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.

Please refer to page 64 and 65 of the Greater Good and the recent accompanying FAQ.

Page 64 says MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units in your army gain the <TEMPESTUSREGIMENT> keyword. When you include aunit with the <TEMPESTUSREGIMENT> keyword in your army, you must nominate which Tempestus Regiment it is from, and then replace all instances of the <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> keyword on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen Tempestus Regiment.The<TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> keyword can only be replaced by one of the ollowing:
• 54THPSIANJAKALS • 32NDTHETOIDEAGLES • 133RDLAMBDANLIONS • 43RDIOTAN DRAGONS • 55THKAPPICEAGLES • 9THIOTAN GORGONNES
If your army contains any units with both the <REGIMENT> and <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> keywords,you must choose a different keyword to replace each of those keywords on those units’ datasheets.


Next column under Regimental Doctrines: If your army is Battle-forged, all <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT>units in a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment gain a Regimental Doctrine selected from those presented on the page opposite,so long as every unit in that Detachment (excluding the Advisors and Auxilla mentioned below)has the same <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT>keyword.

Finally, the FAQ says :Q: Are the Militarum Tempestus Regimental Doctrines taken
in addition to the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine listed in
Codex: Astra Militarum, or instead of it?
A: They are taken instead of the Storm Troopers
Regimental Doctrine in Codex: Astra Militarum. Note, if
you wish to continue using your Militarum Tempestus
Detachments as you currently have been, you can simply
select the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine from
page 65 in Psychic Awakening: The Greater Good (italics mine)

So am I correct in saying that first you pick a Regiment ( say, Iotan Dragons), then you select a Doctrine ( any on page 65), and therefore could legally have a Detachment whose keyword is Iotan Dragon, whose doctrine is Kappic Eagles? Or Storm Troopers?

We know from page 65 all units must have a Regiment. The FAQ indicates your pick your doctrine if you wish to have Storm Troopers. The text under Regimental Doctrines is neutral. It says you gain a doctrine selected from the next page, but does not specify whether it has to be the same as the Tempestus Regiment, or whether it can be different.
.

Yes. This entire update is a train wreck, and Scions should get both Stormtroopers and doctrine of choice in compensation of the bullgak we’ve had to put up with since Codex: Astra Militarum was released.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Yes. This entire update is a train wreck, and Scions should get both Stormtroopers and doctrine of choice in compensation of the bullgak we’ve had to put up with since Codex: Astra Militarum was released.

I don't mind the single doctrine thing, because we also get deep strike ( although in the past we got more).

But the system should be, pick a regiment for stratagems etc based on a coherent theme ( mechanized scions, air drop scions, infiltrating scions, front line scions) and then pick the doctrines you want to match with those. Instead it is all an incoherent mish mash.

Technically it doesn't say that you get to pick, just that you gain one. So it could be argued that you just gain the relevant doctrine to your keyword.

However, this is totally another case of "RAW can be interpreted to mean X, even though RAI is blatantly Y".

 Apple Peel wrote:
Yes. This entire update is a train wreck, and Scions should get both Stormtroopers and doctrine of choice in compensation of the bullgak we’ve had to put up with since Codex: Astra Militarum was released.

"We should get extra broken rules because this release is inconvenient and allows people to...do something that logically doesn't make a ton of sense but isn't in any way adding power to their list?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Yes. This entire update is a train wreck, and Scions should get both Stormtroopers and doctrine of choice in compensation of the bullgak we’ve had to put up with since Codex: Astra Militarum was released.

"We should get extra broken rules because this release is inconvenient and allows people to...do something that logically doesn't make a ton of sense but isn't in any way adding power to their list?

“This release.” Yeah, maybe you don’t remember people arguing that Militarum Tempestus detachments couldn’t take units from the Advisors and Auxillia list without losing their doctrine when the AM codex came out. Then GW makes a new rule with TDF which confirms they are able to take A&A list units otherwise it’d be impossible to make a TDF Valkyrie. They couldn’t have just put out an errata or a FAQ, they had to make you do mental gymnastics to figure it out. I sent multiple emails about this, and I know others did as well. But, in that process, they allowed custom regiments that took the Stormtroopers doctrine to become TDF. Then they put out a new, horribly written rules addition for Militarum Tempestus which would allow, at RAW at face value of reading, someone’s Militarum Tempestus detachment to get both Stormtroopers and a doctrine of choice. Now, remember that factions have been getting upgrades and have been getting two abilities, such as regular guard, so this isn’t crazy. Then, you look back at the old TDF rules and FAQ, and this interpretation seems to work, as otherwise you couldn’t take a TDF without the Stormtroopers doctrine.

