Switch Theme:

Astra Militarum Heirloom Question: The Dagger of Tu'Sakh  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I have a clarification question re: the Tallarn Heirloom, the Dagger of Tu'Sakh. Its rule is written thusly on p.138 of the new codex:

During deployment, you can set up the bearer and one INFANTRY unit from your army behind enemy lines.... The infantry unit must have the same <REGIMENT> keyword as the bearer if the bearer has one....

My question is twofold:

1. If I give this Heirloom to a Commissar or Lord Commissar, is OFFICIO PREFECTUS considered a <REGIMENT> keyword replacement?
2. If it's not, could the phrasing, "must have the same <REGIMENT> keyword as the bearer if the bearer has one" be read as, "if your bearer doesn't have a <REGIMENT> keyword, there is no restriction on the infantry unit that is brought"?

Looking throughout the entire list of datasheets, it appears that AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS, MILITARUM AUXILLA, OFFICIO PREFECTUS and SCOLASTICA PSYKANA are not really <REGIMENT> keywords, but the limitations on the Dagger of Tu'Sakh could mean you can't use it at all with these units unless both the bearer and infantry unit it brings are of the same keyword listed here. I would like to think I could have a Commissar bear it to bring in a <REGIMENT> Infantry Squad, but I'm not all that sure.
   
Made in nz
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

1. No.
2. No.

The reason the second answer is no is because a shared lack of <REGIMENT> keyword is self-evidently not a shared <REGIMENT> keyword.


EDIT:

I evidently have difficult reading properly!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/10 01:31:59


 
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





 Mr. Shine wrote:
1. No.
2. No.

The reason the second answer is no is because a shared lack of <REGIMENT> keyword is self-evidently not a shared <REGIMENT> keyword.


I disagree with answer number 2. It says they must have the same regiment, if the bearer has one. Thus, if the bearer has no regiment, there should not be any regimental restriction.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in nz
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

 Cream Tea wrote:
I disagree with answer number 2. It says they must have the same regiment, if the bearer has one. Thus, if the bearer has no regiment, there should not be any regimental restriction.


Whoops, missed that bit! My apologies, quite correct!
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

They're Auxilia, not a Regiment.

Essentially, the only restriction is that if you have a Regument you can only bring Regiment buddies with the bearer.

If not, pick whichever INFANTRY unit you like.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

While I do not have a direct Rule I can quote, take a look at Page 132-133, 141 and 134-136.
These pages detail the Stratagems, Regimental Doctrines and Warlord Traits available to the Astra Militarum Army... so there is too many references to quote directly.

Not only are the AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS, MILITARUM AUXILLA, OFFICIO PREFECTUS and SCOLASTICA PSYKANA keywords missing from all the sections we would expect such Regiments to be mentioned, such as having a Doctrine, the one place they are mentioned is very interesting. While it doesn't specifically state 'these are not Regiments' it does indicate how the Authors are treating a whole bunch of units as Attached to 'Regiments.' It isn't proof written in stone by the hand of an Author themselves, but it the closest I can scrape together without requiring Players to read the first few hundred pages of fluff and understand the lore behind an army they might not not even be collecting....

Which could be dangerous as well, as a quick flick through left me wondering if MILITARUM TEMPESTUS was a Regiment....
The chart on page7 lists them along side MILITARUM AUXILLA and has both directly under control of the ASTRA MILITARUM, highlighting that these are also their own organizations... which, fluff wise, they are. This would have been a nice chart to point to in order to argue that OFFICIO PREFECTUS was actually a 'branch of the Departmento Munitorum' on equal footing as the whole of the Astra Militarum, as it clearly shows this as well, but it raises more questions when our Opponents see the other branches listed. Once more we return to having to sit them down in order to read the entire book and starts to understand how you can have a branch of the military that is also a Regiment of the same name....


