get an ability it would not normally be able to take.

Yet, as you admit, by the AM codex RAW they could take stormtrooper, or any other doctrine. This must mean that it's normal to be able to select any doctrine, since it's normal to be able to select any doctrine if you have not had one assigned to you.

If it was a normal choice you could replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get the militarum tempestus doctrine.

The FAQ is referring to normal being a normal keyword option with assigned rules.

If you have an abnormal keyword, one with no assigned faction, that is what the FAQ addresses.

It would be normal to assign regiment as world eaters as you point out that there is no restriction on what you name a keyword. But it would not be normal for a baneblade to get world eater abilities, just as it would not be normal for a baneblade to get militarum tempestus abilities.

If a baneblade could normally assign regiment to militarum Tempestus to take stormtrooper then you could use a regiment with unassigned traits aka savlar chem dogs, aka emperor's pink tea party lads, whatever name you choose and give them stormtroopers.

 doctortom wrote:
Yet, as you admit, by the AM codex RAW they could take stormtrooper, or any other doctrine. This must mean that it's normal to be able to select any doctrine, since it's normal to be able to select any doctrine if you have not had one assigned to you.

So the argument then, is that "as per RAW, you are 'normally' allowed to circumvent a specific restriction, i.e. MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword not being able to be assigned in lieu of <REGIMENT> keyword in order to gain access to Stromtroopers doctrine, because the codex allows you to create a 'custom' <REGIMENT> that isn't bound by 'Regiment & Doctrines' restriction," thereby allowing you to use Stormtrooper doctrine without resorting to taking units with MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword.

In other words, since you are explicitly allowed to work around a given issue, the FAQ restricting you <REGIMENT> manipulation for the purpose of granting abilities it wouldn't 'normally' have is irrelevant, because such manipulation is ALREADY GRANTED, 'normally,' via codex.

But I thought FAQ's override the issues that it addresses in the Codex, no?

P.S. - I find it really funny that almost all of the +5 page topics in YMDC are regarding AM. Conspiracy???

blaktoof wrote:
If it was a normal choice you could replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get the militarum tempestus doctrine.

You are not replacing anything with the Militarum Tempestus keyword. And there is no Militarum Tempestus doctrine.
You are using your own keyword (example: Savlar Chem-Dogs). And the doctrine is called "Storm Troopers".

The FAQ is referring to normal being a normal keyword option with assigned rules.

If you have an abnormal keyword, one with no assigned faction, that is what the FAQ addresses.

No, it doesn't. You should really include the actual question that's being answered, not just the answer. Context matters.

The FAQ in question wrote:
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

The FAQ is addressing using the same word to replace different placeholder keywords to force them to match. It is not in any way addressing replacing a single placeholder keyword

It would be normal to assign regiment as world eaters as you point out that there is no restriction on what you name a keyword. But it would not be normal for a baneblade to get world eater abilities, just as it would not be normal for a baneblade to get militarum tempestus abilities.

If a baneblade could normally assign regiment to militarum Tempestus to take stormtrooper then you could use a regiment with unassigned traits aka savlar chem dogs, aka emperor's pink tea party lads, whatever name you choose and give them stormtroopers.

So what if I assign the regiment "Savlar Chem-Dogs". Not Cadia, Catachan, Militarum Tempestus, or any of the others that have pre-defined doctrines. What doctrines can I choose from? And why can I choose those doctrines? What rules on the doctrines themselves define what the Savlar Chem-Dogs regiment can take?

By your logic, you cannot call your regiment anything but "Cadia" if you want to use "Born Soldiers" doctrine. Are you also saying that I can't get the Born Soldiers doctrine if I replace <Regiment> on my Baneblade with <Spiderpig>?

The rules in the Codex and FAQ specifically contradict your reasoning, as they allow you to pick regiments that don't have pre-defined doctrines or even make up your own. You aren't replacing the <REGIMENT> keyword with one of the existing regiments, you are using something completely different, which is explicitly allowed by the FAQ you're trying to use. Choosing a doctrine for your custom regiment is also explicitly allowed by the FAQ. There is no restriction being circumvented, because there is no restriction to start with.

What you said about the FAQ is true, however incomplete.

The FAQ also calls out giving units abilities they could not normally have by giving them a keyword to circumvent which units have which abilities.

A baneblade cannot have stormtrooper with any regiment option with assigned traits. You are trying to give it stormtrooper by giving it a regiment name that has unassigned traits so you can ignore that normally regiment cannot select militarum tempestus to get the militarum Tempestus doctrine.

Can you replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get the militarum tempestus doctrine? If you have to use a regiment that does not have assigned doctrines to do so then you are doing something you cannot normally do by manipulating keywords.

Blaktoof, there is NO SUCH THING as the the Militarum Tempestus doctrine. <Militarum Tempestus> is a Regiment.

Born Soldiers is a Doctrine. <Cadia> is a Regiment.
Storm Troopers is a Doctrine. <Tempestus Militarum> is a Regiment.

By your ruling, ONLY <Cadians> can have Born Soldiers, right?
Give me a yes or no answer.

If no, please support that.

If yes, then there is no reason Storm Troopers cannot also be taken.

I can have WHATEVER REGIMENT I LIKE. I can call them <Whatever I Feel Like Calling Them>. That does not affect what Doctrines they have access to.

The interaction between <Regiment> and Doctrine is as follows:

1. An Astra Militarum unit must have a <Regiment>. This can be pre-gen or custom.
2. <Militarum Tempestus> cannot be selected as a <Regiment>.
3. Some <Regiments> have a Doctrine they must use.
4. If your <Regiment> does not have an attached Doctrine, you must choose one of the Doctrines your <Regiment> uses.

There is NO RESTRICTION on what Doctrine you can have. There IS a restriction on what <Regiment> you have.

<Regiment> =/= Doctrine

Yeah blaktoof seems to have a logic error whereby the variable "Doctrine" keeps getting replaced with the value for the variable "regiment" and prevents him from recognizing that they are different, though oftentimes related.

I'll ask again since you ignored it:
So what if I assign the regiment "Savlar Chem-Dogs". Not Cadia, Catachan, Militarum Tempestus, or any of the others that have pre-defined doctrines. What doctrines can I choose from? And why can I choose those doctrines? What rules on the doctrines themselves define what the Savlar Chem-Dogs regiment can take?

You are all very bad at reading.

I have actually answered all of your questions already and did not ignore them, feel free to text reading.

OK, I'm done feeding the troll.

blaktoof wrote:
You are all very bad at reading.

I have actually answered all of your questions already and did not ignore them, feel free to text reading.

You haven't answered our questions, but your own inability to actually read and understand them is astounding.

It's like you're so convinced of your own position that you won't even consider the difference between choosing a Regiment and choosing a Doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
What you said about the FAQ is true, however incomplete.