Now, they FAQ this and say that you are only meant to have one. But the problem with this is that they are so idiotic that they can’t just amend the rules, but they have to make the situation we are in now—You can either not gain the Stormtroopers doctrine, as it doesn’t have a <Tempestus Regiment> it correlates with (Remember, <Tempestus Regiment> can only be replaced by one of the six new regiments), so you can either not actually select Stormtroopers, or you can make your <Tempestus Regiment>into <133rd Lambdan Lions> and choose to benefit from Stormtroopers or Mobilized Infantry, etc, but you still gain access to the 133rd Lambdan Lions warlord trait, relic, and stratagem.

I don’t think this is an outrageous response to how poorly and lackadaisically the Militarum Tempestus rules have been handled this edition.

 Apple Peel wrote:
“This release.” Yeah, maybe you don’t remember people arguing that Militarum Tempestus detachments couldn’t take units from the Advisors and Auxillia list without losing their doctrine when the AM codex came out.

That annoyed me, as it was literally RAW that you could take them.

It was literally RaW you couldn't, which was the problem.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It was literally RaW you couldn't, which was the problem.

Ok, to avoid derailing the thread with rules arguments again, I'll just state my case once. I suggest a single rebuttal, then we move on.

There is a paragraph pointing out that taking units other than tempestus prevents them from recieving a doctrine. Then, in the next paragraph, it is stated that certain units do not prevent units from gaining a regimental doctrine. I do not understand how a unit can prevent doctrines when there is a rule specifically saying that they do not prevent doctrines.

 Trickstick wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It was literally RaW you couldn't, which was the problem.

Ok, to avoid derailing the thread with rules arguments again, I'll just state my case once. I suggest a single rebuttal, then we move on.

There is a paragraph pointing out that taking units other than tempestus prevents them from recieving a doctrine. Then, in the next paragraph, it is stated that certain units do not prevent units from gaining a regimental doctrine. I do not understand how a unit can prevent doctrines when there is a rule specifically saying that they do not prevent doctrines.

His reasoning is that the Militarum Tempestus rule did not make an explicit reference to the Advisors and Auxillia rule. The Regimental Doctrine rule for regular Guard did, saying that the exceptions to the rule were on the other side of the page.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, the reference was unnecessary, as we later learned with Tempestus Drop Force.

 Trickstick wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It was literally RaW you couldn't, which was the problem.

Ok, to avoid derailing the thread with rules arguments again, I'll just state my case once. I suggest a single rebuttal, then we move on.

There is a paragraph pointing out that taking units other than tempestus prevents them from recieving a doctrine. Then, in the next paragraph, it is stated that certain units do not prevent units from gaining a regimental doctrine. I do not understand how a unit can prevent doctrines when there is a rule specifically saying that they do not prevent doctrines.

Because nothing stops the Militarum Tempestus units or their detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine if you include Auxilla, it stops them from benefiting from the doctrine. They still have it, they just don't benefit from it.

Codex: Astra Copywritum, Page 132 wrote:If your army is Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment.

Codex: Astra Copywritum, Page 132 wrote:Note, however, that the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus (in which case they will gain the Storm Troopers doctrine).

Codex: Astra Copywritum, Page 132 wrote:The units listed below can be included in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine. Emphasis mine.

Gain and Benefit are not synonyms.

Simple question: Is a detachment that includes both MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units and an Auxilla unit a detachment where "every unit in that Detachment is from the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS"? Yes or No? The answer is No, so they don't get to benefit from the doctrine despite the detachment still gaining the doctrine. Is it stupid? Yes, but so is flamers automatically hitting hypersonic voidcraft flying at mach 25 or a Space Marine not being able to throw a grenade further than a man in a fancy hat.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It was literally RaW you couldn't, which was the problem.

Ok, to avoid derailing the thread with rules arguments again, I'll just state my case once. I suggest a single rebuttal, then we move on.

There is a paragraph pointing out that taking units other than tempestus prevents them from recieving a doctrine. Then, in the next paragraph, it is stated that certain units do not prevent units from gaining a regimental doctrine. I do not understand how a unit can prevent doctrines when there is a rule specifically saying that they do not prevent doctrines.