This might be something the Authors should consider:
Why can't we have some sort of Detachment Keyword box on these Datasheets?
If we flicked open a Datasheet for, say, the Tempestor Prime and saw MILITARUM TEMPESTUS within the Detachment Keyword box, and OFFICIO PREFECTUS in the Faction Keyword box along side IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM... it becomes clear on a quick pass through what the most important Keyword for list building is!
For all the 'Advisors and Auxilla' Units, this Detachment Keyword box would have been empty and the Opening Posters question never would have occurred.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/10 16:59:43


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




The Imperium 2 FAQ is explicit that "Officio Prefectus" and "Militarum Auxilla" are not regiments. Meanwhile the beginning of the army list in the codex says that Scions treat MILITARUM TEMPESTUS as a <REGIMENT> keyword.

Also, If Militarum Auxilla were a regiment then you'd be able to choose it for a Company Commander and give orders to Bullgryn. The only thing that the codex tells us we can't use is MILITARUM TEMPESTUS, although other army lists like the DKoK one in the FW index also say that we can't use certain other regiments too.

The dagger rules strike me as very clear -- if the bearer lacks a <REGIMENT> keyword, then he can bring along any INFANTRY unit in your army (not just <REGIMENT> and not just ASTRA MILITARUM).
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Nice for the Index to do that, wonder why they didn't carry such over into the Codex as such a clarification would be an easy quote.

Still, having something within the book that outright states 'this is a list of regiments' would till have been nice. I don't remember any of the books doing something similar either, every single one of them have some sort of <Detachment> keyword that will play a vital role in determining what Rules we have access to but nothing to highlight which Keyword this is. Such keywords are always found along side other Faction Keywords, making it hard to determine which is which. It always comes down to us having to review what <detachment> keywords lists they have provided, such as Doctrines in this case, and then making the logical leap that only things on that list are <detachments>. If it is going to be such a vital piece of information to know, it would be nice to have it highlighted better on the datasheets.

Good catch on treating MILITARUM TEMPESTUS as a <REGIMENT> though.

I was going to raise the question of 'what else could the dagger be talking about,' but there are Characters in this book which have <Forge World>. This made it entirely too easy to argue that the dagger is only referring to the one or two characters that are 'Auxillia' while having a very clear non-regiment <Detachment> Keyword. Didn't bring me any closer to figuring out a way to prove that OFFICIO PREFECTUS was a non-regiment <Detachment-level> Keyword, but I really do believe that is exactly what it is from all the circumstantial evidence presented in my previous post. If it was a <REGIMENT> then it stands to reason it would have it's own Doctrine, Stratagems and Traits along side everyone else's.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/10 17:16:43


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

If it doesn't have one of the named Regiments as a Keyword (Cadia, Tallarn, Mordian, Catachan, Valhallan, Armageddon, Vistroyan, Militarum Tempestus), or the blank slate <REGIMENT> Keyword, it doesn't have Regiment abilities. It's not super tough to work backwards.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

JohnnyHell,
On what page is a list of Regiments?

8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 JinxDragon wrote:
JohnnyHell,
On what page is a list of Regiments?


It's like you don't read my posts. Please read it again and point out where I said there was a definitive list of all regiments ever. Please stop strawmanning my posts.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Thank you all for your responses. Glad to hear that you're on board with allowing a Commissar to bear it and bring any Infantry unit along with. I was leaning that way but wanted to clear it with the masses first before moving forward. The points confirming how I read the OFFICIO PREFECTUS keyword as a non-regiment keyword coupled with the ruling in the FAQ that I wasn't aware was out bolster that assertion nicely.

Much appreciated!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

RAW I think its clear a Priest can take the dagger as well, and he can bring along a unit of crusaders or Ogryns. Either of which would be awesome.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Or ideally an astropath with a unit of crusaders

Although not in itc events because they have made it regiment only

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/18 10:49:09


 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight




Philly

U02dah4 wrote:
Or ideally an astropath with a unit of crusaders

Although not in itc events because they have made it regiment only


Never been one to hate on FLG, but I don't like that ruling at all. Their basically changing a rule.

"It's bigger then all of us. Winston's in the air duct with a badger." 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Agreed it's a terrible ruling
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: