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.

Page 132 of the Astra Militarum codex states that Militarum Tempestus units do not benefit from the Storm Troopers doctrine unless every unit in the detachment has the MT keyword.

Right below it, the rules state that taking Auxilia etc will not prevent other units in the AM detachment from gaining a regimental doctrine.

How to resolve? ( in short, if wanted to run a 2 detachment Stormtrooper army with 2 battallions can I do it with a commissar lord as one of my HQ's)

General Hobbs wrote:


Page 132 of the Astra Militarum codex states that Militarum Tempestus units do not benefit from the Storm Troopers doctrine unless every unit in the detachment has the MT keyword.

Right below it, the rules state that taking Auxilia etc will not prevent other units in the AM detachment from gaining a regimental doctrine.

How to resolve? ( in short, if wanted to run a 2 detachment Stormtrooper army with 2 battallions can I do it with a commissar lord as one of my HQ's)

You have to follow both rules. The Commissar doesn't stop the MT's getting their Doctrine, but the MT's own special rule does prevent them from getting the doctrine.

The MT follow a different rule as to whether they can get their doctrine or not. Other regiments say "so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite)" while MT say "unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus". MT unfortunately don't get to benefit from the Auxillary exceptions.

Expect the usual crowd of people screaming "RaI" and "Common Sense" (because common sense means Flamers can hit supersonic jets amirite?) to claim otherwise though.

To be 100% crystal clear, yes, the "Advisors and Auxilla" rule says "can be included in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine." and this is still the case. The problem is that MT have their own special rule regarding doctrine, which means that they don't get the exception like other regiments do.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


Page 132 of the Astra Militarum codex states that Militarum Tempestus units do not benefit from the Storm Troopers doctrine unless every unit in the detachment has the MT keyword.

Right below it, the rules state that taking Auxilia etc will not prevent other units in the AM detachment from gaining a regimental doctrine.

How to resolve? ( in short, if wanted to run a 2 detachment Stormtrooper army with 2 battallions can I do it with a commissar lord as one of my HQ's)

You have to follow both rules. The Commissar doesn't stop the MT's getting their Doctrine, but the MT's own special rule does prevent them from getting the doctrine.

The MT follow a different rule as to whether they can get their doctrine or not. Other regiments say "so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite)" while MT say "unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus". MT unfortunately don't get to benefit from the Auxillary exceptions.

Expect the usual crowd of people screaming "RaI" and "Common Sense" (because common sense means Flamers can hit supersonic jets amirite?) to claim otherwise though.

To be 100% crystal clear, yes, the "Advisors and Auxilla" rule says "can be included in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine." and this is still the case. The problem is that MT have their own special rule regarding doctrine, which means that they don't get the exception like other regiments do.

Actually, RAW says flamers can hit supersonic jets.

While the RAW might be as BCB states it seems likely that is not the intention. Part of the reason I say that is because you get a Commissar in the Start Collection box for Militarum Tempestus. Would seem a strange choice to include a unit which prevents you from benefiting from your doctrine.

RejjeN wrote:
While the RAW might be as BCB states it seems likely that is not the intention. Part of the reason I say that is because you get a Commissar in the Start Collection box for Militarum Tempestus. Would seem a strange choice to include a unit which prevents you from benefiting from your doctrine.

Agreed. It’s come up in other threads before and I don’t believe consensus was that a Commissar would stop MT getting their Doctrine at all.

RejjeN wrote:
While the RAW might be as BCB states it seems likely that is not the intention. Part of the reason I say that is because you get a Commissar in the Start Collection box for Militarum Tempestus. Would seem a strange choice to include a unit which prevents you from benefiting from your doctrine.

You do realise "Start Collecting" aren't intended for the matched play competitive crowd, they are intended for the casual gamer. What a box contains has zero bearing on the rules. You're free to make up house rules as you wish, but that doesn't change both the RaW and the RaI. The RaI is that MT are extra special and lose their doctrine if they take any non-MT units, simple as that.

Coincidentally that's the RaW as well. How bout dat. If GW intended for MT to not lose their doctrines when you add a Commissar, they would have issued Errata or a Special Snowflake FAQ to that effect. Thus the intent must be that they do lose them, the same way their intent is for flamers to automatically hit supersonic jets, no matter how much I may dislike that rule.

Ah BCB still claiming GW designers are super humans since he thinks RAW is always RAI when it's not.

Does he really think GW genetically modifies their designers so they can do something humans aren't normally capable of doing...Unbelievable.

I am stating the simple fact that we no longer have Games "Twelve Years Between Dark Eldar Updates" Workshop, we have Games "Releases Kneejerk Erratas" Workshop. If GW want a rule to work correctly, they can issue an errata. Until then we cannot guess at their intent beyond the fact they intentionally wrote the rules the way they did. If they want to change their intent, the need to change the writing.

As a prescient example, GW originally made Commissars cap morale losses at one model. That was the RaW and RaI. GW then decided to change their mind and intent, and thus changed the RaW to reflect that. At no point did people claim before the errata that the intent was for the Commissar to not cap the morale losses at one model but instead cause a reroll and D3 losses, because the Rule simply did not say that.

