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.
Well I stoked a fire on the IG facebook page that is over 200 comments and counting figured I would do the same thing here.
The question is do Elysians and DKoK get regimental doctrines or not. And I know some people are baffled by the very thought of this but one paragraph from the new dex makes me curious about it.
This seems to me to suggest that regiments such as Eylsians and DKoK would get the Doctrines but others have argued that it is only referring to <Regiments> and that DKoK and EDT are effectively their own armies and wouldn't gain anything from the new dex.
I am curious as to how people have ruled things like Red Scorpians and Minotaurs from the Space Marine codex as I figure their would have been a similar question.
Please tell me your thoughts as I am curious as to how other have interpreted this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 04:40:05
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.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 04:50:12
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
What baconcatbug said, although personally i'd be fine with you updating some datasheets - e.g. use the new Grinding Advance with the DKoK Leman Russ variants. But that would obviously be a house rule.
They already have their own doctrine and so on. DKoK and Elysians are not "alternate guards", theyre specific regiments.so you cant just build a "Death Korp of Cadia" snd use both doctrines at the same time with the same units. What you can do however is have one DKoK and one Cadian detachment
DKoK and Eylsians have their own rules in their own book, with unit references pointing to the Indexes, they don't magically gain rules from the codex. Sucks for them but it's up to Forge World to fix it, not GW. There isn't a provision like with Successor Chapters to account for them.
It will need a special snowflake ruling from GW to change this IMHO.
Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 05:16:40
Khadorstompy wrote: Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesn't say that World Eaters don't get them either. Do they need to be explicitly excluded? No, because they are a totally different army with a totally different rulebook. DKoK and Elysians use the Imperial Armour book and the Imperium 2 Index, they don't have ANY relation whatsoever to the Astra Militartum codex. They have as much relation to it as Tau do.
Not to mention as nekooni said, as far as GW rules are concerned Forge World doesn't exist and they never ever mention them. It's up to Forge World to INclude them, not for GW to EXclude them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 05:22:27
Khadorstompy wrote: Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesn't say that World Eaters don't get them either. Do they need to be explicitly excluded? No, because they are a totally different army with a totally different rulebook. DKoK and Elysians use the Imperial Armour book and the Imperium 2 Index, they don't have ANY relation whatsoever to the Astra Militartum codex. They have as much relation to it as Tau do.
Not to mention as nekooni said, as far as GW rules are concerned Forge World doesn't exist and they never ever mention them. It's up to Forge World to INclude them, not for GW to EXclude them.
I disagree. They are Astra Millitarum they have the Astra Militarum Keyword they use units form the Astra Militarum Codex. You seem to be saying the DKoK and EDT are separate armies when all they are is a sub-faction. BA/DA/SW are specifically called out in the SM dex to make it clear they don't use those rules. Red Scorpians, Blood Ravens, Minotaurs, etc.... do use those rules or are you saying they don't either?
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
As I've said about twenty times, nothing in the Imperial Armour Book refers to a codex. Please stop bringing up this incorrect point.
Pask, Strakken, or Creed etc get them because the Codex says they get them. DKoK et. al. have zero mention of these rules ANYWHERE in their rules. Please, find them for me and I'll concede the point.
Forge World rules are special snowflakes, nothing in the codexes apply to them unless the Forge World book explicitly says to do so and the only reason even the Indexes apply to anything is because the Imperial Armour books explicitly say so.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 05:45:32
Completely and utterly incorrect. I request you read the Imperial Armour book in question. Please point out a single reference to any codex.
Leman Russ Tank is in the damn codex stop trying to cut literal half a sentence into a statement for a "Gotcha". You are completely ignoring the my counter-argument and the questions I am asking you. Did you even other to read the clip from the codex I posted?
Khadorstompy wrote: Hmm I disagree and here is why. In the SM codex it specifically states that BA/DA/SW and their successor chapters don't get chapter tactics. Their is not such exclusion for DKoK and EDT.
It doesn't say that World Eaters don't get them either. Do they need to be explicitly excluded? No, because they are a totally different army with a totally different rulebook. DKoK and Elysians use the Imperial Armour book and the Imperium 2 Index, they don't have ANY relation whatsoever to the Astra Militartum codex. They have as much relation to it as Tau do.
Not to mention as nekooni said, as far as GW rules are concerned Forge World doesn't exist and they never ever mention them. It's up to Forge World to INclude them, not for GW to EXclude them.
I disagree. They are Astra Millitarum they have the Astra Militarum Keyword they use units form the Astra Militarum Codex. You seem to be saying the DKoK and EDT are separate armies when all they are is a sub-faction. BA/DA/SW are specifically called out in the SM dex to make it clear they don't use those rules. Red Scorpians, Blood Ravens, Minotaurs, etc.... do use those rules or are you saying they don't either?
