Regimental Doctrines and Elysians/DKoK

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.

**GrimmT**

Dionysodorus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.

**BaconCatBug**

GrimmT wrote:
Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.

You have zero rules basis for doing so though. You would be breaking the rules of the game if you did so. If I took my Space Wolves and said "I get to use the points costs for Space Marine Scouts for my Grey Hunters now.", that has as much rules basis as using the AM Codex for DKoK.

You have it arse about elbows to use an English idiom. You use the Index until FW update things, not the other way around.

**GrimmT**

BaconCatBug wrote:
GrimmT wrote:
Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.
You have zero rules basis for doing so though. You would be breaking the rules of the game if you did so. If I took my Space Wolves and said "I get to use the points costs for Conscripts for my Grey Hunters now.", that has as much rules basis as using the AM Codex for DKoK.

Yeah, except the people at my LGS are way more reasonable than you are and know that a Death Korps Hellhound has the same statline and cost as a Cadian Hellhound. I would really hate to have you be a local player here, hahaha. You're definitely THAT guy from what I can see in your posts.

**BaconCatBug**

GrimmT wrote:
Yeah, except the people at my LGS are way more reasonable than you are and know that a Death Korps Hellhound has the same statline and cost as a Cadian Hellhound. I would really hate to have you be a local player here, hahaha. You're definitely THAT guy from what I can see in your posts.

Reasonable? How is it reasonable to break the rules of the game for your advantage?

**GrimmT**

BaconCatBug wrote:
GrimmT wrote:
Yeah, except the people at my LGS are way more reasonable than you are and know that a Death Korps Hellhound has the same statline and cost as a Cadian Hellhound. I would really hate to have you be a local player here, hahaha. You're definitely THAT guy from what I can see in your posts.
Reasonable? How is it reasonable to break the rules of the game for your advantage?

Can you show me what advantage I'd have?

**BaconCatBug**

GrimmT wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
GrimmT wrote:
Yeah, except the people at my LGS are way more reasonable than you are and know that a Death Korps Hellhound has the same statline and cost as a Cadian Hellhound. I would really hate to have you be a local player here, hahaha. You're definitely THAT guy from what I can see in your posts.
Reasonable? How is it reasonable to break the rules of the game for your advantage?

Can you show me what advantage I'd have?

Different unit costs and stratagems a DKoK army is not supposed to have? Like I said, if FW decide to update their books to allow it, good for everyone. Until then using anything from the AM codex is breaking the rules of the game.

**Happyjew**

BaconCatBug wrote:
GrimmT wrote:
Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.
You have zero rules basis for doing so though. You would be breaking the rules of the game if you did so. If I took my Space Wolves and said "I get to use the points costs for Space Marine Scouts for my Grey Hunters now.", that has as much rules basis as using the AM Codex for DKoK.

You have it arse about elbows to use an English idiom. You use the Index until FW update things, not the other way around.

Except that is a false analogy. Per the rules, Space Wolves are not a Space Marine army. DkoK are an Astra Militarum Regiment.

**BaconCatBug**

Happyjew wrote:
Except that is a false analogy. Per the rules, Space Wolves are not a Space Marine army. DkoK are an Astra Militarum Regiment.

DKoK are a regiment with special rules found in the IA book. You use the rules in the IA book and NOTHING ELSE. The IA book tells you to look at the Index, you look at the Index. End of discussion. If Forge World decide to update their rules to point at the codex, that's a different matter.

**Happyjew**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Except that is a false analogy. Per the rules, Space Wolves are not a Space Marine army. DkoK are an Astra Militarum Regiment.
DKoK are a regiment with special rules found in the IA book. You use the rules in the IA book and NOTHING ELSE. The IA book tells you to look at the Index, you look at the Index. End of discussion. If Forge World decide to update their rules to point at the codex, that's a different matter.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

**Lance845**

Khadorstompy wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
No different to <Chapter> and Space Wolves imho.

DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.

It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.

Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.

It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.

**Khadorstompy**

Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
No different to <Chapter> and Space Wolves imho.

DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.

It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.

Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.

It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.

1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>

**Ghaz**

Khadorstompy wrote:
1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>

From page 55 of 'Imperial Armour: Forces of the Astra Militarum'

There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Death Korps of Krieg – presented in the box on the left. Those they can use replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all instances with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list, it cannot be from the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG, and so cannot have the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG Faction keyword.

From page 71 of 'Imperial Armour: Forces of the Astra Militarum'

There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Elysian Drop Troops – presented in the box on the left. Those that do replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all instances with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS. If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list to the left, it cannot be used by models with the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword, and so cannot have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS Faction keyword.