The FAQ also calls out giving units abilities they could not normally have by giving them a keyword to circumvent which units have which abilities.

A baneblade cannot have stormtrooper with any regiment option with assigned traits. You are trying to give it stormtrooper by giving it a regiment name that has unassigned traits so you can ignore that normally regiment cannot select militarum tempestus to get the militarum Tempestus doctrine.

Can you replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get the militarum tempestus doctrine? If you have to use a regiment that does not have assigned doctrines to do so then you are doing something you cannot normally do by manipulating keywords.

The FAQ calls out not giving them abilities that they can't get normally - HOWEVER, a baneblade CAN get Storm Troopers normally by taking the Storm Troopers doctrine, which IS normal to be able to do with any regiment that does not have its own predetermined Doctrine. What they are talking about is to not be able to give Regiments Space Marines abilities by naming them Iron Hands or one of the other Chapter names. Likewise, a Space Marine Chapter would not be be called Cadian or one of the other predifined regiments and be able to have the Marines benefit from the regimental doctrine. THAT is what they are talking about in that question, not about whether baneblades can have storm troopers.

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
What you said about the FAQ is true, however incomplete.

The FAQ also calls out giving units abilities they could not normally have by giving them a keyword to circumvent which units have which abilities.

A baneblade cannot have stormtrooper with any regiment option with assigned traits. You are trying to give it stormtrooper by giving it a regiment name that has unassigned traits so you can ignore that normally regiment cannot select militarum tempestus to get the militarum Tempestus doctrine.

Can you replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get the militarum tempestus doctrine? If you have to use a regiment that does not have assigned doctrines to do so then you are doing something you cannot normally do by manipulating keywords.

The FAQ calls out not giving them abilities that they can't get normally - HOWEVER, a baneblade CAN get Storm Troopers normally by taking the Storm Troopers doctrine, which IS normal to be able to do with any regiment that does not have its own predetermined Doctrine. What they are talking about is to not be able to give Regiments Space Marines abilities by naming them Iron Hands or one of the other Chapter names. Likewise, a Space Marine Chapter would not be be called Cadian or one of the other predifined regiments and be able to have the Marines benefit from the regimental doctrine. THAT is what they are talking about in that question, not about whether baneblades can have storm troopers.

Somehow according to Blaktoof, apparently not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
You are all very bad at reading.

I have actually answered all of your questions already and did not ignore them, feel free to text reading.

And yet you still think that <Regiment> and Doctrine mean the same thing. This is not true.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
What you said about the FAQ is true, however incomplete.

The FAQ also calls out giving units abilities they could not normally have by giving them a keyword to circumvent which units have which abilities.

A baneblade cannot have stormtrooper with any regiment option with assigned traits. You are trying to give it stormtrooper by giving it a regiment name that has unassigned traits so you can ignore that normally regiment cannot select militarum tempestus to get the militarum Tempestus doctrine.

Can you replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get the militarum tempestus doctrine? If you have to use a regiment that does not have assigned doctrines to do so then you are doing something you cannot normally do by manipulating keywords.

The FAQ calls out not giving them abilities that they can't get normally - HOWEVER, a baneblade CAN get Storm Troopers normally by taking the Storm Troopers doctrine, which IS normal to be able to do with any regiment that does not have its own predetermined Doctrine. What they are talking about is to not be able to give Regiments Space Marines abilities by naming them Iron Hands or one of the other Chapter names. Likewise, a Space Marine Chapter would not be be called Cadian or one of the other predifined regiments and be able to have the Marines benefit from the regimental doctrine. THAT is what they are talking about in that question, not about whether baneblades can have storm troopers.

Somehow according to Blaktoof, apparently not.

Only by completely ignoring the question that was asked and parsing things to stretch them out of context to fit his preconceptions.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
You are all very bad at reading.

I have actually answered all of your questions already and did not ignore them, feel free to text reading.

And yet you still think that <Regiment> and Doctrine mean the same thing. This is not true.

One person accusing a multitude of being bad at reading, yet it doesn't occur to question whether the problem might be with the one and not the multitude. As you say, Regiment and Doctrine does not mean the same thing. A question about whether you can call a chapter by a regiment's name (or vice versa) is not the same as a regiment getting to pick its doctrine if it is not one of the regiments with a pre-assigned Doctrine.

Wow, this thread is really astonishing. I get that you guys want your Baneblades to get access to another doctrine, but circumventing restrictions is exactly what you are doing to make it work. No matter how much RAW and Roundabout logic you apply to it, a Baneblade cannot get access to the Storm Troopers doctrine without a custom regiment. Ergo you are using a custom regiment to circumvent this.

The FAQ clearly states this is not intended. Blaktoof has it right.

When you name your regiment 'Salvar Chem Dogs' and assigning a Cadian doctrine called 'Born soldiers,' are you not saying "I choose to name my AM army Salvar Chem Dogs because I like their customized looks and color schemes, but for all rules purposes, I will be using Cadian rules"?

Sedraxis wrote:
Wow, this thread is really astonishing. I get that you guys want your Baneblades to get access to another doctrine, but circumventing restrictions is exactly what you are doing to make it work. No matter how much RAW and Roundabout logic you apply to it, a Baneblade cannot get access to the Storm Troopers doctrine without a custom regiment. Ergo you are using a custom regiment to circumvent this.

The FAQ clearly states this is not intended. Blaktoof has it right.

Which restriction is this? The only restriction given is in response to abusing Factional keywords. Not Doctrines.

Again - I direct you to every comment made in defence of Storm Troopers Baneblades, and ask you answer each one, properly. That FAQ is not an appropriate answer, considering it addresses a completely different issue of the keyword system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
When you name your regiment 'Salvar Chem Dogs' and assigning a Cadian doctrine called 'Born soldiers,' are you not saying "I choose to name my AM army Salvar Chem Dogs, but for all rules purposes, I will be using Cadian rules"?

No.

If I was doing that, then I could take Creed or use Cadian Relics in my army. This is illegal, because my <Regiment> is not Cadian. My <Regiment> is <Salvar Chem-Dogs>, and I am using the Born Soldiers DOCTRINE to represent them. According to GW, this is 100% legal.

 skchsan wrote:
When you name your regiment 'Salvar Chem Dogs' and assigning a Cadian doctrine called 'Born soldiers,' are you not saying "I choose to name my AM army Salvar Chem Dogs because I like their customized looks and color schemes, but for all rules purposes, I will be using Cadian rules"?

For doctrines, but not all rules purposes. If someone named their Adeptus Astartes chapter Red Scorpions, they would get to use forge world Red Scorpions characters regardless of which Doctrine they used. They couldn't get to take named characters for the chapter that normally has the chapter tactics you pick, though, since they aren't that chapter. If someone put out a Savlar Chem Dog character he'd get to use that but wouldn't use Cadian characters.

