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.

Good day folks!

Trying to get an idea of how people are creating Brigades with Tempestus.

It’s very easy to run two Battalions, but with the limitations of a pure MT list, just trying to get a sense of what folks are doing (or if they even are).

Thanks!

Pretty sure you don't have any native fast or heavy units to fill the brigade out, battalions only unless you are using the stormtrooper regimental trait on a generic custom regiment.

Yeah, people only run Militarum Tempestus in brigades for the better ballistic skill and armor. Scions don’t get their doctrine in brigades.

Can <regiment> units not be militarum tempestus unless they already have it?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Can <regiment> units not be militarum tempestus unless they already have it?

Regiment units can not gain MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

Theoretically, Regiment units can gain the Stormtroopers doctrine, however, have good luck finding any event that will allow you to do that.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Can <regiment> units not be militarum tempestus unless they already have it?

Regiment units can not gain MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

Theoretically, Regiment units can gain the Stormtroopers doctrine, however, have good luck finding any event that will allow you to do that.

That's lame. Is it really outside the realm of possibility for them to have sentinels, or other vehicles?

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Can <regiment> units not be militarum tempestus unless they already have it?

Regiment units can not gain MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

Theoretically, Regiment units can gain the Stormtroopers doctrine, however, have good luck finding any event that will allow you to do that.

That's lame. Is it really outside the realm of possibility for them to have sentinels, or other vehicles?

Yes.
The Militarum Tempestus are an elite surgical strike, tip-of-the-spear specialist force. They are glass cannons which reign fiery las-rounds on their foes while plasma and melta reduce vehicles to slag. They can only use the fastest of vehicles, like the Taurox Prime and the Valkyrie. If you want to make a Militarum Tempestus army, these are both your gun boats and your rapid-delivery tools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It definitely makes them are more difficult army, but they are able to bring absolute carnage to the field.

Thats what I figured, but was trying to see if anyone had specific suggestions.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Thats what I figured, but was trying to see if anyone had specific suggestions.

Send me private messages and I can see about helping later.

There are no heavies I'm aware of that tempestus can take and keep their trait.

They have HQ, Troops, Elites, Fast but not heavy that I know.

The elites can have Bullgryn/ogryns as they don't stop you from getting your doctrine.

Fast being the valks as they also don't throw off the doctrine.

There are others as well that hold that ability to be taken but not take away the doctrine, just check the codex.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Theoretically, Regiment units can gain the Stormtroopers doctrine, however, have good luck finding any event that will allow you to do that.

If events are refusing to allow something that is indisputably legal then that's a sad comment on the state of "competitive" events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Fast being the valks as they also don't throw off the doctrine.

Valkyries are flyers, not fast attack.

You are correct, my bad. Though the fact they still lack any real heavy the point remains. I guess they could take Rough riders from index as they don't count against the doctrines either.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Theoretically, Regiment units can gain the Stormtroopers doctrine, however, have good luck finding any event that will allow you to do that.

If events are refusing to allow something that is indisputably legal then that's a sad comment on the state of "competitive" events

This particular rule might be weird, but let's not get hyperbolic. Tournaments always have house rules, many of which by their nature contradict clear RAW. No shooting through ground floor windows etc.

 Stux wrote:
This particular rule might be weird, but let's not get hyperbolic. Tournaments always have house rules, many of which by their nature contradict clear RAW. No shooting through ground floor windows etc.

The difference is that those house rules are acknowledged as balance changes to improve the game, where banning the use of the "storm troopers" doctrine is about Apple Peel being upset that people can put their special snowflake Militarius™ Trademarkus™ rule on units that haven't graduated from torture-Hogwarts and pretending that there's somehow ambiguity in the rules on allowing you to do it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stux wrote:
This particular rule might be weird, but let's not get hyperbolic. Tournaments always have house rules, many of which by their nature contradict clear RAW. No shooting through ground floor windows etc.

The difference is that those house rules are acknowledged as balance changes to improve the game, where banning the use of the "storm troopers" doctrine is about Apple Peel being upset that people can put their special snowflake Militarius™ Trademarkus™ rule on units that haven't graduated from torture-Hogwarts and pretending that there's somehow ambiguity in the rules on allowing you to do it.