Because nothing stops the Militarum Tempestus units or their detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine if you include Auxilla, it stops them from benefiting from the doctrine. They still have it, they just don't benefit from it.

Codex: Astra Copywritum, Page 132 wrote:If your army is Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment.

Codex: Astra Copywritum, Page 132 wrote:Note, however, that the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus (in which case they will gain the Storm Troopers doctrine).

Codex: Astra Copywritum, Page 132 wrote:The units listed below can be included in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine. Emphasis mine.

Gain and Benefit are not synonyms.

Simple question: Is a detachment that includes both MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units and an Auxilla unit a detachment where "every unit in that Detachment is from the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS"? Yes or No? The answer is No, so they don't get to benefit from the doctrine despite the detachment still gaining the doctrine.

(in which case they will gain the Storm Troopers doctrine)
The rule used benefit and gain interchangeably.

Please let us not get into this, it is a bit pointless.

Thank you BCB, I understand you position now. I don't agree, but that is how things go.

WTo quote the mil. temp. discussion thread intro (which I don't have my book in front of me but it looks like the correct language)

ADVISORS AND AUXILLA
The units listed below can be included in a Militarum Tempestus Detachment, despite not having the Militarum Tempestus keyword. In addition, they do not prevent other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine. Note, however, that the units listed below can never themselves benefit from a Regimental Doctrine.

So, yeah, they get the doctrine, even with such, but any opponent you face in a tournament will simply say "you can't have both" and win the argument like so...

To the question "can you have BOTH" the answer is clearly no, based on the new ruleset. "If you wish to continue using your militarum tempewstus detachments as you currently have been, you can simply select the storm troopers regimental doctrine from page 54 in PA." ... This means that they are used "as they have been" and that was before "tempestus regiment" doctrines existed and it therefore does not allow them to benefit from the tempestus regiment doctrines, or its not "as you have been" but some cheesy autowin bullcrap that a TO has to rule against. Since this directly precludes regimental doctrines if you have stormtrooper, it doesn't matter if you can have stormtrooper with regimental doctrines, as illegality is a commutative function here, so no.

What interests me more is a question (as a guy who runs an all stormtrooper deteachment A (7 stormtrooper units), an all iotan detachment B ( 5 iotan gorgonne_, aND a cadian artillery battaliion C with 2 non-doctrine scion units as troops in that C list) ...can an iotan tempest order a stormtrooper scion? Can both or neither from the scion and auxilla only detachments A and B order a non-doctrine benefiting troop choice stormtrooper unit in a cadian detachment C? I am not asking because I think this is some big obscure debate, I just don't remember and I wish I knew.

Dukeofstuff wrote:
WTo quote the mil. temp. discussion thread intro (which I don't have my book in front of me but it looks like the correct language)

ADVISORS AND AUXILLA
The units listed below can be included in a Militarum Tempestus Detachment, despite not having the Militarum Tempestus keyword. In addition, they do not prevent other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine. Note, however, that the units listed below can never themselves benefit from a Regimental Doctrine.

So, yeah, they get the doctrine, even with such, but any opponent you face in a tournament will simply say "you can't have both" and win the argument like so...

To the question "can you have BOTH" the answer is clearly no, based on the new ruleset. "If you wish to continue using your militarum tempewstus detachments as you currently have been, you can simply select the storm troopers regimental doctrine from page 54 in PA." ... This means that they are used "as they have been" and that was before "tempestus regiment" doctrines existed and it therefore does not allow them to benefit from the tempestus regiment doctrines, or its not "as you have been" but some cheesy autowin bullcrap that a TO has to rule against. Since this directly precludes regimental doctrines if you have stormtrooper, it doesn't matter if you can have stormtrooper with regimental doctrines, as illegality is a commutative function here, so no.

What interests me more is a question (as a guy who runs an all stormtrooper deteachment A (7 stormtrooper units), an all iotan detachment B ( 5 iotan gorgonne_, aND a cadian artillery battaliion C with 2 non-doctrine scion units as troops in that C list) ...can an iotan tempest order a stormtrooper scion? Can both or neither from the scion and auxilla only detachments A and B order a non-doctrine benefiting troop choice stormtrooper unit in a cadian detachment C? I am not asking because I think this is some big obscure debate, I just don't remember and I wish I knew.