The fw "regiments" are not REGIMENTS. They are their own armies that just so happen to share many units with IG.

The fw faq says this. They do not count as regiments. You cannot use them for regiments. They do not have a Doctrine as a rules entity in the same way the IG do. They are their own thing.

When you choose to call your fw army something else you cannot reference the ig book to get rules for the fw army. The fw guys are not a part of that book and have no permission to access those rules unless specifically given permission to do so. Likewise your ig army has no access to the fw stuff and no permission to access those rules unless specifically told you can. And instead they specifically tell you you cant.

Thats it.

There is no other debate. They are not a regiment you can build a customnarmy with.

 Lance845 wrote:
The fw "regiments" are not REGIMENTS. They are their own armies that just so happen to share many units with IG.

The fw faq says this. They do not count as regiments. You cannot use them for regiments. They do not have a Doctrine as a rules entity in the same way the IG do. They are their own thing.

When you choose to call your fw army something else you cannot reference the ig book to get rules for the fw army. The fw guys are not a part of that book and have no permission to access those rules unless specifically given permission to do so. Likewise your ig army has no access to the fw stuff and no permission to access those rules unless specifically told you can. And instead they specifically tell you you cant.

Thats it.

There is no other debate. They are not a regiment you can build a customnarmy with.

Dude, FW also has their own SM chapters too, and right now their suggestion for those had been "pick a chapter tactic."

Note I didn't say DKoK or Elysians in my previous answer, since they do have rules. Follows FW's Index rules for their stuff.

Sedraxis wrote:
Wow, this thread is really astonishing. I get that you guys want your Baneblades to get access to another doctrine, but circumventing restrictions is exactly what you are doing to make it work. No matter how much RAW and Roundabout logic you apply to it, a Baneblade cannot get access to the Storm Troopers doctrine without a custom regiment. Ergo you are using a custom regiment to circumvent this.

The FAQ clearly states this is not intended. Blaktoof has it right.

No, he has not. He has not actually ever quoted the restriction, though he has been asked to do so several times.

He has misrepresented an FAQ post to mean more than it has. The answer was presented was asking if you can give an AM unit Chapter Tactics and an Astartes unit Doctrines by naming them the same thing. AM units do not ever have access to Chapter Tactics. Astartes units never have access to Doctrines. This is what the question presented and this is what it answered. Baneblades DO have access to Doctrines, and Storm Troopers is a Doctrine. The only Regiments who cannot access the Storm Trooper Doctrine are those who already have Doctrines assigned to them, like Armageddon or Cadia.

Keep in mind that Blacktoof is also a poster who repeatedly posted a Unit Name only refers to a datasheet and not a fielded unit, so I would put his presentations through a salt mine before just blindly accepting what he states.

 Charistoph wrote:

Sedraxis wrote:
Wow, this thread is really astonishing. I get that you guys want your Baneblades to get access to another doctrine, but circumventing restrictions is exactly what you are doing to make it work. No matter how much RAW and Roundabout logic you apply to it, a Baneblade cannot get access to the Storm Troopers doctrine without a custom regiment. Ergo you are using a custom regiment to circumvent this.

The FAQ clearly states this is not intended. Blaktoof has it right.

No, he has not. He has not actually ever quoted the restriction, though he has been asked to do so several times.

He has misrepresented an FAQ post to mean more than it has. The answer was presented was asking if you can give an AM unit Chapter Tactics and an Astartes unit Doctrines by naming them the same thing. AM units do not ever have access to Chapter Tactics. Astartes units never have access to Doctrines. This is what the question presented and this is what it answered. Baneblades DO have access to Doctrines, and Storm Troopers is a Doctrine. The only Regiments who cannot access the Storm Trooper Doctrine are those who already have Doctrines assigned to them, like Armageddon or Cadia.

Keep in mind that Blacktoof is also a poster who repeatedly posted a Unit Name only refers to a datasheet and not a fielded unit, so I would put his presentations through a salt mine before just blindly accepting what he states.

I like how you are bringing up a 7th edition discussion, as well as misquoting me from over a year ago on a topic that ultimately I was correct on, unit rules in 7th edition raw did not affect attached ICs unless they said so specifically in the rule.

The FAQ question was more specific than the FAQ answer, however the FAQ answer is an official rules answer that says you cannot give units abilities they cannot normally have through assigning faction rules to faction names that don't have assigned rules. The FAQ answer covers more than the question asked.

blaktoof wrote:
I like how you are bringing up a 7th edition discussion, as well as misquoting me from over a year ago on a topic that ultimately I was correct on, unit rules in 7th edition raw did not affect attached ICs unless they said so specifically in the rule.

What an interesting attempt to divert from the actual point.

You were not correct in stating that a Unit Name is referring to a datasheet and not a fielded unit. GW never once stated anything in this regard, and had been pointed out, datasheets cannot be Deployed, cannot Shoot, nor cannot Charge, which would make the rules in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation completely useless. Nor did you ever correct yourself to stating that when a Special Rule referred to a Unit Name, it was restricting itself to only the models on the original datasheet, even when pointed out to you so you could correct it. You stuck with the statement that rules that gave a Unit Name as a target only targeted the datasheet.

GW never actually stated why it would work in one situation and not in another. Effectively, the GW FAQ answer to that was: if it wasn't a USR, it doesn't include joined ICs. Any category in which it would not work with a non-USR (where I said it would) would make it not work with a USR, and a USR was given as a working system.

blaktoof wrote:
The FAQ question was more specific than the FAQ answer, however the FAQ answer is an official rules answer that says you cannot give units abilities they cannot normally have through assigning faction rules to faction names that don't have assigned rules. The FAQ answer covers more than the question asked.

But you are taking the answer out of context, and I stated the context. Units with <Regiment> Faction Keywords cannot access Chapter Tactics. Units with <Chapter> Faction Keywords cannot access Doctrines. Units with <Regiment> Faction Keywords CAN access Doctrines, just like units with <Chapter> can access Chapter Tactics.

But, you still do not not answer the actual questions. Where is the restriction from any <Regiment> that is not <Regiment:Miliatarum Tempestus> (and not another <Regiment> with an associated Doctrine) from selecting the Storm Troopers Doctrine? Where does it state that ONLY <Regiment: Militarum Tempestus> may take the Storm Troopers Doctrine?

You are applying context to the answer that is not there to fit your narrative by interjecting words that are not part of the answer to create a possible intended meaning which is not actually there but supports your idea by limiting what the FAQ actually applies to.

Which I do commend your effort for as multiple people here who want to bend the rules simu ignore the FAQ in their reasoning and say "BUT THE CODEX SAYS.."

The answer to the FAQ deals with units getting abilities they cannot normally take by using keyword that have assigned rules.