Oh yes, because you would love a Shadosword to get extra hits on sixes.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Oh yes, because you would love a Shadosword to get extra hits on sixes.

It's the same average hit total as a Cadian Shadowsword re-rolling 1s, so no, your objection is not valid. And the slight difference in math between extra attacks on 6s and extra attacks on 1s arguably favors the Cadian doctrine in the case of a Shadowsword, as minimizing failure is more important than maximizing success when an average roll from the weapon deletes a tank already and the only thing that can ruin your plan is rolling too many 1s. And having access to the Cadian stratagems/relics/etc is normally going to be more valuable than any slight advantage in the math.

House rule? It's in the codex under the regiments bit "Units with the Militarum Tempestus keyword treat this as their <Regiment> keyword in all respects, but the Militarum Tempestus keyword can not be used to replace the <Regiment> keyword on any other datasheets."

It's on page 84, where the keyword is introduced, rather than later where the doctrines are covered along with what detachments get those benefits.

Peregrine trying to derail a thread again by hating on Militarum Tempestus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tastyfish wrote:
House rule? It's in the codex under the regiments bit "Units with the Militarum Tempestus keyword treat this as their <Regiment> keyword in all respects, but the Militarum Tempestus keyword can not be used to replace the <Regiment> keyword on any other datasheets."

It's on page 84, where the keyword is introduced, rather than later where the doctrines are covered, along with what detachments get those benefits.

The idea is that you don’t replace your keyword with Militarum Tempestus, rather, you make a custom regiment and then give it the storm troopers doctrine. You don’t get MT orders, relics, or the Warlord trait.

The idea is whether this trait should given out freely or if it should only be restricted to MT.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Peregrine trying to derail a thread again by hating on Militarum Tempestus.

You're the one who derailed it by bringing up a nonexistent rules "issue" to pretend that taking the "storm troopers" doctrine is somehow illegal or not accepted.

The idea is whether this trait should given out freely or if it should only be restricted to MT.

And on this subject the rules are perfectly clear: you can do it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Peregrine trying to derail a thread again by hating on Militarum Tempestus.

You're the one who derailed it by bringing up a nonexistent rules "issue" to pretend that taking the "storm troopers" doctrine is somehow illegal or not accepted.

The idea is whether this trait should given out freely or if it should only be restricted to MT.

And on this subject the rules are perfectly clear: you can do it.

I’m bringing it up as it is an issue that relates to the usage of the doctrine. It’s on topic, unlike your Militarum Tempestus hate.

Besides, one would argue that based on the designers’ commentary, that the use of Custom Regiments does not allow you to use the Storm Troopers doctrine, as they explicitly say Custom regiments are “not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units.”

 Apple Peel wrote:
I’m bringing it up an issue that relates to the usage of the doctrine. It’s on topic, unlike your Militarum Tempestus hate.

There is no issue outside of your imagination, the rules are perfectly clear.

Besides, one would argue that based on the designers’ commentary, that the use of Custom Regiments does not allow you to use the Storm Troopers doctrine, as they explicitly say Custom regiments are “not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units.”

No restriction is being circumvented. The restriction applies to the Militarius™ Trademarkus™ keyword, not the "storm troopers" doctrine and nothing about this allows you to give the Militarius™ Trademarkus™ rules to any unit that isn't supposed to have them. You can't use their stratagems, apply buffs that are keyworded to Militarius™ Trademarkus™, etc. All you get is a single doctrine with no rules indication that it is in any way different from the other doctrines. The only "restriction" is the one from your imagination, that $cions are special snowflakes and only the elite torture-Hogwarts graduates are allowed to use their rules.

Apple Peel wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Can <regiment> units not be militarum tempestus unless they already have it?

Regiment units can not gain MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

Theoretically, Regiment units can gain the Stormtroopers doctrine, however, have good luck finding any event that will allow you to do that.

Why would an event do that? It's completely allowed in the rules, and is hardly stronger than some of the things that are also just as legal.

Any event that does that is using house rules, and as house rules go, this is one of the dumber ones.

Apple Peel wrote:The idea is that you don’t replace your keyword with Militarum Tempestus, rather, you make a custom regiment and then give it the storm troopers doctrine. You don’t get MT orders, relics, or the Warlord trait.