I think Voice of Command lets you order ASTRA MILITARUM units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dukeofstuff wrote:
WTo quote the mil. temp. discussion thread intro (which I don't have my book in front of me but it looks like the correct language)

ADVISORS AND AUXILLA
The units listed below can be included in a Militarum Tempestus Detachment, despite not having the Militarum Tempestus keyword. In addition, they do not prevent other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine. Note, however, that the units listed below can never themselves benefit from a Regimental Doctrine.

So, yeah, they get the doctrine, even with such, but any opponent you face in a tournament will simply say "you can't have both" and win the argument like so...

To the question "can you have BOTH" the answer is clearly no, based on the new ruleset. "If you wish to continue using your militarum tempewstus detachments as you currently have been, you can simply select the storm troopers regimental doctrine from page 54 in PA." ... This means that they are used "as they have been" and that was before "tempestus regiment" doctrines existed and it therefore does not allow them to benefit from the tempestus regiment doctrines, or its not "as you have been" but some cheesy autowin bullcrap that a TO has to rule against. Since this directly precludes regimental doctrines if you have stormtrooper, it doesn't matter if you can have stormtrooper with regimental doctrines, as illegality is a commutative function here, so no.

What interests me more is a question (as a guy who runs an all stormtrooper deteachment A (7 stormtrooper units), an all iotan detachment B ( 5 iotan gorgonne_, aND a cadian artillery battaliion C with 2 non-doctrine scion units as troops in that C list) ...can an iotan tempest order a stormtrooper scion? Can both or neither from the scion and auxilla only detachments A and B order a non-doctrine benefiting troop choice stormtrooper unit in a cadian detachment C? I am not asking because I think this is some big obscure debate, I just don't remember and I wish I knew.

I think Voice of Command lets you order ASTRA MILITARUM units.

You can order as long as you have the same <regiment> keyword.

So voice of command should allow every tempestor prime to order ANY militarum tempestes, no matter if iotan or jakal, stormtrooper generic, or attached to a cadian brigade?
That's WONDERFUL for me!

Dukeofstuff wrote:
So voice of command should allow every tempestor prime to order ANY militarum tempestes, no matter if iotan or jakal, stormtrooper generic, or attached to a cadian brigade?
That's WONDERFUL for me!

Legally, by the rules, you can take two Iotan Gorgonne detachments, one with the Stormtrooper doctrine and one with the Iotan Gorgonne doctrine. The Tempestor Primes from either detachment can legally order units from either detachment.

The non regimental scions in the arty detachment cannot be ordered unless you take Voice of Command.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Yes. This entire update is a train wreck, and Scions should get both Stormtroopers and doctrine of choice in compensation of the bullgak we’ve had to put up with since Codex: Astra Militarum was released.

Right, so using this idea, you just shafted the Iotan Gorgonnes and Thetoid Eagles since their doctrines already use 6's to hit...

In fact the Thetoid Eagles are basically the Stormtroopers doctrine already...

On its own the Stormtroopers doctrine seems underwhelming, but if you have Vigilus Defiant, then that doctrine transcends mediocrity into something quite unique; the Tempestus Drop Force still only uses the standard Stormtroopers doctrine...

General Hobbs wrote:

Dukeofstuff wrote:
So voice of command should allow every tempestor prime to order ANY militarum tempestes, no matter if iotan or jakal, stormtrooper generic, or attached to a cadian brigade?
That's WONDERFUL for me!

Legally, by the rules, you can take two Iotan Gorgonne detachments, one with the Stormtrooper doctrine and one with the Iotan Gorgonne doctrine. The Tempestor Primes from either detachment can legally order units from either detachment.

The non regimental scions in the arty detachment cannot be ordered unless you take Voice of Command.

You could also have a Commissar with Master of Command order them around...

Slayer6 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Yes. This entire update is a train wreck, and Scions should get both Stormtroopers and doctrine of choice in compensation of the bullgak we’ve had to put up with since Codex: Astra Militarum was released.

Right, so using this idea, you just shafted the Iotan Gorgonnes and Thetoid Eagles since their doctrines already use 6's to hit...

In fact the Thetoid Eagles are basically the Stormtroopers doctrine already...