RAW any unit with regiment keyword cannot select militarum Tempestus to get stormtrooper doctrine.

Using a regiment with no assigned traits to circumvent that is what the FAQ addressees specifically.

Um, the entirety of the actual answer is "No". The rest, the part below that in italics, is clarifying context of intent, relevant to the question. If you're against applying context or adding anything to the answer, then the answer is simply "No" to the specific question posed.

And there's nothing in the answer or context below it that mentions anything about circumventing what abilities units have. It specifically states that the intent isn't to allow you to circumvent what's "affect[ed]," there is no mention, anywhere, about what abilities units can have or units "getting" abilities, only what can be affected. Please stop adding words.

The question, answer, and clarifying context copied once more from the FAQ:

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

No. Hes saying that if the parent regiment has a restriction that makes it so x unit cannot gain access to its doctrine then naming your army whatever you want and having that army adopt that parent doctrine comes with all the same restrictions. You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
Um, the entirety of the actual answer is "No". The rest, the part below that in italics, is clarifying context of intent, relevant to the question. If you're against applying context or adding anything to the answer, then the answer is simply "No" to the specific question posed.

And there's nothing in the answer or context below it that mentions anything about circumventing what abilities units have. It specifically states that the intent isn't to allow you to circumvent what's "affect[ed]," there is no mention, anywhere, about what abilities units can have or units "getting" abilities, only what can be affected. Please stop adding words.

The question, answer, and clarifying context copied once more from the FAQ:

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

While I do understand yours and others' argument, the main takeaway from the Designer's Commentary excerpt is that "the intent of naming regiments, chaprers, etc... is to personalize your collections..." When you begin to rename your army in order to gain a doctrine that would otherwise unattainable, even though it is RAW on the Codex, it begins to conflict with the Designer's Commentary, which is a more recent publication than the Codex. Typically, we rely on the FAqs, erratas, and now CA's and Designer's Commentary in order to have GW explain to us what exactly the poorly worded and often omitted/insufficient wordings of rules were supposed to mean.

Here, the issue is that the Stormtrooper doctrine has a reasonable doubt that it was meant to be Militarum Tempestus only doctrine - it is the only doctrine (at non-custom levels) that has the most strict requirements in order for you to be able to take it. It comes at a cost of being able to take only using handful of units available in the entire Codex, before resorting to the custom regiment with stormtrooper doctrine. If such convenient method exists to by pass the requirements to unlock Stormtrooper doctrines, why bother going the extra mile making Militarum Tempestus a fixed regiment keyword? Is it just poor writing, or was the extra restrictions just for fun? As for the inability to use MT exclusive elements, inclusion of a real MT detachment would solve that problem.

Also, the phrases following the above quoted - "... and not unable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units," is merely a direct answer to the specific question: "do the abilities... now work on both the AM and AA units?", and not necessarily THE only thing that it is addressing regarding the designer's intent on allowing custom names.

Not arguing that you're wrong. Just a thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

No. Hes saying that if the parent regiment has a restriction that makes it so x unit cannot gain access to its doctrine then naming your army whatever you want and having that army adopt that parent doctrine comes with all the same restrictions. You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things.

Careful. They're gonna hit you with the "TAKING A DOCTRINE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TAKING ON MILITARUM TEMPESTUS REGIMENT" argument.

 skchsan wrote:
Careful. They're gonna hit you with the "TAKING A DOCTRINE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TAKING ON MILITARUM TEMPESTUS REGIMENT" argument.

Because it's not the same thing.

What it comes down to is that RAW, AM doctrine system, despite functioning exactly the same as Chapter Tactics, lacks precise keyword identification as found in Chapter Tactics page where each chapter tactic specifies the faction keyword it is applied to. Obviously, for <Custom Chapter>, all the bolded <Chapter> keywords are replaced with the said <Custom Chapter>. It's because doctrines only outline the TYPE of units it affects (if not army wide) that such "doctrine=/=regiment" argument becomes valid because "it's normally allowed, and your supposed restriction does not exist." It's a loophole based on a poorly written codex.

blaktoof wrote:You are applying context to the answer that is not there to fit your narrative by interjecting words that are not part of the answer to create a possible intended meaning which is not actually there but supports your idea by limiting what the FAQ actually applies to.

The context is provided by the question. The question was about naming a <Regiment> and <Chapter> the same so that they units with either Faction Keyword would be able to access both Doctrines and Chapter Tactics. From that question, we see that a unit with a <Regiment> Keyword should never gain a Chapter Tactic.

But that is largely immaterial because of our actual question.

blaktoof wrote:Which I do commend your effort for as multiple people here who want to bend the rules simu ignore the FAQ in their reasoning and say "BUT THE CODEX SAYS.."

The answer to the FAQ deals with units getting abilities they cannot normally take by using keyword that have assigned rules.

RAW any unit with regiment keyword cannot select militarum Tempestus to get stormtrooper doctrine.

Using a regiment with no assigned traits to circumvent that is what the FAQ addressees specifically.

And who has been saying that?

And you have yet to answer our questions regarding the exclusivity of the Storm Troopers doctrine. Where is this exclusivity ever stated at any point in the codex? If you cannot provide an answer to this, bringing up the FAQ is 100% pointless.

skchsan wrote:Here, the issue is that the Stormtrooper doctrine has a reasonable doubt that it was meant to be Militarum Tempestus only doctrine - it is the only doctrine (at non-custom levels) that has the most strict requirements in order for you to be able to take it.

Again, the question, where does it state this? I see a restriction against Militarum Tempestus for Doctrines, I do not see a restriction regarding the Doctrine being pulled by anyone else who isn't Militarum Tempestus and doesn't already have their own Doctrine.

Again, on the Doctrines page, where does it state any exclusivity between the <Regiment> and the Doctrine that comes after it?

Simple fact is our hypothetical Baneblade cannot be MILITARUM TEMPESTUS, but it can have the Storm Troopers Doctrine if it's in a Supreme Command or Super Heavy Detachment containing exclusively units from a custom Regiment that has selected Storm Troopers as its Doctrine.

Lance845 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

No. Hes saying that if the parent regiment has a restriction that makes it so x unit cannot gain access to its doctrine then naming your army whatever you want and having that army adopt that parent doctrine comes with all the same restrictions. You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things.

Huh.

Am I right in thinking that ALL units with <Keyword> start off as a blank slate, right? So, nothing EVER starts with a specific Faction like <Ultramarines> or <Cadian> to start with, right?

So surely then me assigning any name to these blank slate <Keywords> is illegal? Because, as you say "You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things." Me naming a Tactical Squad with the <Ultramarines> keyword is therefore illegal, because it gives them rules they otherwise can't have if they didn't have that keyword. In that regard, the ONLY units which can have faction specific <Keywords> are ones that already have them, such as Guilliman, Creed, Straken etc etc.