Exactly. When you create a Guard army, models must choose a <Regiment> keyword if they have none, or use the one existing on their profile (with the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword not being allowed to chosen, only existing <Militarum Tempestus> can have it). After choosing these keywords, you get to apply a Doctrine to your dudes. All of the pre-gen keywords have a Doctrine attached that they MUST take. However, if you didn't take a pre-gen Regiment, you can choose what Doctrine you like, and unlike with <Regiment>, there are no restrictions.

You still can't use pre-gen <Regiment> Warlord Traits or Stratagems, because they're tied to the <Regiment> keyword, not the Doctrine.

Essentially, you could play <Tanith> (a regiment without it's own doctrine), and take it with the Cadian "Born Soldiers" Doctrine, even though you won't get the Cadian stratagem and Warlord Trait. However, because people don't like nerfing themselves, most people don't bother with using a made-up Regiment, and just use a pre-gen <Regiment> so that they can get all of the features of that Regiment, not just their Doctrine.

<Militarum Tempestus>/Storm Troopers is the exception, because you cannot have MT as a regiment freely, but you CAN have the Storm Troopers Doctrine.

The idea is whether this trait should given out freely or if it should only be restricted to MT.

It's no more restricted than any other trait. The only restriction lies in <Militarum Tempestus>, not in "Storm Troopers".

While I don't share Peregrine's vehement hatred of the Militarum Tempestus, I do agree that it's associated Doctrine (because that's the relevant part here, not the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword) is fair game to any custom Regiment.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Apple Peel wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Can <regiment> units not be militarum tempestus unless they already have it?

Regiment units can not gain MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

Theoretically, Regiment units can gain the Stormtroopers doctrine, however, have good luck finding any event that will allow you to do that.

Why would an event do that? It's completely allowed in the rules, and is hardly stronger than some of the things that are also just as legal.

Any event that does that is using house rules, and as house rules go, this is one of the dumber ones.

Apple Peel wrote:The idea is that you don’t replace your keyword with Militarum Tempestus, rather, you make a custom regiment and then give it the storm troopers doctrine. You don’t get MT orders, relics, or the Warlord trait.

Exactly. When you create a Guard army, models must choose a <Regiment> keyword if they have none, or use the one existing on their profile (with the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword not being allowed to chosen, only existing <Militarum Tempestus> can have it). After choosing these keywords, you get to apply a Doctrine to your dudes. All of the pre-gen keywords have a Doctrine attached that they MUST take. However, if you didn't take a pre-gen Regiment, you can choose what Doctrine you like, and unlike with <Regiment>, there are no restrictions.

You still can't use pre-gen <Regiment> Warlord Traits or Stratagems, because they're tied to the <Regiment> keyword, not the Doctrine.

Essentially, you could play <Tanith> (a regiment without it's own doctrine), and take it with the Cadian "Born Soldiers" Doctrine, even though you won't get the Cadian stratagem and Warlord Trait. However, because people don't like nerfing themselves, most people don't bother with using a made-up Regiment, and just use a pre-gen <Regiment> so that they can get all of the features of that Regiment, not just their Doctrine.

<Militarum Tempestus>/Storm Troopers is the exception, because you cannot have MT as a regiment freely, but you CAN have the Storm Troopers Doctrine.

The idea is whether this trait should given out freely or if it should only be restricted to MT.

It's no more restricted than any other trait. The only restriction lies in <Militarum Tempestus>, not in "Storm Troopers".

While I don't share Peregrine's vehement hatred of the Militarum Tempestus, I do agree that it's associated Doctrine (because that's the relevant part here, not the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword) is fair game to any custom Regiment.

An interesting thing to note, however, is that according to the Vigilus defiant FAQ, a Militarum Tempestus detachment is defined as a detachment with the Stormtroopers doctrine. By the custom regimen logic, I could make custom regiment HARAKONI WARHAWKS a Tempestus Drop Force. And, the only thing in that regiment that would actually get any benefit would be Valkyries, but they wouldn’t be able to use Aerial Fire Support because there aren’t actually any Tempestus Drop Force infantry.

I think there is something intended here.