The second sentence of the Militarum Tempestus rule is a explanatory sentence, not a exclusionary one. While Militarum Tempestus units do not prevent other units in the detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine, the opposite does not work. It could be better stated, but is clear enough.

Advisors and Auxilla applies to all ASTRA MILITARUM detachments, including MILITARUM TEMPESTUS detachments. For it not to work would require it to have an exclusionary clause. You can stick a Lord Commissar in your detachment and still gain Storm Troopers.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am stating the simple fact that we no longer have Games "Twelve Years Between Dark Eldar Updates" Workshop, we have Games "Releases Kneejerk Erratas" Workshop. If GW want a rule to work correctly, they can issue an errata. Until then we cannot guess at their intent beyond the fact they intentionally wrote the rules the way they did. If they want to change their intent, the need to change the writing.

As a prescient example, GW originally made Commissars cap morale losses at one model. That was the RaW and RaI. GW then decided to change their mind and intent, and thus changed the RaW to reflect that. At no point did people claim before the errata that the intent was for the Commissar to not cap the morale losses at one model but instead cause a reroll and D3 losses, because the Rule simply did not say that.

That would be D6 models, not D3. Or are you trying to refer to a Lord Commissar with the Draconian Disciplinarian Warlord Trait?

RejjeN wrote:
While the RAW might be as BCB states it seems likely that is not the intention. Part of the reason I say that is because you get a Commissar in the Start Collection box for Militarum Tempestus. Would seem a strange choice to include a unit which prevents you from benefiting from your doctrine.

.
You mean the box that was put together last edition when commissars were an HQ choice in the MT codex?

How does that have any bearing on the current rules?

We do not need the digs or cracks about other posters.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

RejjeN wrote:
While the RAW might be as BCB states it seems likely that is not the intention. Part of the reason I say that is because you get a Commissar in the Start Collection box for Militarum Tempestus. Would seem a strange choice to include a unit which prevents you from benefiting from your doctrine.

.
You mean the box that was put together last edition when commissars were an HQ choice in the MT codex?

How does that have any bearing on the current rules?

How about that the box was re-packaged around the release of the codex and they didn't change it?

Obviously not going to change the rules as they are written, but my point was that it might at least be a point towards intent. I don't know a single person who doesn't use the regiment/chapter/legion/etc stuff.

 alextroy wrote:
The second sentence of the Militarum Tempestus rule is a explanatory sentence, not a exclusionary one. While Militarum Tempestus units do not prevent other units in the detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine, the opposite does not work. It could be better stated, but is clear enough.

Advisors and Auxilla applies to all ASTRA MILITARUM detachments, including MILITARUM TEMPESTUS detachments. For it not to work would require it to have an exclusionary clause. You can stick a Lord Commissar in your detachment and still gain Storm Troopers.

Yep, this.

 Crimson wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The second sentence of the Militarum Tempestus rule is a explanatory sentence, not a exclusionary one. While Militarum Tempestus units do not prevent other units in the detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine, the opposite does not work. It could be better stated, but is clear enough.

Advisors and Auxilla applies to all ASTRA MILITARUM detachments, including MILITARUM TEMPESTUS detachments. For it not to work would require it to have an exclusionary clause. You can stick a Lord Commissar in your detachment and still gain Storm Troopers.

Yep, this.

Except there is no rules basis for this argument.

Sure there is. The rules themselves.

Advisors and Auxilla, per the rules, do not prevent a Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine.

Per <REGIMENT> rule on page 84, "Units with the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword treat this as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects...".

Thus Advisors and Auxilla do not prevent MILITARUM TEMPESTUS from gaining their Regimental Doctrine of Stormtroopers.

This is where you say, "but the rules say all the units have to be MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to gain their Regimental Doctrine". True, except Advisor and Auxilla don't count per their rule. You can call it a paradox or accept that works in an logical way.

Or you could accept that MILITARUM TEMPESTUS works different to other <REGIMENT> keywords, because the rules say it does.

Alright, coming back to this for a GW Tournament at Mt Gravatt QLD this weekend.

Statement A: AM units benefit from their doctrine even if Advisors/Abhumans are components of their army.

Statement B: AM units benefit from their doctrine even if MT units are components of their army.

Statement C: MT units in an AM army will not benefit from the AM doctrine.

Statement D: MT units must be part of an army that is completely MT.

Lets look at the following armies to test these statements:

ARMY 1:
HQ Lord Commissar
HQ Tempestor Prime
Troops Infantry Squad
Troops Infantry Squad
Troops Scions Squad
Elite Ratlings Squad

ARMY 2:
HQ Tempestor Prime
HQ Lord Commissar
Troops Scions Squad
Troops Scions Squad
Troops Scions Squad
Elite Ratlings Squad
Elite Ratlings Squad
Elite Wyrdvane Squad
Flyer Valkyrie
Flyer Valkyrie

ARMY 3:
HQ Tempestor Prime
Troops Scions Squad
Troops Scions Squad
Troops Scions Squad
Transport Taurox Prime

ARMY 1 supports Statements A, B, C and D is not complicit here.
ARMY 2 supports Statements A, B, C and D is not complicit here.
ARMY 3 supports Statement D, as A, B and C are not complicit here.