This is a stupid line of argument. The FAQ is clear on what it addresses. It addresses cross-Faction naming, so Guardsmen can benefit from Space Marine bonuses. Not on if a custom regiment can have an entirely unrelated Doctrine.

skchsan wrote:While I do understand yours and others' argument, the main takeaway from the Designer's Commentary excerpt is that "the intent of naming regiments, chaprers, etc... is to personalize your collections..." When you begin to rename your army in order to gain a doctrine that would otherwise unattainable, even though it is RAW on the Codex, it begins to conflict with the Designer's Commentary, which is a more recent publication than the Codex. Typically, we rely on the FAqs, erratas, and now CA's and Designer's Commentary in order to have GW explain to us what exactly the poorly worded and often omitted/insufficient wordings of rules were supposed to mean.

What in the designer's commentary negates it? The only thing it addresses is abuse of keywords to get bonuses from NON-AM ARMIES.

What use is personalisation when you can't take any rules for it? Or are we only allowed to personalise the name?

Here, the issue is that the Stormtrooper doctrine has a reasonable doubt that it was meant to be Militarum Tempestus only doctrine - it is the only doctrine (at non-custom levels) that has the most strict requirements in order for you to be able to take it. It comes at a cost of being able to take only using handful of units available in the entire Codex, before resorting to the custom regiment with stormtrooper doctrine. If such convenient method exists to by pass the requirements to unlock Stormtrooper doctrines, why bother going the extra mile making Militarum Tempestus a fixed regiment keyword? Is it just poor writing, or was the extra restrictions just for fun? As for the inability to use MT exclusive elements, inclusion of a real MT detachment would solve that problem.

This isn't true.

Storm Troopers, the Doctrine, is no more restricted than any other Doctrine. Nothing about it says it.
The ONLY thing that is restricted is <Militarum Tempestus>. That is it. No-one is trying to take <Militarum Tempestus>. They are taking a Doctrine which has no restrictions on it's use.

The reason <Militarum Tempestus> has those restrictions is not because of the Doctrines. It's so it stops Scions benefiting from cheap Officers from the AM book, tanks and transports that have never been part of the MT army, or taking Conscripts/normal Guardsmen in what should be a more elite army.

<Militarum Tempestus> is so limited so it creates a forced unit shortage for the Scions. Not so Storm Troopers is their unique doctrine. If that was the case, why didn't GW just put it as a special rules on every MT datasheet a la "And They Shall Know No Fear"?

So then, I have a SM chapter I named <The Night's Watch>, and it is said to be a special subdivision of the <Deathwatch> tasked with the defense against the army of frozen nurgles hailing from the Northern fringes of the galaxy. It is a company that has no known parent chapter, while utilizing fully codex compliant chapter structure, so I decide that the army is best represented by the chapter tactics of <Deathwatch>, the army wide special issue ammunitions.

But see, they're <The Night's Watch>, whose <Chapter> keyword has been replaced with, and CLEARLY not <Deathwatch> because deathwatch doesn't get all the cool toys that SM does. Do all of my units available to SM but not deathwatch suddenly get the rule as well? Afterall, I never tried to replace <Deathwatch> with <The Night's Watch>, and I'm only taking the Chapter Tactics as <The Nighr's Watch> has no known connection to any chapters.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So surely then me assigning any name to these blank slate <Keywords> is illegal? Because, as you say "You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things." Me naming a Tactical Squad with the <Ultramarines> keyword is therefore illegal, because it gives them rules they otherwise can't have if they didn't have that keyword. In that regard, the ONLY units which can have faction specific <Keywords> are ones that already have them, such as Guilliman, Creed, Straken etc etc.

No, taking SM Codex variants and assigning them with Chapter tactics of BA or DA would be illegal.

Surely both BA and DA are part of <Adeptus Astartes> and undoubtly <Chapter>. Does having separate books discount BA and DA being part of the collective term "any chapter of your choosing"? If so, if MT were its own book of 5 pages of unit datasheets, would you then be disallowed to take Stormtrooper doctrine since it's a separate book, despite MT's surely being part of <Astra Militarum> and <Militarum Tempestus> undoubtedly being a <Regiment>?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This is a stupid line of argument. The FAQ is clear on what it addresses. It addresses cross-Faction naming, so Guardsmen can benefit from Space Marine bonuses. Not on if a custom regiment can have an entirely unrelated Doctrine.

You're reading in between lines. The primary point the Designer's Commentary addresses is the manipulation of flex-regiment system for purposes other than pure customization level.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What use is personalisation when you can't take any rules for it? Or are we only allowed to personalise the name?

Yes, precisely - it's only intended to personalize the name. The commentary is very specific and explicit regarding this

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This isn't true.

Storm Troopers, the Doctrine, is no more restricted than any other Doctrine. Nothing about it says it.
The ONLY thing that is restricted is <Militarum Tempestus>. That is it. No-one is trying to take <Militarum Tempestus>. They are taking a Doctrine which has no restrictions on it's use.

The reason <Militarum Tempestus> has those restrictions is not because of the Doctrines. It's so it stops Scions benefiting from cheap Officers from the AM book, tanks and transports that have never been part of the MT army, or taking Conscripts/normal Guardsmen in what should be a more elite army.

Can you point at us in the book where it states that MT having fixed faction keyword only was because of the reasons you state?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not so Storm Troopers is their unique doctrine. If that was the case, why didn't GW just put it as a special rules on every MT datasheet a la "And They Shall Know No Fear"?

Irrelevant.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And I'm waiting on something to refute that.

Many people seem to be missing the difference between <Regiment> and Doctrine. I'll make it easy.

<Regiment> =/= Doctrine There is no correlation between them, beyond that some <Regiments> force you to take Doctrines. However, no Doctrines force you to be a certain <Regiment>.

No doctrines forces you to be certain regiment because of the poor wording on the codex. Any other chapter tactics/regiment equivalents in other codice specifically indicate for which faction keyword it is applicable to. In any other armies, you're playing your custom named armies, but they're really the successor chapters of so and so, so it follows all of its applicable restrictions. You're utilizing the lack of such mechanism in doctrine system, which then would logically be concluded as, either AM's got special treatment that allows what youre claiming it can do, or there is a loophole in the system that allows AM to do what other armies can't.

 skchsan wrote:
So then, I have a SM chapter I named <The Night's Watch>, and it is said to be a special subdivision of the <Deathwatch> tasked with the defense against the army of frozen nurgles hailing from the Northern fringes of the galaxy. It is a company that has no known parent chapter, while utilizing fully codex compliant chapter structure, so I decide that the army is best represented by the chapter tactics of <Deathwatch>, the army wide special issue ammunitions.