On its own the Stormtroopers doctrine seems underwhelming, but if you have Vigilus Defiant, then that doctrine transcends mediocrity into something quite unique; the Tempestus Drop Force still only uses the standard Stormtroopers doctrine...

General Hobbs wrote:

Dukeofstuff wrote:
So voice of command should allow every tempestor prime to order ANY militarum tempestes, no matter if iotan or jakal, stormtrooper generic, or attached to a cadian brigade?
That's WONDERFUL for me!

Legally, by the rules, you can take two Iotan Gorgonne detachments, one with the Stormtrooper doctrine and one with the Iotan Gorgonne doctrine. The Tempestor Primes from either detachment can legally order units from either detachment.

The non regimental scions in the arty detachment cannot be ordered unless you take Voice of Command.

You could also have a Commissar with Master of Command order them around...

Don’t know why you say that. Both get generate a single auto hit on a six in [condition] while Stormtroopers! generates another shot on a six, and that shot doesn’t generate additional shots.
You hit on six with Stormtroopers and Predatory Strike. You get an auto hit, then you generate an additional shot, which can also generate another auto hit on a six, but it can’t generate an additional shot. If you get +1 to hit mods, you generate additional shots on 5+ with Stormtroopers, meaning 1/3 of your successful shots will generate more shots, meaning more chances for additional auto hits. It would actually be quite powerful.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Don’t know why you say that. Both get generate a single auto hit on a six in [condition] while Stormtroopers! generates another shot on a six, and that shot doesn’t generate additional shots.
You hit on six with Stormtroopers and Predatory Strike. You get an auto hit, then you generate an additional shot, which can also generate another auto hit on a six, but it can’t generate an additional shot. If you get +1 to hit mods, you generate additional shots on 5+ with Stormtroopers, meaning 1/3 of your successful shots will generate more shots, meaning more chances for additional auto hits. It would actually be quite powerful.

Except for the part in the GG book where it clearly says that the TEMPESTUS REGIMENT is replaced by the new regiments. Add to that the part in the original codex where it says they only benefit from the doctrine if they are from the Militarum Tempestus, which directly implies they have that MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword. There is no conceivable way to misinterpret this fact. So to have Stormtroopers you need to have MILITARUM TEMPESTUS. The Iotan Gorgonnes replace MILITARUM TEMPESTUS with IOTAN GORGONNES.

This is like saying I want my MORDIAN keyword Leman Russ to also have the CADIAN keyword so it benefits both shooting modes.

Slayer6 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Don’t know why you say that. Both get generate a single auto hit on a six in [condition] while Stormtroopers! generates another shot on a six, and that shot doesn’t generate additional shots.
You hit on six with Stormtroopers and Predatory Strike. You get an auto hit, then you generate an additional shot, which can also generate another auto hit on a six, but it can’t generate an additional shot. If you get +1 to hit mods, you generate additional shots on 5+ with Stormtroopers, meaning 1/3 of your successful shots will generate more shots, meaning more chances for additional auto hits. It would actually be quite powerful.

Except for the part in the GG book where it clearly says that the TEMPESTUS REGIMENT is replaced by the new regiments. Add to that the part in the original codex where it says they only benefit from the doctrine if they are from the Militarum Tempestus, which directly implies they have that MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword. There is no conceivable way to misinterpret this fact. So to have Stormtroopers you need to have MILITARUM TEMPESTUS. The Iotan Gorgonnes replace MILITARUM TEMPESTUS with IOTAN GORGONNES.

This is like saying I want my MORDIAN keyword Leman Russ to also have the CADIAN keyword so it benefits both shooting modes.

Yeah, no. If it were that simple, we wouldn’t have had three YMDC thread and multiple pages in Tactics dedicated to it. You are also explicitly wrong in multiple places. In the GG book, it is printed that you GAIN <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT>. <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> does not replace MILITARUM TEMPESTUS, it is in addition to, and you only gain the Stormtroopers doctrine if you are a full MILITARUM TEMPESTUS detachment. So by RAW (and still by RAW, because GW is too lazy to actually rewrite a rule, only answer a question about it) you get both Stormtroopers and a doctrine of choice. However, by answering the question, people know how to play even if the rules don’t actually reflect their intention.

Now, because GW is too inept and/or lazy to rewrite the offending rules, we have a new stink pile.

For this, if you are reading the Militarum Tempestus rules out of the Tactics thread, I’ll tell you now—it is not word for word as it claims to be, it lies! So do not read that for rules. Go find the real rules-as-written.

So now we know GW only want us to benefit from one doctrine. <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> can only be replaced by one of the six new Regiments, as detailed in the book (Stormtroopers isn’t on the list, and the FAQ doesn’t add it in). So, we either can’t select Stormtroopers, as it doesn’t have a corresponding <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> (like how <133RD LAMBDAN LIONS> corresponds with the Prized Weaponry doctrine), or we can select <133RD LAMBDAN LIONS> and choose to benefit from Stormtroopers (or any other of the doctrines on the list) instead of Prized Weaponry. This latter option still allows one to use the 133rd Lambdan Lions stratagem, warlord trait, and relic since the <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> still matches for the exclusive stuff (remember, it says you need the <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> not the doctrine, which is a different word entirely).

Please, slowly read through the rules in the actual Greater Good book (and the Astra Militarum codex, for good measure), and read what is actually printed on the page, and interpret what those words that exist mean, not the interpretation of what they ideally should mean. We both agree that one person should really only get one or the other, and that Stormtroopers should be a selectable option, however, that’s not the rules as printed in the book, nor is it the rules as printed in the FAQ (as there were no rules printed in the FAQ, only how one thing (not our entire compendium of multiple issues) should be interpreted).

I don’t actually (fully) mean what I said how we should get both Stormtroopers and a new doctrine of choice (though it’d be really great), but for the love of all things good, we should actually get rules end up working!

Ironically this exact turn of events took place just yesterday at a GW shop. Two guys argued this exact topic. They even asked the GW store manager, who went with the general consensus.

One guy wanted to nitpick so precisely - actually the only point of difference that he made was about a limit on the number of Tempestus Regiments allowed in a single army, something about Imperial Soup. The other guy, got fed up with the constant back and forth argument and resolved the issue by king hitting the nitpicker outside. Once the nitpicker upped and left, amid the cheers of other players, I shook his hand.

I wouldn't do the same, but the endless frustration shown in this thread seems to reflect exactly the same sentiments outside. Later I played my own Tempestus force against him, and managed to force a stalemate - once both sides had finished dropping and blasting each other's long ranged Taurox Primes or Valkyries out of the picture we found we were simply too far from the objectives (and each other's Warlords) to do much for turns 4, 5 and 6.

Slayer6 wrote:
Ironically this exact turn of events took place just yesterday at a GW shop. Two guys argued this exact topic. They even asked the GW store manager, who went with the general consensus.

One guy wanted to nitpick so precisely - actually the only point of difference that he made was about a limit on the number of Tempestus Regiments allowed in a single army, something about Imperial Soup. The other guy, got fed up with the constant back and forth argument and resolved the issue by king hitting the nitpicker outside. Once the nitpicker upped and left, amid the cheers of other players, I shook his hand.

I wouldn't do the same, but the endless frustration shown in this thread seems to reflect exactly the same sentiments outside. Later I played my own Tempestus force against him, and managed to force a stalemate - once both sides had finished dropping and blasting each other's long ranged Taurox Primes or Valkyries out of the picture we found we were simply too far from the objectives (and each other's Warlords) to do much for turns 4, 5 and 6.

Glad to know people you play with can’t stay civilized over a dispute over rules for a miniature war game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, that you’d congratulate the fellow that assaulted the other.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Glad to know people you play with can’t stay civilized over a dispute over rules for a miniature war game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, that you’d congratulate the fellow that assaulted the other.

Since you seem so eager to bait comments, alright, I'll bite.

You deserve a good smack for how you are trying to bend the rules to your own advantage.

Other than that, and seeing as how this thread is getting increasingly derailed by your drivel, there doesn't seem to be much else to be added here.

I don't think anyone who shows up to play, wants to devote 45 minutes to arguing a point with a blockhead, even when an authority figure has already made a ruling contrary to their argument.
In that situation the blockhead almost got his block knocked off.

That’s why we attempt to understand rules here, so that we may play correctly. And, if that’s not possible, we email GW to resolve the rules.

What are you gonna do, cross the pond and give me a good smack, Aussie?

Slayer6 wrote:


You deserve a good smack for how you are trying to bend the rules to your own advantage.

It's a game. If you're resorting to violence over a disagreement over the rules, and you're over the age of 12, you're taking the whole thing too seriously.

This thread would seem to have run it's course. Moving on.