Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nekooni wrote:

Khadorstompy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Khadorstompy wrote:
I think your missing the bulk of our argument here. If EDT and DKoK are <Regiments> which Bacon is denying. Then because they do not have a doctrine they would get a Doctrine from the list. They would not get specific strategems, relics, or Warlord Traits though they could take from the generic AM ones. He is making the case that they are completely separate faction like DA/SW/BA are from Space marines despite having the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. I am making the case that they are the Equivalent of Red Scorpions or Minotaurs which are FW sub-factions of Space marines.

How about you answer me instead of telling me I'm the wrong kind of wrong because I do not argue the same point that BaconCatBug does?

Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.

All the DKoK have a hard-wired Regiment, so you can't pick any up anything that's hard-wired to a different regiment: Doctrines, regiment orders, regiment characters etc. You also can't use any generic new orders (if there were any) since the DKoK order list fully replaces the order list. I'd let you get away with non-regimental Warlord traits, stratagems and relics, but that's it. Or was that all you wanted anyway, and I misunderstood you? I thought you're arguing that you can create what's basically a Mordian Death Korps, using all of the rules.
I mean, your opening statement was "The question is do Elysians and DKoK get regimental doctrines or not."

I take it you didn't read the clip form the codex in the link I posted on the very first message. Let me quote it for you and see if this helps a bit. "If your chosen regiment doesn't have an associated doctrine," So neither DKoK or EDT have a doctrine seems to fit. "You may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army."

Sorry if I am being confusing. No they wouldn't get example Cadian Orders, Strategems, Warlord traits, or Relics. But they could pick "Born Soldiers" doctrine due to the above.

You're not choosing a Regiment though, are you? You've chosen to pick up an entirely different army list which locks all your units to a specific Regiment, which comes with a special rule (Cult of Sacrifice). Don't you think that maybe CoS is the 'doctrine', even though FW didn't use the proper wording (since that wasn't known when that Index was released) ?

I mean, you could argue all day about FW & GW rules interactions, but we all know they mess that up frequently. I'd say the intent is pretty obvious, and that's good enough for me. I don't think anyone will actually allow you to do what you want to do at an actual table without a major dispute over that, which should always be a consideration.

There is clearly need for an updated Index:FotAM FAQ that deals with all of this, though.

Agree on the need for a FAQ and you could be right that its not RAI. However RAW I think its pretty clear they get it along with the Generic Astra Miltarum Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Khadorstompy wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I dont see how anyone could think they can get away with running Aerial Drop elysians with the Cadian doctrine? It seems pretty obvious and self explanitory.

Then again, even if the RAI is obvious, I guess RAW isnt.

I guess, technically, the DKoK dont have the Regiment keyword, since they replace it with DKoK, and the rules for replacing it in the FW index doesn't tell them to also select a doctrine like the picture above does.

Thats a bit of a stretch since you replace <Regiment> with Cadian in a Cadian detachment. No one is saying the the DKoK will get the Cadian Keyword. Its just Regiments without a Doctrine get to pick a Doctrine. Seems straightforward to me.

That's a bit of a stretch since you get the Cadian doctrines by replacing <Regiment> with <Cadian> - you need <Regiment> before getting doctrines. Seems straightforward to me.

I am not getting the point you are trying to make with this. If your saying that only units with <Regiment> get doctrines the all the Hardcoded Characters can't have doctrines. If your saying that DKoK is not a Regiment like Space Wolves are not a Chapter then you could make the argument though I would make the argument that DKoK is a FW <Regiment> like Red Scorpions are a FW <Chapter>.

Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.

Exactly.
There are two ways to deal with this:

a) You treat the DKoK as a separate entity that borrows a few Datasheets from the AM, then you don't get anything from the Codex.
b) You treat the DKoK as an additional Regiment with some very specific rules (and datasheets) that, instead of picking a Doctrine, has the Cult of Sacrifice "doctrine".

The first one is RAW, the 2nd one is not, but I'd be fine with it being a pretty good house rule unit FW releases an update to their FAQ

 Crazyterran wrote:
Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.

Which is basically what debate is going to be coming down to. Are they a Regiment like Space wolves is a chapter frankly nothing but a separate army or are the a <Regiment> like Red Scorpions are a <Chapter>? I see it has the ladder I I find more parallels however its seems you find it more the former.