But see, they're <The Night's Watch>, whose <Chapter> keyword has been replaced with, and CLEARLY not <Deathwatch> because deathwatch doesn't get all the cool toys that SM does. Do all of my units available to SM but not deathwatch suddenly get the rule as well? No.

False equivalence. The DEATHWATCH keyword has restrictions on it. You can't give any of the DEATHWATCH units a different <CHAPTER> keyword, not can you give Deathwatch rules to non-DEATHWATCH units. This is not the case for the Storm Troopers doctrine.

Deathwatch don't have any Chapter Tactics and you know it. They have a fixed faction keyword.

You've dug yourself a hole here and are too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

It's actually the exactly samr premises you're claiming.Please read the post in full or don't respond to the comment.

RAW, if the codex hasnt been released then Index suffices in place of it.

 skchsan wrote:
It's actually the exactly samr premises you're claiming.Please read the post in full or don't respond to the comment.

RAW, if the codex hasnt been released then Index suffices in place of it.

No, it really isn't the exact same premise. BCB was right in his statements responding to you.

I'm not actually sure he's read any of the books in question at this point.

 skchsan wrote:
It's actually the exactly samr premises you're claiming.Please read the post in full or don't respond to the comment.

RAW, if the codex hasnt been released then Index suffices in place of it.

You have clearly not read the Deathwatch rules then. There's no similarity at all.

<Deathwatch> has no Doctrine equivalent to it.

The ones from Codex: Space Marines DO have Doctrines associated with their <Keyword> like the AM do.

<Ultramarines> are locked into Codex Discipline, just as <Cadians> are locked into Born Soldiers. Deathwatch do not work this way, and you should know this.

skchsan wrote:So then, I have a SM chapter I named <The Night's Watch>, and it is said to be a special subdivision of the <Deathwatch> tasked with the defense against the army of frozen nurgles hailing from the Northern fringes of the galaxy. It is a company that has no known parent chapter, while utilizing fully codex compliant chapter structure, so I decide that the army is best represented by the chapter tactics of <Deathwatch>, the army wide special issue ammunitions.

But see, they're <The Night's Watch>, whose <Chapter> keyword has been replaced with, and CLEARLY not <Deathwatch> because deathwatch doesn't get all the cool toys that SM does. Do all of my units available to SM but not deathwatch suddenly get the rule as well? Afterall, I never tried to replace <Deathwatch> with <The Night's Watch>, and I'm only taking the Chapter Tactics as <The Nighr's Watch> has no known connection to any chapters.

Disproven as seen above.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So surely then me assigning any name to these blank slate <Keywords> is illegal? Because, as you say "You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things." Me naming a Tactical Squad with the <Ultramarines> keyword is therefore illegal, because it gives them rules they otherwise can't have if they didn't have that keyword. In that regard, the ONLY units which can have faction specific <Keywords> are ones that already have them, such as Guilliman, Creed, Straken etc etc.

No, taking SM Codex variants and assigning them with Chapter tactics of BA or DA would be illegal.

Surely both BA and DA are part of <Adeptus Astartes> and undoubtly <Chapter>. Does having separate books discount BA and DA being part of the collective term "any chapter of your choosing"? If so, if MT were its own book of 5 pages of unit datasheets, would you then be disallowed to take Stormtrooper doctrine since it's a separate book, despite MT's surely being part of <Astra Militarum> and <Militarum Tempestus> undoubtedly being a <Regiment>?

If all the MT units were in a different book, then I could understand them being seperate. However, as they are in the same book and Storm Troopers is treated no differently to other Doctrines, I see no reason they can't be treated like any other Doctrine.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This is a stupid line of argument. The FAQ is clear on what it addresses. It addresses cross-Faction naming, so Guardsmen can benefit from Space Marine bonuses. Not on if a custom regiment can have an entirely unrelated Doctrine.

You're reading in between lines. The primary point the Designer's Commentary addresses is the manipulation of flex-regiment system for purposes other than pure customization level.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What use is personalisation when you can't take any rules for it? Or are we only allowed to personalise the name?

Yes, precisely - it's only intended to personalize the name. The commentary is very specific and explicit regarding this

So in which case, if I take a custom regiment, they get no doctrine?

Is that what you're telling me?

Good job with that.

I suppose you'll also tell me that your <Nights Watch> Chapter must also then get no rules, because they're custom.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This isn't true.

Storm Troopers, the Doctrine, is no more restricted than any other Doctrine. Nothing about it says it.
The ONLY thing that is restricted is <Militarum Tempestus>. That is it. No-one is trying to take <Militarum Tempestus>. They are taking a Doctrine which has no restrictions on it's use.

The reason <Militarum Tempestus> has those restrictions is not because of the Doctrines. It's so it stops Scions benefiting from cheap Officers from the AM book, tanks and transports that have never been part of the MT army, or taking Conscripts/normal Guardsmen in what should be a more elite army.

Can you point at us in the book where it states that MT having fixed faction keyword only was because of the reasons you state?

Can you tell me otherwise?

After all, the Doctrine doesn't factor into it, due to the rules of the Doctrine itself.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not so Storm Troopers is their unique doctrine. If that was the case, why didn't GW just put it as a special rules on every MT datasheet a la "And They Shall Know No Fear"?

Irrelevant.

How.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And I'm waiting on something to refute that.

Many people seem to be missing the difference between <Regiment> and Doctrine. I'll make it easy.

<Regiment> =/= Doctrine There is no correlation between them, beyond that some <Regiments> force you to take Doctrines. However, no Doctrines force you to be a certain <Regiment>.

No doctrines forces you to be certain regiment because of the poor wording on the codex. Any other chapter tactics/regiment equivalents in other codice specifically indicate for which faction keyword it is applicable to. In any other armies, you're playing your custom named armies, but they're really the successor chapters of so and so, so it follows all of its applicable restrictions. You're utilizing the lack of such mechanism in doctrine system, which then would logically be concluded as, either AM's got special treatment that allows what youre claiming it can do, or there is a loophole in the system that allows AM to do what other armies can't.

Not true. A successor ISN'T just a "count-as" of their predecessor. If this were the case, I would be able to take Guilliman and Blaylock in the same list. Can I do that?

No. I can't.

The issue with the regiment =\= doxtrine is you all are obfuscating the facts that:

1.) Doctrines are normally tied to specific regiments unless you use a regiment with no assigned doctrine/orders

2.) Normally any unit with <regiment> cannot select the regiment that allows for the stormtrooper ability

Claiming doctrine =\= regiment isn't a valid argument as the statement in itself doesn't validate giving an unit with <regiment> an ability it could not normally take without using a keyword with no assigned orders/relics/doctrines.

Which is what the designers commentary FAQ addresses.