 Apple Peel wrote:
An interesting thing to note, however, is that according to the Vigilus defiant FAQ, a Militarum Tempestus detachment is defined as a detachment with the Stormtroopers doctrine. By the custom regimen logic, I could make custom regiment HARAKONI WARHAWKS a Tempestus Drop Force. And, the only thing in that regiment that would actually get any benefit would be Valkyries, but they wouldn’t be able to use Aerial Fire Support because there aren’t actually any Tempestus Drop Force infantry.

I think there is something intended here.

Alternatively, it's the easiest way to define the detachment given the fact that the Valkyries can not have the Militarius™ Trademarkus™ keyword and stating it as "a detachment which contains units with the Militarius™ Trademarkus™ keyword" would allow you to apply the buffs to a Cadian unit as long as you have a single squad of $cions. Given the fact that there is literally zero benefit to "abusing" the rule GW probably decided that broadening the definition wasn't worth worrying about.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stux wrote:
This particular rule might be weird, but let's not get hyperbolic. Tournaments always have house rules, many of which by their nature contradict clear RAW. No shooting through ground floor windows etc.

The difference is that those house rules are acknowledged as balance changes to improve the game, where banning the use of the "storm troopers" doctrine is about Apple Peel being upset that people can put their special snowflake Militarius™ Trademarkus™ rule on units that haven't graduated from torture-Hogwarts and pretending that there's somehow ambiguity in the rules on allowing you to do it.

Oh yes, because you would love a Shadosword to get extra hits on sixes.

I mean, its pretty much identical to the cadian trait, just coming from the other direction. No one thinks having a cadian trait is broken for baneblades do they? I'd probably rather use the valhallan on a storm sword anyway to be honest, as I expect having double wounds for your damage table would have more impact over the course of the game than one or two extra shots (that still have to hit).

 argonak wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stux wrote:
This particular rule might be weird, but let's not get hyperbolic. Tournaments always have house rules, many of which by their nature contradict clear RAW. No shooting through ground floor windows etc.

The difference is that those house rules are acknowledged as balance changes to improve the game, where banning the use of the "storm troopers" doctrine is about Apple Peel being upset that people can put their special snowflake Militarius™ Trademarkus™ rule on units that haven't graduated from torture-Hogwarts and pretending that there's somehow ambiguity in the rules on allowing you to do it.

Oh yes, because you would love a Shadosword to get extra hits on sixes.

I mean, its pretty much identical to the cadian trait, just coming from the other direction. No one thinks having a cadian trait is broken for baneblades do they? I'd probably rather use the valhallan on a storm sword anyway to be honest, as I expect having double wounds for your damage table would have more impact over the course of the game than one or two extra shots (that still have to hit).

I haven’t looked at the math, but don’t Shadowswords get +1 to hit against Titanics? So a shadowsword with exploding 5s and 6s sounds good to me.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stux wrote:
This particular rule might be weird, but let's not get hyperbolic. Tournaments always have house rules, many of which by their nature contradict clear RAW. No shooting through ground floor windows etc.

The difference is that those house rules are acknowledged as balance changes to improve the game, where banning the use of the "storm troopers" doctrine is about Apple Peel being upset that people can put their special snowflake Militarius™ Trademarkus™ rule on units that haven't graduated from torture-Hogwarts and pretending that there's somehow ambiguity in the rules on allowing you to do it.

Oh yes, because you would love a Shadosword to get extra hits on sixes.

I mean, its pretty much identical to the cadian trait, just coming from the other direction. No one thinks having a cadian trait is broken for baneblades do they? I'd probably rather use the valhallan on a storm sword anyway to be honest, as I expect having double wounds for your damage table would have more impact over the course of the game than one or two extra shots (that still have to hit).

I haven’t looked at the math, but don’t Shadowswords get +1 to hit against Titanics? So a shadowsword with exploding 5s and 6s sounds good to me.

Yeah, that would make it better than the cadian trait when shooting against titianics. Its the same as cadian for shooting anything else though. And it only applies to this ONE unit, so I don't think it makes any sense to use it as an example of why the RAW shouldn't be RAI.

It sounds good, until you realize that the Cadian relic/stratagem are really powerful against big single targets and a "storm troopers" Shadowsword does not get them.