Khadorstompy wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.

Which is basically what debate is going to be coming down to. Are they a Regiment like Space wolves is a chapter frankly nothing but a separate army or are the a <Regiment> like Red Scorpions are a <Chapter>? I see it has the ladder I I find more parallels however its seems you find it more the former.

Not at all. You're throwing everything into the same pot while they're different things.

Red Scorpions do not have their own rules.
DKoK do.
Space Wolves do.
Elysians do.
Minotaurs don't.


Minotaurs and Red Scorpions are one type of thing, that - since it's lacking specific rules, use the generic rules.
Elysians, DKoK and Space Wolves are a different type of thing, that has their own specific rules, and you use those, not the generic rules.

nekooni wrote:

Khadorstompy wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Reading the DKoK rules, the context in which its worded makes it seem like its a completely seperate thing from the AM codex - it only states to use the AM index (later the codex, ill assume) for the specific unit datasheets, rather than for anything else, so assuming you would get Regimental Doctrines is a bit of a stretch in and of itself.

Which is basically what debate is going to be coming down to. Are they a Regiment like Space wolves is a chapter frankly nothing but a separate army or are the a <Regiment> like Red Scorpions are a <Chapter>? I see it has the ladder I I find more parallels however its seems you find it more the former.

Not at all. You're throwing everything into the same pot while they're different things.

Red Scorpions do not have their own rules.
DKoK do.
Space Wolves do.
Elysians do.
Minotaurs don't.


Minotaurs and Red Scorpions are one type of thing, that - since it's lacking specific rules, use the generic rules.
Elysians, DKoK and Space Wolves are a different type of thing, that has their own specific rules, and you use those, not the generic rules.

You make a good point. That does add to the confusion of it. But some in codex units of the Space Marines have their own special rules. For example the Black Templars Chapter has the Lost Libarius Rule and the Crusader Squads.

Khadorstompy wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Not at all. You're throwing everything into the same pot while they're different things.

Red Scorpions do not have their own rules.
DKoK do.
Space Wolves do.
Elysians do.
Minotaurs don't.


Minotaurs and Red Scorpions are one type of thing, that - since it's lacking specific rules, use the generic rules.
Elysians, DKoK and Space Wolves are a different type of thing, that has their own specific rules, and you use those, not the generic rules.

You make a good point. That does add to the confusion of it. But some in codex units of the Space Marines have their own special rules. For example the Black Templars Chapter has the Lost Libarius Rule and the Crusader Squads.

What exactly is changed by that? It's part of the package that is "Chapter Tactics: Black Templars".

DKoK and EDT are Forgeworld Army Lists, which is the FW equivalent to a codex. Regardless of any individual dataslates, the army list - just like a codex - lays out which rules the army has and what dataslates, disciples, equipment and whatever else they have access to.

To play a DKoK army, you have to start with their army list. That means you are not using the AM codex to determine which rules, units and whatever else your army has access to. Therefore it is irrelevant what codex AM says.

Turning that around, say you have a collection of DKoK minis, but you want to play following the AM codex. So you start with that and gain whatever that permits you, but that also means you won't be using any dataslates that the AM Codex doesn't include and will have to leave some DKoK minis on the shelf.

I really don't see any way to be confused, if you follow either books rules.

DKoK is demonstrably a Regiment; both by background, and because the rules require you to change pickable units' <REGIMENT> Keyword to DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. So let's not be silly on that tangent. It is a Regiment, albeit one that has a unique Army List and special list of usable units.

It makes sense to use the Codex entries for those units updated by the AM Codex, as that's what GW has instructed elsewhere. Latest version, and all that.

That throws up some fun stuff where your Tank Commander is driving a regular AM Leman Russ but all other Russes have to be Mars-Alpha.

There are definitive compatibility issues, and fingers crossed FW does an update ASAP for those who play their unique Regiments. Simple fixes like updating Mars-Alpha tanks Grinding Advance wording and all will be sorted out.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
DKoK is demonstrably a Regiment; both by background, and because the rules require you to change pickable units' <REGIMENT> Keyword to DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. So let's not be silly on that tangent. It is a Regiment, albeit one that has a unique Army List and special list of usable units.

It makes sense to use the Codex entries for those units updated by the AM Codex, as that's what GW has instructed elsewhere. Latest version, and all that.

That throws up some fun stuff where your Tank Commander is driving a regular AM Leman Russ but all other Russes have to be Mars-Alpha.

There are definitive compatibility issues, and fingers crossed FW does an update ASAP for those who play their unique Regiments. Simple fixes like updating Mars-Alpha tanks Grinding Advance wording and all will be sorted out.

Ok, that's nice, but either by accident or on purposes it misses my point.

Take the IA Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. Look at the DKoK army list. It tells you right there what you have access to:
- Cult of Sacrifice
- DKoK unique Dataslates
- DKoK unique Orders and
- some generic AM dataslates and how to adapt them.

Take the AM Codex. Look at the army list header. It explains what you have access to:
- Regimental Doctrines
- Orders etc.
- generic AM Dataslates.

What rules do you follow that permit you to
- include DKoK specific Dataslates or rules in an AM list?
- include AM specific special rules in a DKoK list?

Without a permission to take something from another army list, you cannot do that.
Note that the DKoK list specifically has the permission to adapt AM dataslates for DKoK use, because otherwise they'd have to reprint all the respective dataslates there to make them available in a DKoK list.

Indeed, this discussion is no different than arguing that Thunderwolf Cavalry should be usable in an SM detachment, or that Tau Firewarriors can be used instead of Guardsmen.
Granted, here the idea is too double-dip in the special rules, but ninjaing units would be no different, only less sneaky. ;-]

 Stephanius wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
DKoK is demonstrably a Regiment; both by background, and because the rules require you to change pickable units' <REGIMENT> Keyword to DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. So let's not be silly on that tangent. It is a Regiment, albeit one that has a unique Army List and special list of usable units.

It makes sense to use the Codex entries for those units updated by the AM Codex, as that's what GW has instructed elsewhere. Latest version, and all that.

That throws up some fun stuff where your Tank Commander is driving a regular AM Leman Russ but all other Russes have to be Mars-Alpha.

There are definitive compatibility issues, and fingers crossed FW does an update ASAP for those who play their unique Regiments. Simple fixes like updating Mars-Alpha tanks Grinding Advance wording and all will be sorted out.

Ok, that's nice, but either by accident or on purposes it misses my point.

Take the IA Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. Look at the DKoK army list. It tells you right there what you have access to:
- Cult of Sacrifice
- DKoK unique Dataslates
- DKoK unique Orders and
- some generic AM dataslates and how to adapt them.

Take the AM Codex. Look at the army list header. It explains what you have access to:
- Regimental Doctrines
- Orders etc.
- generic AM Dataslates.

What rules do you follow that permit you to
- include DKoK specific Dataslates or rules in an AM list?
- include AM specific special rules in a DKoK list?

Without a permission to take something from another army list, you cannot do that.
Note that the DKoK list specifically has the permission to adapt AM dataslates for DKoK use, because otherwise they'd have to reprint all the respective dataslates there to make them available in a DKoK list.

Indeed, this discussion is no different than arguing that Thunderwolf Cavalry should be usable in an SM detachment, or that Tau Firewarriors can be used instead of Guardsmen.
Granted, here the idea is too double-dip in the special rules, but ninjaing units would be no different, only less sneaky. ;-]

It's almost like you didn't read my post and took it as a rebuttal of yours just because it came right afterwards...

Touché! =]

Doesn't invalidate my point about no permission for mixing books though. ;-]

 Stephanius wrote:
Touché! =]

Doesn't invalidate my point about no permission for mixing books though. ;-]

Well, as long as you remember that this is also true for your renegates and heretics it's fine I guess

 Stephanius wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
DKoK is demonstrably a Regiment; both by background, and because the rules require you to change pickable units' <REGIMENT> Keyword to DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. So let's not be silly on that tangent. It is a Regiment, albeit one that has a unique Army List and special list of usable units.

It makes sense to use the Codex entries for those units updated by the AM Codex, as that's what GW has instructed elsewhere. Latest version, and all that.

That throws up some fun stuff where your Tank Commander is driving a regular AM Leman Russ but all other Russes have to be Mars-Alpha.