The FAQ doesnt say you can't take a regiment, it says you can't use the keyword system to give units abilities they would not have access to normally. Normally a baneblade could not select the regiment that would give the ability you are trying to give it without using a keyword that has no assigned traits due to real written rules restrictions on p.84 of the AM codex.

blaktoof wrote:
The issue with the regiment =\= doxtrine is you all are obfuscating the facts that:

1.) Doctrines are normally tied to specific regiments unless you use a regiment with no assigned doctrine/orders

Irrelevant. Being able to choose a doctrine for a regiment with no assigned doctrine is just as normal as choosing a regiment that has an assigned doctrine. You do not wish to accept that.

blaktoof wrote:
2.) Normally any unit with <regiment> cannot select the regiment that allows for the stormtrooper ability

Which is also irrelevant. when you make your own regiment, or choose a regiment that does not have one assigned, as part of the normal process you get to choose a doctrine. They have not placed any limitations on choosing doctrines.

blaktoof wrote:
Claiming doctrine =\= regiment isn't a valid argument as the statement in itself doesn't validate giving an unit with <regiment> an ability it could not normally take without using a keyword with no assigned orders/relics/doctrines.

Claiming doctrine =/= regiment isn't qa valid argument is in and of itself not a valid argument. Again, they have not placed any limitations on choosing doctrines. Units that aren't assigned getting to choose doctrines is a normal process. Therefore, you do not get to claim that they are circumventing a normal process when they are following a normal process.

You still have not provided any proof for your assertions that by RAW you can not select Storm Troopers without trying to claim that it's because you can't normally select MT as a regiment if you're not MT, and basing it on a FAQ question that is about trying to give a regiment and a chapter the same name so that they could try to use the rules for both regiment and chapter for marines and for guard. THAT is the circumventing rules that normally prevent you from getting an ability that they're talking about. Since their procedure for choosing doctrines if you don't have one assigned has absolutely no exception for the Storm Troopers doctrine and that getting to select a doctrine IS a normal procedure, this is not the circumvention they're talking about. You are just trying to make it that by taking it out of context and distorting things.

Which is what the designers commentary FAQ addresses.

The FAQ doesnt say you can't take a regiment, it says you can't use the keyword system to give units abilities they would not have access to normally. Normally a baneblade could not select the regiment that would give the ability you are trying to give it without using a keyword that has no assigned traits due to real written rules restrictions on p.84 of the AM codex.

Obviously they have placed restrictions on which you uts get which abilities, as a baneblade unit cannot get stormtrooper ability without using a keyword with no assigned abilities whicb is directly what the FAQ was addressing.

Your statement that there is no restriction is blatantly flash and requires completely ignoring the FAQ to have any merit.

Further you obviously did not read anything I typed or the FAQ as you keep bringing up this ludicrous point that there is no restriction on which doctrine you can take when the issue is giving an unit an ability it cannot normally have without using a keyword that has no assigned abilities which is exactly what is being discussed a d what the FAQ covers.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

No. Hes saying that if the parent regiment has a restriction that makes it so x unit cannot gain access to its doctrine then naming your army whatever you want and having that army adopt that parent doctrine comes with all the same restrictions. You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things.

Huh.

Am I right in thinking that ALL units with <Keyword> start off as a blank slate, right? So, nothing EVER starts with a specific Faction like <Ultramarines> or <Cadian> to start with, right?

So surely then me assigning any name to these blank slate <Keywords> is illegal? Because, as you say "You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things." Me naming a Tactical Squad with the <Ultramarines> keyword is therefore illegal, because it gives them rules they otherwise can't have if they didn't have that keyword. In that regard, the ONLY units which can have faction specific <Keywords> are ones that already have them, such as Guilliman, Creed, Straken etc etc.

This is a stupid line of argument. The FAQ is clear on what it addresses. It addresses cross-Faction naming, so Guardsmen can benefit from Space Marine bonuses. Not on if a custom regiment can have an entirely unrelated Doctrine.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Can Militarum Tempestus give Storm Trooper Doctrine to a Baneblade? No. So, the open <REGIMENT> keyword is meant for you to give fluff and flavor to your army. Not circumvent rules restrictions. Just because your IG army is called "Beep Boop" and chooses the Storm Trooper doctrine doesn't mean you can circumvent the restrictions of the parent Regiment you are using the doctrine for. They specifically say that in the FAQ. It is not meant for you to give rules to units that could not normally get those rules. Is the MT cannot give it to a baneblade, then anything using the MT doctrine continues to also not be able to. Because acording to the FAQ the Keyword Mechanic is not meant to circumvent restrictions.

i.e. You cannot circumvent the rstrictions and allowances simply by renaming things.

I think everyone understands the train of thought that gets to that conclusion. We just see it as being based on a false foundation. I don't think anyone's going to convince anyone else at this point, and it's just going in circles until a FAQ comes out that specifically addresses this Doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:Obviously they have placed restrictions on which you uts get which abilities, as a baneblade unit cannot get stormtrooper ability without using a keyword with no assigned abilities whicb is directly what the FAQ was addressing.

Your statement that there is no restriction is blatantly flash and requires completely ignoring the FAQ to have any merit.

Then please quote the codex where it provides this restriction. You have not provided it at any point, you have simply claimed there is one. Your claim means nothing without proof. Thus the question continues to be asked.

blaktoof wrote:Further you obviously did not read anything I typed or the FAQ as you keep bringing up this ludicrous point that there is no restriction on which doctrine you can take when the issue is giving an unit an ability it cannot normally have without using a keyword that has no assigned abilities which is exactly what is being discussed a d what the FAQ covers.

Since you have not quoted anything from the AM codex which disallows any custom <Regiment> from taking the Storm Troopers Doctrine, there has been nothing you have typed to read regarding this. All you give is your claims and assertions, just as when you claimed Special Rules addressing a Unit Name were calling after a datasheet and not an actual unit.

Where is the restriction which places the Storm Trooper Doctrine as only being under the Militarum Tempestus and not a <Regiment>, and would you properly quote it?

Any inherent restriction that could be considered would be just as easily applied to the Doctrine listed after Cadia, Armageddon, and the rest. So where is the explicit restriction?

blaktoof wrote:
Obviously they have placed restrictions on which you uts get which abilities, as a baneblade unit cannot get stormtrooper ability without using a keyword with no assigned abilities whicb is directly what the FAQ was addressing.

No, the FAQ was directly addressing regiments getting chapter tactics abilities or SM units getting Doctrines as well as their normal stuff.

blaktoof wrote:
Your statement that there is no restriction is blatantly flash and requires completely ignoring the FAQ to have any merit.

Your statement is based on taking the FAQ out of context to apply it when it doesn't apply, so your statement is the one without merit.

blaktoof wrote:
Further you obviously did not read anything I typed or the FAQ as you keep bringing up this ludicrous point that there is no restriction on which doctrine you can take when the issue is giving an unit an ability it cannot normally have without using a keyword that has no assigned abilities which is exactly what is being discussed a d what the FAQ covers.