**Lance845**

Khadorstompy wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
No different to <Chapter> and Space Wolves imho.

DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.

It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.

Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.

It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.

1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>

1) no its not. Space wolves is not a <chapter> just like Deathguard is not a <legion>. They are their own keyword separate from the selectable keywords. Deathguard cannot choose to swap deathguard for alpha legion. Dkok cannot pick their regiment.

2) the rules require you to have a specific detachment to get the bonuses. Dkok cannot use cadian special rules because they are not cadians. They cannot use cadian characters, artifacts, or stratgems.

**JohnnyHell**

BaconCatBug wrote:
GrimmT wrote:
Just wanted to post and say that I agree with this and assumed this is what we would be doing when the AM codex comes out next week unless otherwise stated by FW. I'll be replacing finding the points values and units in the Imperium 2 Index with the Astra Militarum Codex. I do hope that FW releases something soon to clarify a bunch of things like Leman Russes and grinding advance, etc.
You have zero rules basis for doing so though. You would be breaking the rules of the game if you did so. If I took my Space Wolves and said "I get to use the points costs for Space Marine Scouts for my Grey Hunters now.", that has as much rules basis as using the AM Codex for DKoK.

You have it arse about elbows to use an English idiom. You use the Index until FW update things, not the other way around.

Why have you been such a stickler for doing exactly this in other threads (cf your belief quad Autocannon Dreads can't now exist) yet here you say people shouldn't use the latest Datasheet? You know GW have instructed players to do so. So why?

(Also, arse about elbows is not a phrase. You can go arse over elbow, you can not know your arse from an elbow, but arse about elbows is not a thing.

)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>

From page 55 of 'Imperial Armour: Forces of the Astra Militarum'

There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Death Korps of Krieg – presented in the box on the left. Those they can use replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all instances with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list, it cannot be from the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG, and so cannot have the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG Faction keyword.

From page 71 of 'Imperial Armour: Forces of the Astra Militarum'

There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Elysian Drop Troops – presented in the box on the left. Those that do replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all instances with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS. If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list to the left, it cannot be used by models with the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword, and so cannot have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS Faction keyword.

Hey, this has been demonstrated to them before, as well as the fact that both are Regiments in fluff, but apparently this kind of hard proof is somehow not valid... go figure! I don't believe it grants abilities beyond the FW Index ones, but these Regiments ARE Regiments. Otherwise how could you replace the <REGIMENT> Keyword in the units they are permitted by their Army List to choose from the regular AM list?

**BaconCatBug**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Why have you been such a stickler for doing exactly this in other threads (cf your belief quad Autocannon Dreads can't now exist) yet here you say people shouldn't use the latest Datasheet? You know GW have instructed players to do so. So why?

Because they are different situations and you know it. I have said from day one that Wolf Lords have to stick to using the Index entry despite there being a newer Captain entry, because the rule explicitly links to the Index entry, it's not a case of which is newer. The only time "which is newer" comes up is when you're using the actual datasheet of an actual unit that has had a replacement (i.e. Dreadnoughts, Rhinos etc). You're trying to rile me up so I shall instead ignore you from now on.

**Chiashi_Zane**

As a bit of a side note, because it points to the INDEX, which in it's own definition points then to the CODEX, it should really be irrelevant. Default to the newest rules on that model. I have a friend at my local store who plays DKoK, and he'll happily (and without argument) pull out normal guard stuff run with DKoK in the regiment slot, so they then use the DKoK rulings. And my Blood Pact do the same. No arguing, just using the most recent rules, and verifying when something new comes out. The logical way.

PS: I'm not necessarily trying to end this discussion, just add my

PPS: Why isn't there a 2-cents emoji?

**Khadorstompy**

Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
No different to <Chapter> and Space Wolves imho.

DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.

It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.

Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.

It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.

1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>

1) no its not. Space wolves is not a <chapter> just like Deathguard is not a <legion>. They are their own keyword separate from the selectable keywords. Deathguard cannot choose to swap deathguard for alpha legion. Dkok cannot pick their regiment.

2) the rules require you to have a specific detachment to get the bonuses. Dkok cannot use cadian special rules because they are not cadians. They cannot use cadian characters, artifacts, or stratgems.

1. Acutally they are they just have specific choices.
2. And this is where you obvious haven't read the whole thread espically the posts I made to the new codex. I suggest you look at the rules in question regarding Regiments without doctrines and then revise your rebuttal.