There are definitive compatibility issues, and fingers crossed FW does an update ASAP for those who play their unique Regiments. Simple fixes like updating Mars-Alpha tanks Grinding Advance wording and all will be sorted out.

Ok, that's nice, but either by accident or on purposes it misses my point.

Take the IA Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. Look at the DKoK army list. It tells you right there what you have access to:
- Cult of Sacrifice
- DKoK unique Dataslates
- DKoK unique Orders and
- some generic AM dataslates and how to adapt them.

Take the AM Codex. Look at the army list header. It explains what you have access to:
- Regimental Doctrines
- Orders etc.
- generic AM Dataslates.

What rules do you follow that permit you to
- include DKoK specific Dataslates or rules in an AM list?
- include AM specific special rules in a DKoK list?

Without a permission to take something from another army list, you cannot do that.
Note that the DKoK list specifically has the permission to adapt AM dataslates for DKoK use, because otherwise they'd have to reprint all the respective dataslates there to make them available in a DKoK list.

Indeed, this discussion is no different than arguing that Thunderwolf Cavalry should be usable in an SM detachment, or that Tau Firewarriors can be used instead of Guardsmen.
Granted, here the idea is too double-dip in the special rules, but ninjaing units would be no different, only less sneaky. ;-]

As I have stated before it comes to one question. Is DKoK for example a completely separate army that just used a few units from another codex. (Ala Space Wolves) Or is it a sub-faction have just has its own units and rules (Ala Black Templars).

The case can be made either way. For me the biggest clue is the fact on page 55 & 71 of the IA:FoAM index it makes clear that officer use the orders from the IA index rather then I2 index. This implies to me that they would expect you if that rule was not there to use the ones from the I2 index which implies that it is a subfaction rather then a seperate army.

I'm not sure why you need explicit permission to mix books. The books have rules in them for Warhammer 40k. If the rules say they apply to you, then they apply to you, wherever they are.

A DKoK detachment is an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment. There are rules for ASTRA MILITARUM detachments in the new codex. You should follow those rules. I'm not "including AM rules in a DKoK list". I have a DKoK list which is also an AM list. Even the DKoK rules only promise that the index has "all of the datasheets" I need, not that it has everything I need. And the AM codex is very clear that it applies to DKoK armies -- it clearly defines an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment as "any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units".

So my DKoK Troops get Objective Secured, because there's a rule clearly saying that they get that by virtue of their being Troops in an AM detachment.

I haven't seen the stratagem rules in full but if it's anything like the other codices then DKoK detachments will unlock AM stratagems.

A DKoK character can take an Heirloom of Conquest, since they're ASTRA MILITARUM characters too, and you get one for free if you have a DKoK warlord because that's also an AM warlord.

The only real question, I think, is whether DKoK is a <REGIMENT>, so that it also gets a doctrine and a DKoK character gets a warlord trait. This is ambiguous, RAW -- this is basically another manifestation of the problem where you could have regiment ULTRAMARINES. Yes, DKoK replace <REGIMENT> with DKoK in exactly the way that Cadians replace <REGIMENT> with CADIAN. But this is insufficient, since Renegades and Heretics replace <REGIMENT> too, but clearly aren't a regiment. The FAQ seems to tell us to consult the fluff, basically, and if we do it seems clear that DKoK are a regiment. That said, I don't think it is intended that they get a doctrine and I wouldn't play it this way, but RAW this is what happens when the codex doesn't pick out special regiments as not qualifying in the way that the Marine codex picks out several Chapters as not qualifying as "Space Marine detachments".

Other things that kind of look like regiments are explicitly forbidden from getting a doctrine. An AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS detachment does not get a doctrine.

So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.

DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.

DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.

Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.

DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.

Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.

You're claiming that an army that has nothing to do with the Astra Mil. Codex can use that codexes rules. By the same logic, Tau can use Space Marine rules. Read the IA book, it clearly says to use the index. Until forge world errata's this, you can't use the codex.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.

DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.

Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.

You're claiming that an army that has nothing to do with the Astra Mil. Codex can use that codexes rules. By the same logic, Tau can use Space Marine rules. Read the IA book, it clearly says to use the index. Until forge world errata's this, you can't use the codex.

So, again, could you actually explain this instead of just hand-waving while saying "by the same logic"?

 Stephanius wrote:
Touché! =]

Doesn't invalidate my point about no permission for mixing books though. ;-]

It's like you didn't read my post...

(I'm just taking the friendly piss by repeating that line, but you really didn't. The DKoK list already mixes books. Updating to latest versions of dayasheets for those units is only sensible. Beyond that, I didn't say they get new doctrines etc. Totally agree they don't get the new boons as they have some already.)

Dionysodorus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.

DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.

Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.

You're claiming that an army that has nothing to do with the Astra Mil. Codex can use that codexes rules. By the same logic, Tau can use Space Marine rules. Read the IA book, it clearly says to use the index. Until forge world errata's this, you can't use the codex.

So, again, could you actually explain this instead of just hand-waving while saying "by the same logic"?

What part of "by the same logic" is unclear?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic Tau can use Repulsors and Tactical Marines. Gotcha.

DKoK have their own rulebook, they don't use the codex anymore than the Tau use the codex. You might not like it but these are the simple facts.

Could you explain this? I don't understand how you're putting Tactical Marines and Tau in the same Matched Play army. The FAQ is clear that you can't replace <SEPT> with ULTRAMARINES or similar.

You're claiming that an army that has nothing to do with the Astra Mil. Codex can use that codexes rules. By the same logic, Tau can use Space Marine rules. Read the IA book, it clearly says to use the index. Until forge world errata's this, you can't use the codex.

Sigh and you are ignoring the quote we have. "In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex."

Also Tau have do not have the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. DKoK and EDT DO have the Astra Militarum Keyword. The space marine book also specifically includes only <Chapter>, and the chapters in the book and specifically excludes BA and SW. It also makes mention that chapters not mentioned specifically use there founding chapter's tactics of it you don't know what the founding chapter is then you simply pick one.

The Bulwark of Humanity page says that Detachments of only Astra Militarum get the Warlord traits, Relic, and Strategems. It makes no mention of Specific Regiments in its opening paragraph in fact on only mention of <Regiment> on the page is to determine what doctrine they get and to exclude non-<regiment> units from benifiting from doctrines (IE Ratlings, Bullgyrns, etc).

18 min in roughly has the page in question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8-bVavjVBs&t=1090s

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What part of "by the same logic" is unclear?

I mean, if you refer back to the post where I initially asked you to explain, I think that's clear. I don't understand how you're including Tau and Space Marines in the same Matched Play army. That seems to me to run afoul of the rule that all of your units must share a faction keyword. If you show up to a game with Tau and Space Marines both in your list, I don't see how what I've said provides you with a response to that objection. Could you explain what you would say, using my logic?

Just because units share a faction keyword doesn't mean they use the same rulebooks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Just because units share a faction keyword doesn't mean they use the same rulebooks.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I really don't think this is a big ask. Could you please make some effort to actually communicate whatever it is you think the argument is that would allow you to bring Tau and Space Marines together, assuming that my argument that DKoK Troops get Objective Secured is correct? Why does my argument imply that you can bring units that don't share a faction keyword in the same army?

Because the relationship between DKoK and generic Codex Imperial Guard is the same as that between Space Marines and Tau. There is literally none. You can't use DKoK rules with the rules from the IG codex because the DKoK rules don't allow you to, they use the Index rules instead until FW update it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because the relationship between DKoK and generic Codex Imperial Guard is the same as that between Space Marines and Tau. There is literally none. You can't use DKoK rules with the rules from the IG codex because the DKoK rules don't allow you to, they use the Index rules instead until FW update it.

I'm beginning to think he is just trolling now or REALLY bad at getting his point across. Cause think we have explained that DKoK is AM and all AM detachments get the rules. Being in a different book make no difference. I mean everything in IA:FoAM is ment to run with AM. Your logic here is unsound. You are basicly stating with you current argument that nothing from Imperium or Chaos FW indexes is usable now because the original indexes they refer to have been updated.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because the relationship between DKoK and generic Codex Imperial Guard is the same as that between Space Marines and Tau. There is literally none. You can't use DKoK rules with the rules from the IG codex because the DKoK rules don't allow you to, they use the Index rules instead until FW update it.

So, it should go without saying that this is not an argument that what I'm saying implies that you can ignore the rule that Matched Play armies must all share a faction keyword. I suspect that you don't actually have anything, and you're just reluctant to admit that after going off on this weird tangent and being so condescending. You'd rather just get back to asserting your position without argument, implying but avoiding actually making a case that this is just as crazy as putting Space Marines and Tau together, when actually that would clearly be against the rules.

The problem for you is that you actually do need an argument here. Like, you're not offering anything based on the rules, right? You just started by saying that I must be wrong because if I'm right there are absurd consequences (Space Marines and Tau living together). And that's a reasonable sort of objection! It's true that we ought to adopt a method for interpreting the rules that doesn't lead to absurd consequences. But... then you couldn't actually show how what I'm saying implies these absurd consequence (again, there was just hand-waving while saying "by the same logic" as if those are magic words that automatically win arguments). So now you're back to just asserting that even though we've got a rule that clearly tells us to do something, we're not supposed to follow that rule, because something something different books.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because the relationship between DKoK and generic Codex Imperial Guard is the same as that between Space Marines and Tau. There is literally none. You can't use DKoK rules with the rules from the IG codex because the DKoK rules don't allow you to, they use the Index rules instead until FW update it.

So, it should go without saying that this is not an argument that what I'm saying implies that you can ignore the rule that Matched Play armies must all share a faction keyword. I suspect that you don't actually have anything, and you're just reluctant to admit that after going off on this weird tangent and being so condescending. You'd rather just get back to asserting your position without argument, implying but avoiding actually making a case that this is just as crazy as putting Space Marines and Tau together, when actually that would clearly be against the rules.

The problem for you is that you actually do need an argument here. Like, you're not offering anything based on the rules, right? You just started by saying that I must be wrong because if I'm right there are absurd consequences (Space Marines and Tau living together). And that's a reasonable sort of objection! It's true that we ought to adopt a method for interpreting the rules that doesn't lead to absurd consequences. But... then you couldn't actually show how what I'm saying implies these absurd consequence (again, there was just hand-waving while saying "by the same logic" as if those are magic words that automatically win arguments). So now you're back to just asserting that even though we've got a rule that clearly tells us to do something, we're not supposed to follow that rule, because something something different books.

What BCB is referring to is that the army lists are completely separate.

ForgeWorld clearly calls out their army lists as such, but maybe I should define army list here:

Army List := Set of permissions (disciplines, orders, special rules, datasheets, etc.) and restrictions (force organisation, allies, etc.), typically found at the beginning of every codex's dataslate section.

See:
- Codex Hereticus Astartes: Death Guard, p.68: Lords of the Plague Planet
- Codex Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines, p. 130 Defenders of Mankind
- Codex Adeptus Mechanicus, p. 72 Defenders of the Forge Worlds
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 7 Astra Militarum Army List
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 54 Death Korps of Krieg Army List
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 70 Elysian Drop Troop Army List
- Codex Astra Militarum, p. ??, Cannonfodder and you (don't have that book)

DKoK and AM are both Imperium, but do not mix any better than SM and SW. Yes, they share faction keywords, but they don't share army list permissions or restrictions.
The only thing different in the Tau (or any other faction) example is that they don't share faction keywords, but are still completely separate army lists, which is the point being made.

A better example may be an Eldar player having to pick to play Ynaari or Craftworld and thereby choosing different army list permissions and restrictions.
There is no way to have both Strength from Death and Battle-Trance, just like there is no way to have Regimental Doctrines and Cult of Sacrifice.

 Stephanius wrote:

What BCB is referring to is that the army lists are completely separate.

ForgeWorld clearly calls out their army lists as such, but maybe I should define army list here:

Army List := Set of permissions (disciplines, orders, special rules, datasheets, etc.) and restrictions (force organisation, allies, etc.), typically found at the beginning of every codex's dataslate section.