Obviously you can not tell the different between not reading what you had typed, and reading what you had typed but have dismissed as an invalid argument. You're not being ignored; we just find your argument lacking and summarily reject it based on that. The unit CAN NORMALLY get the Doctrine by having the regiment select the doctrine. This is a normal function in the rules.. It chooses the Doctrine as normal. No keyword blah blah blah as you intimate.

You still need to provide proof without resorting to claiming that by not allowing a faction to be chosen you prevent the perfectly legal option of choosing a Doctrine, which is a normal procedure for the armies.

Actually a normal function of the rules is defined on p.84, units with <regiment> cannot select militarum Tempestus.

Stormtrooper is the militarum tempestus doctrine.

A baneblade cannot normally have the stormtrooper ability- as the regiment with that assigned traits is not a valid option. All other regiments with assigned traits are.

Any <regiment> without an assigned traits per the FAQ cannot choose stormtrooper because they are giving an unit, baneblade, an ability, stormtrooper, that it cannot normally get access to without using a regiment that has no associated rules- which is exactly what the FAQ answer covers.

If getting the stormtrooper ability on a baneblade was a normal option then <regiment> would normally be able to be replaced with the only keyword that has that assigned ability.

The FAQ deals with using keywords with unassigned traits to try and give units abilities they would not normally be able to get by using keywords with assigned abilities.

And I'm out.

blaktoof wrote:
Actually a normal function of the rules is defined on p.84, units with <regiment> cannot select militarum Tempestus.

Stormtrooper is the militarum tempestus doctrine.

A baneblade cannot normally have the stormtrooper ability- as the regiment with that assigned traits is not a valid option. All other regiments with assigned traits are.

Right in here you missed the proper step. Yes, the Storm Troopers Doctrine is the Militarum Tempestus Doctrine, but you have yet to point out how ANY Doctrine is exclusive to the <Regiment> (so-called in the case of the MT) that is listed before the Doctrine's Name.

Where does it state that the relationship listed as:
"MILITARUM TEMPESTUS:
STORM TROOPERS"
has any exclusivity from any other unlisted <Regiment> from getting it any more than:
"CADIAN:
BORN SOLDIERS"
"CATACHAN:
BRUTAL STRENGTH"
"ARMAGEDDON:
INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY"

Without providing a proper rule providing that exclusive relationship beyond the others, your belief has zero written support. The exclusivity of the <Regiment> does not translate to the exclusivity of the Doctrine that it is required to use without it being specifically written. There is nothing in the codex which provides this exclusivity of the Doctrine that I can find, and no one, much less you, has provided any other source for it other then an unfounded relationship in your own heads.

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

This keeps coming up and is consistently misinterpreted. This Designer's Commentary Answer prevents two things:
1. Using a custom <Regiment>, <Chapter>, <etc> keyword to allow a player to claim the abilities from one army on units in another. Even if you call both your AM Regiment and AA Chapter 'Emperor's Finest' you don't get to use the Captain's Rite's of Battle (that works on <Chapter Units&gt on AM units or can you use AM Orders on a Space Marine unit.
2. You can't call you Eldar <Craftworld> 'Emperor's Finest' and then stick them in the same Detachment as your 'Emperor's Finest' Chapter units.

That is what it is saying? It doesn't say jack about Chapter Tactics or Regimental Doctrines.

 alextroy wrote:

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

This keeps coming up and is consistently misinterpreted. This Designer's Commentary Answer prevents two things:
1. Using a custom <Regiment>, <Chapter>, <etc> keyword to allow a player to claim the abilities from one army on units in another. Even if you call both your AM Regiment and AA Chapter 'Emperor's Finest' you don't get to use the Captain's Rite's of Battle (that works on <Chapter Units&gt on AM units or can you use AM Orders on a Space Marine unit.
2. You can't call you Eldar <Craftworld> 'Emperor's Finest' and then stick them in the same Detachment as your 'Emperor's Finest' Chapter units.

That is what it is saying? It doesn't say jack about Chapter Tactics or Regimental Doctrines.

It's in the second part of the question, which is the actual question:

do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units

What abilities work on the <Regiment> Keywords? Doctrines.
What abilities work on the <Chapter> Keywords? Chapter Tactics.

If you can provide any other abilities that work on <Regiment> or <Chapter>, please present them.

Edit: But as has been pointed out before, in order for this FAQ to have ANY application to this discussion, it must first be demonstrated that ONLY Faction Keyword Militarum Tempestus Detachments can access Storm Trooper Doctrines, but the Doctrines which are listed Cadian, Armageddon, Catachan, etc, are not that exclusive.

Did you not read what i wrote? I literally included two such abilities (Rites of Battle and Orders) in my post.

Wait what are we on about now?

Anyways it's worth mentioning that a Successor Chapter is now forbidden from using its progenitor's Warlord Trait.

This is significant, because it means if you choose <Aurora Chapter> you are not "counts as Ultramarines" and do not get the "Ultramarines" warlord trait. However, you still get their Chapter Tactic.

This indicates that Chapter Tactics (and by extension, Doctrines) are distinct from the keywords to which they are attached, therefore decoupling the Storm Troopers doctrine from the Militarum Tempestus Keyword.

If you subscribe to precedent, that is.

That sounds correct. It really hurts custom guard regiments, who will not benefit from the extra orders, stratagems, warlord traits and relics that the named regiments do.
Of course you get around this by "counting as" a named regiment. Which of course means you are not eligible for the storm trooper doctrine.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
That sounds correct. It really hurts custom guard regiments, who will not benefit from the extra orders, stratagems, warlord traits and relics that the named regiments do.
Of course you get around this by "counting as" a named regiment. Which of course means you are not eligible for the storm trooper doctrine.

Yes, this is true.

And I will also make fun of the plastic cadians who are counts-as-someone-else who are counts-as-vostroyans really.

 alextroy wrote:
Did you not read what i wrote? I literally included two such abilities (Rites of Battle and Orders) in my post.

And you were excluding the Doctrines and Chapter Tactics in your post.

And both of those have rules telling you how to apply them. Chapter Tactics apply to <Chapters> and Doctrines apply to <Regiments>. The only reason to drag the FAQ in is if someone is tying to apply something to the wrong type of Keyword.

 alextroy wrote:
And both of those have rules telling you how to apply them. Chapter Tactics apply to <Chapters> and Doctrines apply to <Regiments>. The only reason to drag the FAQ in is if someone is tying to apply something to the wrong type of Keyword.

And you are missing the point and purpose of the thread, which is that people were saying that the Storm Troopers Doctrine could only be applied to <Militarum Tempestus>, and others are saying it is not.