**Lance845**

Khadorstompy wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
No different to <Chapter> and Space Wolves imho.

DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.

It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.

Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.

It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.

1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>

1) no its not. Space wolves is not a <chapter> just like Deathguard is not a <legion>. They are their own keyword separate from the selectable keywords. Deathguard cannot choose to swap deathguard for alpha legion. Dkok cannot pick their regiment.

2) the rules require you to have a specific detachment to get the bonuses. Dkok cannot use cadian special rules because they are not cadians. They cannot use cadian characters, artifacts, or stratgems.

1. Acutally they are they just have specific choices.
2. And this is where you obvious haven't read the whole thread espically the posts I made to the new codex. I suggest you look at the rules in question regarding Regiments without doctrines and then revise your rebuttal.

Find me a rule in any 8th ed document that says Space Wolves is a <CHAPTER> as a rule entity or DKOK is a <REGIMENT> as a rule entity. Any. Find me the quote and give me a page number and site the book it comes from. Fluff is not a rule. Just because space wolves are a chapter in the fluff does not make them a "Chapter" in the rules. Space Wolves as a rule entity are as different of a army from Space Marines as it is from AdMech.

I know the rules for regiments without doctrines and chapters without tactics. They don't apply. Because again, these are not from the same army. Deathguard do not have a Legion rule because they have their own unique rules that are separate from the Chaos Marines Legion rules. DKoK are not a regiment until a book tells you they are. No book does. One book specifically tells you to replace the <REGIMENT> keyword with Death Korps of Krieg. Replace as in REGIMENT no longer exists and DKoK takes it's place.

Unless FW gives us some ruling saying DKoK or Elysians are a <REGIMENT> they are not, and none of the other rules you are relying on apply in any capacity.

Do you own index imperium 1? Go to the back of the book. Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angles, Blood Angles. All listed with their own wargear and points pages. Exactly like each different army in each of the other indexes. Why? Because they are not a <Chapter>. They are their own army.

**Khadorstompy**

Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
No different to <Chapter> and Space Wolves imho.

DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.

It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.

Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.

It doesnt mater if you agree. 40k is a permission based rule set. Nothing can do anything unless they have explicite permission to do so. Elysians and dkok do not have a <REGIMENT> keyword so they do not have permission to use any of the rules associated with it.

1. Its up for debate if EDT or DKOK counts as <Regiment>
2. The rules only require you to have an AM detachment and does not specifically mention <Regiment>

1) no its not. Space wolves is not a <chapter> just like Deathguard is not a <legion>. They are their own keyword separate from the selectable keywords. Deathguard cannot choose to swap deathguard for alpha legion. Dkok cannot pick their regiment.

2) the rules require you to have a specific detachment to get the bonuses. Dkok cannot use cadian special rules because they are not cadians. They cannot use cadian characters, artifacts, or stratgems.

1. Acutally they are they just have specific choices.
2. And this is where you obvious haven't read the whole thread espically the posts I made to the new codex. I suggest you look at the rules in question regarding Regiments without doctrines and then revise your rebuttal.

Find me a rule in any 8th ed document that says Space Wolves is a <CHAPTER> as a rule entity or DKOK is a <REGIMENT> as a rule entity. Any. Find me the quote and give me a page number and site the book it comes from. Fluff is not a rule. Just because space wolves are a chapter in the fluff does not make them a "Chapter" in the rules. Space Wolves as a rule entity are as different of a army from Space Marines as it is from AdMech.

I know the rules for regiments without doctrines and chapters without tactics. They don't apply. Because again, these are not from the same army. Deathguard do not have a Legion rule because they have their own unique rules that are separate from the Chaos Marines Legion rules. DKoK are not a regiment until a book tells you they are. No book does. One book specifically tells you to replace the <REGIMENT> keyword with Death Korps of Krieg. Replace as in REGIMENT no longer exists and DKoK takes it's place.

Unless FW gives us some ruling saying DKoK or Elysians are a <REGIMENT> they are not, and none of the other rules you are relying on apply in any capacity.

Do you own index imperium 1? Go to the back of the book. Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angles, Blood Angles. All listed with their own wargear and points pages. Exactly like each different army in each of the other indexes. Why? Because they are not a <Chapter>. They are their own army.

Yeah they are chapters/regiment just like the others. The book tells you specifically to convert the <Chapter> just like you do for every other chapter in the game only its for a single specific one. And if you look and the new dexes It specifically excludes certian chapters and legions from getting those rules. No such exlusions are on the AM codex.

**BaconCatBug**

Khadorstompy wrote:
No such exlusions are on the AM codex.

Because they aren't needed, because the DKoK ruleset explicitly states what can be used.

**Lance845**

Khadorstompy wrote:

Yeah they are chapters/regiment just like the others. The book tells you specifically to convert the <Chapter> just like you do for every other chapter in the game only its for a single specific one. And if you look and the new dexes It specifically excludes certian chapters and legions from getting those rules. No such exlusions are on the AM codex.

Quote, page number, and book.

The chapters and legions excluded are not forgeworld ones. Because GW standard 40k documents never reference FW materials. A lack of exclusion is not permission.

Again, quote, page number, and book.

**Khadorstompy**

Lance845 wrote:
Khadorstompy wrote:

Yeah they are chapters/regiment just like the others. The book tells you specifically to convert the <Chapter> just like you do for every other chapter in the game only its for a single specific one. And if you look and the new dexes It specifically excludes certian chapters and legions from getting those rules. No such exlusions are on the AM codex.

Quote, page number, and book.

The chapters and legions excluded are not forgeworld ones. Because GW standard 40k documents never reference FW materials. A lack of exclusion is not permission.

Again, quote, page number, and book.

Space Marine codex page 194

Note that other Space Marine Chapters, such
as the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves,
deviate significantly in terms of organisation
and fighting styles. These Chapters therefore
cannot make use of any of the rules or abilities
listed in this section, and instead have their
own rules.

Chaos marine codex page 156

Note that the Death Guard and Thousand
Sons Legions deviate significantly in terms of
organisation and therefore cannot make use
of any of the rules or abilities listed in this
section; instead they have bespoke rules and
abilities detailed in their own codexes.

Force of the AM p 71

There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used
by the Elysian Drop Troops – presented in the box on the left. Those
that do replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their datasheet in all
instances with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS. If an Astra Militarum
unit does not appear on the list to the left, it cannot be used by
models with the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword, and so cannot
have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS Faction keyword. Models in
the list that have the AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS keywords
replace them with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS.

Just like Militarum Temptestus.

**Lance845**

WoW! So it does not say anywhere in any of those rules that DKoK or Elysians are Regiments.

Likewise, it does not say anything about Dark Angles!

Neat. So Are Dark Angles part of the space marine codex and can use Space Marine codex psychic powers, units, rules, strategems, and chapter tactics?

No?

Thats because exclusion is not permission.

Again, you do no have permission to use DKoK as a regiment.

Quote me the rule, page, and book that gives you permission.

**Khadorstompy**

text removed.

Reds8n

**nekooni**

First of all: calm down, right now.

The only permission you quoted was to replace the <Regiment> keyword with DKoK. It's still not called a regiment, and your core argument is that "there's no restriction like there is with GWs SM Snowflake Chapters". GW never mentions FW in their rules, so that argument, while technically true, has no relevance at all.

The FW index predates the Codes, so it can't tell you how to interact with it.

Do the folks that argue that you can pick a doctrine for your DKoK army honestly think that Cult of Sacrifice is not what's supposed to be the DKoK doctrine, and that you should just combine e.g. Industrial Efficiency with Cult of Sacrifice? Or are you just arguing for the fun of it / "proving a point where the RAW is weird"?

I mean, it was pointed out that this topic really should get some FAQ responses.

**Lance845**

No. You quoted rules that do not do the things you say they do. None of that. NONE. Grants you permission to consider DKoK a regiment. None of the rules from SM or CSM provide a single instance of a GW document referencing a FW one to provide precedent of how it MIGHT be translatable. But it's not.

The only thing we have is that DKoK makes use of Datasheets that can be found in the Astra Militarium Index. But that when you do use them as DKoK they loose the <Regiment> Keyword and replace it with DKoK. Nobody, btw, is disagreeing with any of that. But at no point, ANYWHERE, do any of those rules give you permission to treat the DKoK Keyword as a regiment,

**Aenarian**

As a sidenote, does any rule allow you to treat ULTRAMARINES, WHITE SCARS etc. as <Chapter>, as their unique characters don't have <Chapter>? Because this seems to be related to the question at hand.

**Lance845**

Aenarian wrote:
As a sidenote, does any rule allow you to treat ULTRAMARINES, WHITE SCARS etc. as <Chapter>, as their unique characters don't have <Chapter>? Because this seems to be related to the question at hand.

Yes!

Having trouble finding the page concerning all the chapter rules. But it's in the codex. This here lists all the chapter tactics. Each one has a rule that specifically states it effects units with the Faction Keyword associated with it's chapter. ULTRAMARINES, WHITESCARS etc...

While these rules are the ones released for free it is a comprehensive list of all the chapters that are a part of Codex: SM.

If a home brew chapter exists or some other chapter not in the book you are meant to, rules wise, give them the keyword of the chapter you want them to emulate. Otherwise their chapter tactics and other associated tools of the codex would not function.

Since you would need to be "WhiteScars" to use the white scars abilities and thus use the white scars characters you are incapable of being... Red Scorpions and using Red Scorpions characters while also gaining the benefits of the White Scars tactics.

Players of FW armies will have to wait for an errata to tell them they can change the wording of the rules replacing all "White Scars" with "Red Scorpions" in order to use the codex space marine rules with Red Scorpion characters.

Failing that or until then, Red Scorpion players can use the index rules for Red Scorpions or proxy the models as the rules/characters from the chapters in codex Space Marines.

**Dionysodorus**

Aenarian wrote:
As a sidenote, does any rule allow you to treat ULTRAMARINES, WHITE SCARS etc. as <Chapter>, as their unique characters don't have <Chapter>? Because this seems to be related to the question at hand.

Yes, the SM codex gives an actual list. It avoids the issue of having to determine if an ULTRAMARINES detachment is a <CHAPTER> detachment because it simply says that ULTRAMARINES detachments get Chapter Tactics too. It is not clear if you have permission to treat your custom DEATH PONIES chapter as a <CHAPTER>.

I don't think that whether DKoK is a <REGIMENT> is as cut and dried as anyone is making it out to be. First, while the SM codex does have a list, the list doesn't say anything about custom chapters even though the rules are obviously intended to let you use these (the SM codex is kind of a mess this way -- do custom chapters get any benefit from most Tactics even assuming they can have them?). The AM codex doesn't even have a list. So what gives you permission to treat VALHALLAN as a <REGIMENT> keyword? The AM codex does give several examples (clearly meant to be non-exhaustive). So it's clear that it wants you to treat CADIAN as a <REGIMENT> keyword. But how did all of my units get the CADIAN keyword? Well, they got it in exactly the same way that DKoK units got the DKoK keyword. I "replaced" the <REGIMENT> keyword with CADIAN, as directed at the beginning of the army list.

Like I said in my first post, my belief is that RAW here is to consult the fluff. This is basically the same manifestation of the Sept ULTRAMARINES problem. In that case, we got a FAQ saying "look at the fluff: is Ultramarines actually a Tau sept?" So, VALHALLAN is a <REGIMENT> keyword because Valhallans have AM regiments, fluff-wise. RENEGADES AND HERETICS is not a <REGIMENT> keyword because that's not a regiment, fluff-wise. Are the Death Korps of Krieg a regiment, like the Valhallans and Cadians?

There are a couple other ways I think you could go with this, though. You could just say that anything that replaces the <REGIMENT> keyword and isn't abusive in the way that the FAQ outlines is a <REGIMENT> keyword. So R&H would count as a <REGIMENT>. This is perhaps not crazy -- obviously they're not a fluff regiment but they're close enough to Guard that maybe they get the same special rules. On the other hand, while one standard you could derive from the FAQ is "is this thing really a regiment?", another is, basically, "is it intended that this keyword get these buffs?" And as for that, who can say? Yes, Elysians and DKoK already have a special rule that looks a lot like a doctrine. On the other hand, they pay for it: Elysians aren't just getting Infantry squads that deep strike as a special rule, they're getting Elysian Drop Trooper squads that are different from Infantry squads in several ways (for example, they have more limited weapon options) and cost more per model.

**Aenarian**

Lance845 wrote:
Aenarian wrote:
As a sidenote, does any rule allow you to treat ULTRAMARINES, WHITE SCARS etc. as <Chapter>, as their unique characters don't have <Chapter>? Because this seems to be related to the question at hand.

Having trouble finding the page concerning all the chapter rules. But it's in the codex. This here lists all the chapter tactics. Each one has a rule that specifically states it effects units with the Faction Keyword associated with it's chapter. ULTRAMARINES, WHITESCARS etc...

I'll just have to trust you on that. Otherwise, it just seems as if the named chapters are only <Chapter> implicitly and any characters without <Chapter> would be unable to benefit from rules referring to <Chapter>, just like in this case where Death Korps of Krieg is intended to be a regiment and count for <Regiment>, although there are no rules explicitly saying this.

I agree that RAW, you probably can't use <Regiment> stuff.