If ARMY 2 was in support of Statement D, then you could have armies consisting primarily of extra non-regimental forces - ie: Bullgryn, Psyker and Sniper spam.
When you take this into account it is clear why only ARMY 3 is valid for recipients of the Stormtroopers doctrine.

Even the damn lore supports this when Scions are deployed en-masse. The extra units are purely fluff and don't take part in their engagements.
However, when Scions are deployed as part of the AM, ie: a squad, then they fulfil their own role on the battlefield.

Lore has no meaning in this discussion, nor do any tournament house rules. The rules are clear, if your opponents or tournaments you go to want to house rule it, that's on you or them. You need to ask ahead of time whoever is running the tournament whether they are following the rules or are house ruling it.

I agree with BCB. The rules are pretty clear. MT do not get their regimental bonus unless their entire detachment is MT, whereas it specifically states that MT and abhumans/advisors in a <regiment> do not effect that regiment's bonus. MT is not a <regiment> and operates under its own rules. It is undeniably stupid but it's on GW to fix it.

I agree, the rule says they have to be all MT. the other rules have no baring on this. Wasn’t sure at first but on reading it it’s clear. And I think the intent is clear too. Just use another detachment for extra stuff.

I think if you are having to quote 3 or 4 rules from other pages to prove your point then you’re reaching.

Well, that's just the thing... I contacted my GW store where the Tournament is held and THEY said ARMY 2 would support Statement D too...

Yet when I play there, every single damn game, everyone says ARMY 2 does not support Statement D and I'm inclined to believe them...

So I'm getting double standards...

The rules for this Tournament is: 1000pts, 1 detachment (excluding fortifications or lords of war) with an optional auxilliary detachment...

Nothing unusual there - the tournament organiser has made a house ruling. It may contradict a published game rule, but there's no reason why that can't be the case. By excluding Lords of War they're already house ruling in opposition to the game rules, so another instance is fair enough.

From a setting point of view, it's justifiable too; Militarum Tempestus are used to operating on their own, and working with advisors or abhumans is more of an interference in their command chain and doctrines than for more "normal" regiments.

It's a shame really, as it does make sense that at the very least a Commissar could be a part of the detachment and not affect their doctrine (they went to the same school and all!). It does read that way that a detachment must be all MT to get the doctrine. I would like it changed, however, to at least allow Commissars; partly as currently if you want an entire MT army, you are limited (by the rule of 3 if its used in your area) to one single super large Battalion Detachment, and maybe a patrol det. as well - but you still only get total of 8cp for an army.

 Kcalehc wrote:
It's a shame really, as it does make sense that at the very least a Commissar could be a part of the detachment and not affect their doctrine (they went to the same school and all!). It does read that way that a detachment must be all MT to get the doctrine. I would like it changed, however, to at least allow Commissars; partly as currently if you want an entire MT army, you are limited (by the rule of 3 if its used in your area) to one single super large Battalion Detachment, and maybe a patrol det. as well - but you still only get total of 8cp for an army.

Agreed, it's a dumb rule that also makes aircav and mechanized MT impossible to play how it is supposed to be played.

I suspect it's not a dumb rule, but rather one not written in a way that everyone agrees to GW's intention. I read the two rules and find no reason to not believe you can put a Commissar in an otherwise Militarum Tempestus Detachment and benefit from your Regimental Doctrine.

Ultimately, only GW can tell what the proper reading is. I've sent this off to them and hopefully it will be in the fall FAQ confirming the correct reading either way.

Not liking how a rule works doesn't make it "ambiguous" or "not intended". The rule is clear, your dislike doesn't make it any less clear. If it needs to be changed, it will get an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ. Until then, I suspect the majority of people will play by the rules.

Not liking my interpretation of two conflicting rules does not make you right. It just means we disagree and must appeal to a higher judge to get GWs intent.

If we are lucky GW will answer with an Errata or FAQ answer to resolve the issue.

 alextroy wrote:
Not liking my interpretation of two conflicting rules does not make you right. It just means we disagree and must appeal to a higher judge to get GWs intent.

If we are lucky GW will answer with an Errata or FAQ answer to resolve the issue.

Except they are not conflicting. In the slightest. As in, not at all.

w1zard wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
It's a shame really, as it does make sense that at the very least a Commissar could be a part of the detachment and not affect their doctrine (they went to the same school and all!). It does read that way that a detachment must be all MT to get the doctrine. I would like it changed, however, to at least allow Commissars; partly as currently if you want an entire MT army, you are limited (by the rule of 3 if its used in your area) to one single super large Battalion Detachment, and maybe a patrol det. as well - but you still only get total of 8cp for an army.

Agreed, it's a dumb rule that also makes aircav and mechanized MT impossible to play how it is supposed to be played.

Why? Couldn’t you just use dedicated transports for the mechanised bit and an air support detachment for the valks. If you want commissars use a vanguard detachment with them in. No problem at all.