See:
- Codex Hereticus Astartes: Death Guard, p.68: Lords of the Plague Planet
- Codex Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines, p. 130 Defenders of Mankind
- Codex Adeptus Mechanicus, p. 72 Defenders of the Forge Worlds
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 7 Astra Militarum Army List
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 54 Death Korps of Krieg Army List
- Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 70 Elysian Drop Troop Army List
- Codex Astra Militarum, p. ??, Cannonfodder and you (don't have that book)

DKoK and AM are both Imperium, but do not mix any better than SM and SW. Yes, they share faction keywords, but they don't share army list permissions or restrictions.
The only thing different in the Tau (or any other faction) example is that they don't share faction keywords, but are still completely separate army lists, which is the point being made.

A better example may be an Eldar player having to pick to play Ynaari or Craftworld and thereby choosing different army list permissions and restrictions.
There is no way to have both Strength from Death and Battle-Trance, just like there is no way to have Regimental Doctrines and Cult of Sacrifice.

I mean, I understand the position being asserted. What I would like to understand is whether anyone has a reason to take this position. BCB seemed to be suggesting that the interpretive schema I was proposing led to an absurd result, and so we should reject it. But it doesn't, and so I don't see that anyone has presented a reason to reject it. To be clear, what I'm proposing is: if there's an official, up-to-date Warhammer 40k rule that says it applies to you, you should follow it.

Anyway, yes, obviously DKoK is a separate army list from the regular Astra Militarum one. I'm not sure that anyone is disputing this. We're not talking about army lists, I don't think. We're talking about rules that appear after the Astra Militarum army list. If you've got the SM codex handy (since the Guard one isn't out yet) take a look at it real quick. There's a big section called "Defenders of Mankind". You reference this yourself, and I completely agree with you. This is the army list. This is the thing that's telling you how you can replace <CHAPTER> and it's some abilities like ATSKNF and wargear lists that will be referenced later on the datasheets in the army list. Then we have the datasheets. Then we have the armoury (wargear rules). But... that's it. Then there's another section: "Sons of the Primarchs". This is not an army list and does not claim to be one. What does it say it is? It says: "In this section you'll find rules for Battle-forged armies that include Space Marines Detachments -- that is, any Detachment which only includes Space Marines units (as defined below)." That's what it is. And then it goes into this and explains that "Space Marines units" are not all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units. Instead this is defined as excluding certain Chapters. This is important, because if this wasn't here then a Blood Angels player could use these rules. Like, obviously that's why it does this, right?

Then we go over to the new Guard codex. Same story, as far as I can tell. There's an army list. And then there's another section called "Bulwark of Humanity". Who is this section for? It explains: "In this section you will find rules for Battle-forged armies that include ASTRA MILITARUM Detachments -- that is, any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units." So say I've got a DKoK detachment. This is clearly telling me that it's going to have rules that apply to my detachment, since it's an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment too, as that is defined here. You'll note a pretty striking difference between this and the similar Space Marine codex -- this doesn't limit the scope of the ASTRA MILITARUM units it's concerned with to only those with particular <REGIMENT> keywords.

So I don't think your analogy works. Battle Focus and Strength from Death are part of the Craftworld Eldar and Ynnari army lists. Also Strength from Death is explicitly handed out to units as a replacement for Battle Focus; I'm not sure how the sort of reading I'm proposing is supposed to lead to units having both. Likewise I don't think there's any sort of weird conflict between DKoK's Voice of Command and regular AM Voice of Command. I'm not talking about the AM army list; I'm talking about the rules for battle-forged armies that include detachments composed only of ASTRA MILITARUM units.

Edit: I would note that everyone already agrees with me that you're supposed to reference this kind of section even when using army lists that aren't included in the book. When the DKoK army list says that you can include the "Hellhounds" datasheet from Index: Imperium 2, it doesn't just mean the datasheet. How much does a DKoK Hellhound cost? You won't actually find this in the section of the FW index that claims to tell you it should "be used to determine the points cost of any Death Korps of Krieg units included in the army". What everyone has been doing is just going to the point listings in the Imperium 2 index -- those are taken to be the points one should use for all units with datasheets in the Imperium 2 index rather than being points exclusively for the army lists in the Imperium 2 index. Just as with the codices, the indices separate the army lists (which include some special rules and datasheets) from a section they call "Battle-forged Armies", which gives point values for the units in the data sheets that are intended to be used by more than just the army lists in the book. The rules for doctrines, stratagems, and warlord traits are in the same section as these point listings.