Simple question: How would you even do that? As I said, DKoK units do not have a <Regiment> keyword to replace with e.g. Cadian. All the units they are allowed to take from the Index Imperium 2 have to replace their <Regiment> with Death Korps of Krieg. All Infantry, even those taken from the Index, gain the The Cult of Sacrifice ability.
Sure, you can probably call that detachment 'Cadian', but none of the DKoK units would have the keyword, and you'd immediately break your Cadian detachment since you have just added units that are from a different regiment (DKoK).
And the Marines - Minotaurs right now have to use one of the existing GW chapter tactics. There's no 'Minotaur' army list. If FW created a Minotaur army list, it would come with their own Chapter Tactics and so on, and then you'd be no longer able to use one of the vanilla GW Tactics for them.
Is it really not obvious that a Regiment can't be both Cadian AND Elysian? If you want to play an Airdrop-focused guard army, you play Elysians (or "a Regiment using the same doctrines as the Elysians"). Otherwise, pick a different regiment and play that. You don't get to double-dip, each regiment only has one origin planet, and only one set of regiment doctrines.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 05:50:28
Khadorstompy wrote: Leman Russ Tank is in the damn codex stop trying to cut literal half a sentence into a statement for a "Gotcha". You are completely ignoring the my counter-argument and the questions I am asking you. Did you even other to read the clip from the codex I posted?
Yes, the Leman Russ Tank is in the codex. What is your point? You were claiming that DKoK use the AM Codex rules, when they do not, which you would know if you read the IA:AM book.
DKoK have as much relation to the AM Codex as the Tau do. Aka literally less than zero.
Do you want the quote?
Spoiler:
MASTER OF ORDNANCE
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
RAPIER LASER DESTROYER BATTERY
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
HYDRAS
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
TANK COMMANDER
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
GRIFFON MORTAR CARRIER
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
HADES BREACHING DRILL SQUADRON
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
HELLHOUNDS
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
SALAMANDER SCOUT TANK
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
STYGIES THUNDERER SIEGE TANK
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
BASILISKS
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
ARMAGEDDON PATTERN MEDUSA
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
COLOSSUS BOMBARD
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
QUAD LAUNCHER BATTERY
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
HEAVY MORTAR BATTERY
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
From the Errata:
Page 55 – Death Korps of Krieg Army List
Add the following units to the list of those that can be
from the Death Korps of Krieg:
‘• Atlas Recovery Tank
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Centaur Light Carrier
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Cyclops Demolition Vehicle
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Earthshaker Carriage Battery
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Malcador Annihilator
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Malcador Defender
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Malcador Heavy Tank
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Malcador Infernus
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Medusa Carriage Battery
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Stygies Destroyer Tank Hunter
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Arkurian Pattern Stormblade
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Gorgon Heavy Transporter
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Macharius Heavy Tank
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Macharius Omega
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Macharius Vanquisher
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Macharius Vulcan
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Minotaur Artillery Tank
Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum
• Basilisks
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
• Hydras
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
• Baneblade
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
• Shadowsword
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2
• Stormsword
Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2’
Not a single mention of a codex anywhere.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 05:52:04
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
As I've said about twenty times, nothing in the Imperial Armour Book refers to a codex. Please stop bringing up this incorrect point.
Pask, Strakken, or Creed etc get them because the Codex says they get them. DKoK et. al. have zero mention of these rules ANYWHERE in their rules. Please, find them for me and I'll concede the point.
Forge World rules are special snowflakes, nothing in the codexes apply to them unless the Forge World book explicitly says to do so and the only reason even the Indexes apply to anything is because the Imperial Armour books explicitly say so.
According to the logic you have given me because the don't have Regiment they don't get them.
And IA:Force of the Astra Militarum refers to Imerium 2. Imperium 2 is updated by Codex: Astra Militrum actually its more then that because it REPLACES THOSE PARTS OF IMPERIUM 2. And if you where to run an Astra Militrum force with Index Imperium 2 after the codex comes out. You would be cheating.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 05:53:27
Khadorstompy wrote: And IA:Force of the Astra Militarum refers to Imerium 2. Imperium 2 is updated by Codex: Astra Militrum actually its more then that because it REPLACES THOSE PARTS OF IMPERIUM 2. And if you where to run an Astra Militrum force with Index Imperium 2 after the codex comes out. You would be cheating.
Except nowhere was that changed in the IA book. By using the codex you are "cheating" (I am using 50 foot air quotes here), not the other way around.
DKoK use the IA rulebook, they cannot use the normal Codex, no more than the Space Wolves can.
I understand you are upset, but yelling the same incorrect thing over and over isn't going to change it.
Captyn_Bob wrote: They interact with the new codex fine. The list of AM units they can take is given. The most recent publication rules should be used where applicable.
Unless Forge World update their books, this is categorically and entirely untrue. If a Forge World rule says to look at the Index, you look at the Index, PERIOD. The same reason why Wolf Lords still use the Index Captain entry and not the Codex Captain entry.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 05:55:24
Khadorstompy wrote: And IA:Force of the Astra Militarum refers to Imerium 2. Imperium 2 is updated by Codex: Astra Militrum actually its more then that because it REPLACES THOSE PARTS OF IMPERIUM 2. And if you where to run an Astra Militrum force with Index Imperium 2 after the codex comes out. You would be cheating.
Except nowhere was that changed in the IA book. By using the codex you are cheating, not the other way around.
DKoK use the IA rulebook, they cannot use the normal Codex, no more than the Space Wolves can.
I understand you are upset, but yelling the same incorrect thing over and over isn't going to change it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captyn_Bob wrote: They interact with the new codex fine. The list of AM units they can take is given. The most recent publication rules should be used where applicable.
Unless Forge World update their books, this is categorically and entirely untrue.
Doesn't matter that its not mention in the IA book. IA book refers to I2 book which has been changed. If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
Yes, that's exactly why I'd allow you to use the "Tank Commander" from the Codex (I think there's a solid case for that being allowed anyway, but I'd let you do that either way), and I'd allow - as a house-rule - that e.g. the "DKoK Leman Russ Mars-Alpha Battle Tank" could use the updated Grinding Advance rule from the Codex, even though technically they shouldn't benefit from that one, as they're a completely different unit, technically speaking.
Khadorstompy wrote: If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
[Citation Needed], because this is totally untrue. If Forge World release an errata or FAQ stating this, then fine. Until then, it's not.
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex. "
Dkok and elysians do not have a <regiment> keyword. And GW never talks about FW stuff in their GW branded rules, thats why there is no extra mention
If thats the case then armies using Pask, Strakken, or Creed wouldn't work because they don't have <Regiment> or any Militarum Tempestus Army for that matter.
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
If you take and allowed unit from the index that has <Regiment> in DKoK it replaces it with DKoK just like Cadian, Catacan, and the rest. As they say Codex trumps Index so when a unit is updated in a new codex Armies that refer to a specific unit in the index should now look to it in the codex.
Yes, that's exactly why I'd allow you to use the "Tank Commander" from the Codex (I think there's a solid case for that being allowed anyway, but I'd let you do that either way), and I'd allow - as a house-rule - that e.g. the "DKoK Leman Russ Mars-Alpha Battle Tank" could use the updated Grinding Advance rule from the Codex, even though technically they shouldn't benefit from that one, as they're a completely different unit, technically speaking.
I think your missing the bulk of our argument here. If EDT and DKoK are <Regiments> which Bacon is denying. Then because they do not have a doctrine they would get a Doctrine from the list. They would not get specific strategems, relics, or Warlord Traits though they could take from the generic AM ones. He is making the case that they are completely separate faction like DA/SW/BA are from Space marines despite having the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. I am making the case that they are the Equivalent of Red Scorpions or Minotaurs which are FW sub-factions of Space marines.
Khadorstompy wrote: If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
[Citation Needed], because this is totally untrue. If Forge World release an errata or FAQ stating this, then fine. Until then, it's not.
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex. "
THANK YOU!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 06:04:25
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."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 06:12:28
Khadorstompy wrote: If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
[Citation Needed], because this is totally untrue. If Forge World release an errata or FAQ stating this, then fine. Until then, it's not.
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex. "
And the most up to date rules for DKoK are the IA:AM book, which tells you to use the Index. Q.E.D.
As I have said multiple times that people seem to be ignoring: If Forge World decide to fix their books, this will be a non-issue. As it is, if you want to follow the rules, you use the Index rules for DKoK and not the codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 06:17:19
Khadorstompy wrote: If the I2 book has been updated then the rules effected the IA book are changed.
[Citation Needed], because this is totally untrue. If Forge World release an errata or FAQ stating this, then fine. Until then, it's not.
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex. "
And the most up to date rules for DKoK are the IA:AM book, which tells you to use the Index. Q.E.D.
As I have said multiple times that people seem to be ignoring: If Forge World decide to fix their books, this will be a non-issue. As it is, if you want to follow the rules, you use the Index rules for DKoK and not the codex.
Yeah, but to be fair you could argue that while you're directed to the Index, you're then redirected to the Codex for the latest Tank Commander rules. But that doesn't change how you're still unable to have a Tank Commander with both the DKoKand the Valhallan keywords.
And it doesn't clarify whether or not you can use the Stratagems, Warlord traits etc. The DKoK army list doesn't mention those at all, so I'd say you can only use the ones from the BRB.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 06:24:10
Khadorstompy wrote: I think your missing the bulk of our argument here. If EDT and DKoK are <Regiments> which Bacon is denying. Then because they do not have a doctrine they would get a Doctrine from the list. They would not get specific strategems, relics, or Warlord Traits though they could take from the generic AM ones. He is making the case that they are completely separate faction like DA/SW/BA are from Space marines despite having the Adeptus Astartes Keyword. I am making the case that they are the Equivalent of Red Scorpions or Minotaurs which are FW sub-factions of Space marines.
How about you answer me instead of telling me I'm the wrong kind of wrong because I do not argue the same point that BaconCatBug does?
Pask works only with the Regiment he's hardcoded to. You can't have a Mordian Pask, right? Same applies to any DKoK unit.
All the DKoK have a hard-wired Regiment, so you can't pick any up anything that's hard-wired to a different regiment: Doctrines, regiment orders, regiment characters etc. You also can't use any generic new orders (if there were any) since the DKoK order list fully replaces the order list. I'd let you get away with non-regimental Warlord traits, stratagems and relics, but that's it. Or was that all you wanted anyway, and I misunderstood you? I thought you're arguing that you can create what's basically a Mordian Death Korps, using all of the rules.
I mean, your opening statement was "The question is do Elysians and DKoK get regimental doctrines or not."
I take it you didn't read the clip form the codex in the link I posted on the very first message. Let me quote it for you and see if this helps a bit. "If your chosen regiment doesn't have an associated doctrine," So neither DKoK or EDT have a doctrine seems to fit. "You may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army."
Sorry if I am being confusing. No they wouldn't get example Cadian Orders, Strategems, Warlord traits, or Relics. But they could pick "Born Soldiers" doctrine due to the above.
I dont see how anyone could think they can get away with running Aerial Drop elysians with the Cadian doctrine? It seems pretty obvious and self explanitory.
Then again, even if the RAI is obvious, I guess RAW isnt.
I guess, technically, the DKoK dont have the Regiment keyword, since they replace it with DKoK, and the rules for replacing it in the FW index doesn't tell them to also select a doctrine like the picture above does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 06:26:31
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 06:31:17
nekooni wrote: Yeah, but to be fair you could argue that while you're directed to the Index, you're then redirected to the Codex for the latest Tank Commander rules.
Except nowhere is this stated in the rules for DKoK. And don't bother linking that GW webpage again, because it's not relevant. You might as well argue that DKoK Leman Russes use Hammerhead rules for all the sense that argument makes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 06:30:49
Crazyterran wrote: I dont see how anyone could think they can get away with running Aerial Drop elysians with the Cadian doctrine? It seems pretty obvious and self explanitory.
Then again, even if the RAI is obvious, I guess RAW isnt.
I guess, technically, the DKoK dont have the Regiment keyword, since they replace it with DKoK, and the rules for replacing it in the FW index doesn't tell them to also select a doctrine like the picture above does.
Thats a bit of a stretch since you replace <Regiment> with Cadian in a Cadian detachment. No one is saying the the DKoK will get the Cadian Keyword. Its just Regiments without a Doctrine get to pick a Doctrine. Seems straightforward to me.
nekooni wrote: Yeah, but to be fair you could argue that while you're directed to the Index, you're then redirected to the Codex for the latest Tank Commander rules.
Except nowhere is this stated in the rules for DKoK. And don't bother linking that GW webpage again, because it's not relevant. You might as well argue that DKoK Leman Russes use Hammerhead rules for all the sense that argument makes.
So where did I claim that it's written anywhere in any kind of rulebook? I literally wrote "You could argue", nothing more. It's a reasonable argument, it's not "the argument to end all arguments".
Crazyterran wrote: I dont see how anyone could think they can get away with running Aerial Drop elysians with the Cadian doctrine? It seems pretty obvious and self explanitory.
Then again, even if the RAI is obvious, I guess RAW isnt.
I guess, technically, the DKoK dont have the Regiment keyword, since they replace it with DKoK, and the rules for replacing it in the FW index doesn't tell them to also select a doctrine like the picture above does.
Thats a bit of a stretch since you replace <Regiment> with Cadian in a Cadian detachment. No one is saying the the DKoK will get the Cadian Keyword. Its just Regiments without a Doctrine get to pick a Doctrine. Seems straightforward to me.
That's a bit of a stretch since you get the Cadian doctrines by replacing <Regiment> with <Cadian> - you need <Regiment> before getting doctrines. Seems straightforward to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 06:33:44
