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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
What you said about the FAQ is true, however incomplete.

The FAQ also calls out giving units abilities they could not normally have by giving them a keyword to circumvent which units have which abilities.

A baneblade cannot have stormtrooper with any regiment option with assigned traits. You are trying to give it stormtrooper by giving it a regiment name that has unassigned traits so you can ignore that normally regiment cannot select militarum tempestus to get the militarum Tempestus doctrine.

Can you replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to get the militarum tempestus doctrine? If you have to use a regiment that does not have assigned doctrines to do so then you are doing something you cannot normally do by manipulating keywords.

The FAQ calls out not giving them abilities that they can't get normally - HOWEVER, a baneblade CAN get Storm Troopers normally by taking the Storm Troopers doctrine, which IS normal to be able to do with any regiment that does not have its own predetermined Doctrine. What they are talking about is to not be able to give Regiments Space Marines abilities by naming them Iron Hands or one of the other Chapter names. Likewise, a Space Marine Chapter would not be be called Cadian or one of the other predifined regiments and be able to have the Marines benefit from the regimental doctrine. THAT is what they are talking about in that question, not about whether baneblades can have storm troopers.

Somehow according to Blaktoof, apparently not.

Only by completely ignoring the question that was asked and parsing things to stretch them out of context to fit his preconceptions.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
You are all very bad at reading.

I have actually answered all of your questions already and did not ignore them, feel free to text reading.

And yet you still think that <Regiment> and Doctrine mean the same thing. This is not true.

One person accusing a multitude of being bad at reading, yet it doesn't occur to question whether the problem might be with the one and not the multitude. As you say, Regiment and Doctrine does not mean the same thing. A question about whether you can call a chapter by a regiment's name (or vice versa) is not the same as a regiment getting to pick its doctrine if it is not one of the regiments with a pre-assigned Doctrine.

Wow, this thread is really astonishing. I get that you guys want your Baneblades to get access to another doctrine, but circumventing restrictions is exactly what you are doing to make it work. No matter how much RAW and Roundabout logic you apply to it, a Baneblade cannot get access to the Storm Troopers doctrine without a custom regiment. Ergo you are using a custom regiment to circumvent this.

The FAQ clearly states this is not intended. Blaktoof has it right.

When you name your regiment 'Salvar Chem Dogs' and assigning a Cadian doctrine called 'Born soldiers,' are you not saying "I choose to name my AM army Salvar Chem Dogs because I like their customized looks and color schemes, but for all rules purposes, I will be using Cadian rules"?

Sedraxis wrote:
Wow, this thread is really astonishing. I get that you guys want your Baneblades to get access to another doctrine, but circumventing restrictions is exactly what you are doing to make it work. No matter how much RAW and Roundabout logic you apply to it, a Baneblade cannot get access to the Storm Troopers doctrine without a custom regiment. Ergo you are using a custom regiment to circumvent this.

The FAQ clearly states this is not intended. Blaktoof has it right.

Which restriction is this? The only restriction given is in response to abusing Factional keywords. Not Doctrines.

Again - I direct you to every comment made in defence of Storm Troopers Baneblades, and ask you answer each one, properly. That FAQ is not an appropriate answer, considering it addresses a completely different issue of the keyword system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
When you name your regiment 'Salvar Chem Dogs' and assigning a Cadian doctrine called 'Born soldiers,' are you not saying "I choose to name my AM army Salvar Chem Dogs, but for all rules purposes, I will be using Cadian rules"?

No.

If I was doing that, then I could take Creed or use Cadian Relics in my army. This is illegal, because my <Regiment> is not Cadian. My <Regiment> is <Salvar Chem-Dogs>, and I am using the Born Soldiers DOCTRINE to represent them. According to GW, this is 100% legal.

 skchsan wrote:
When you name your regiment 'Salvar Chem Dogs' and assigning a Cadian doctrine called 'Born soldiers,' are you not saying "I choose to name my AM army Salvar Chem Dogs because I like their customized looks and color schemes, but for all rules purposes, I will be using Cadian rules"?

For doctrines, but not all rules purposes. If someone named their Adeptus Astartes chapter Red Scorpions, they would get to use forge world Red Scorpions characters regardless of which Doctrine they used. They couldn't get to take named characters for the chapter that normally has the chapter tactics you pick, though, since they aren't that chapter. If someone put out a Savlar Chem Dog character he'd get to use that but wouldn't use Cadian characters.

The fw "regiments" are not REGIMENTS. They are their own armies that just so happen to share many units with IG.

The fw faq says this. They do not count as regiments. You cannot use them for regiments. They do not have a Doctrine as a rules entity in the same way the IG do. They are their own thing.

When you choose to call your fw army something else you cannot reference the ig book to get rules for the fw army. The fw guys are not a part of that book and have no permission to access those rules unless specifically given permission to do so. Likewise your ig army has no access to the fw stuff and no permission to access those rules unless specifically told you can. And instead they specifically tell you you cant.

Thats it.

There is no other debate. They are not a regiment you can build a customnarmy with.

 Lance845 wrote:
The fw "regiments" are not REGIMENTS. They are their own armies that just so happen to share many units with IG.

The fw faq says this. They do not count as regiments. You cannot use them for regiments. They do not have a Doctrine as a rules entity in the same way the IG do. They are their own thing.

When you choose to call your fw army something else you cannot reference the ig book to get rules for the fw army. The fw guys are not a part of that book and have no permission to access those rules unless specifically given permission to do so. Likewise your ig army has no access to the fw stuff and no permission to access those rules unless specifically told you can. And instead they specifically tell you you cant.

Thats it.

There is no other debate. They are not a regiment you can build a customnarmy with.

Dude, FW also has their own SM chapters too, and right now their suggestion for those had been "pick a chapter tactic."

Note I didn't say DKoK or Elysians in my previous answer, since they do have rules. Follows FW's Index rules for their stuff.

Sedraxis wrote:
Wow, this thread is really astonishing. I get that you guys want your Baneblades to get access to another doctrine, but circumventing restrictions is exactly what you are doing to make it work. No matter how much RAW and Roundabout logic you apply to it, a Baneblade cannot get access to the Storm Troopers doctrine without a custom regiment. Ergo you are using a custom regiment to circumvent this.

The FAQ clearly states this is not intended. Blaktoof has it right.

No, he has not. He has not actually ever quoted the restriction, though he has been asked to do so several times.

He has misrepresented an FAQ post to mean more than it has. The answer was presented was asking if you can give an AM unit Chapter Tactics and an Astartes unit Doctrines by naming them the same thing. AM units do not ever have access to Chapter Tactics. Astartes units never have access to Doctrines. This is what the question presented and this is what it answered. Baneblades DO have access to Doctrines, and Storm Troopers is a Doctrine. The only Regiments who cannot access the Storm Trooper Doctrine are those who already have Doctrines assigned to them, like Armageddon or Cadia.

Keep in mind that Blacktoof is also a poster who repeatedly posted a Unit Name only refers to a datasheet and not a fielded unit, so I would put his presentations through a salt mine before just blindly accepting what he states.

 Charistoph wrote:

Sedraxis wrote:
Wow, this thread is really astonishing. I get that you guys want your Baneblades to get access to another doctrine, but circumventing restrictions is exactly what you are doing to make it work. No matter how much RAW and Roundabout logic you apply to it, a Baneblade cannot get access to the Storm Troopers doctrine without a custom regiment. Ergo you are using a custom regiment to circumvent this.

The FAQ clearly states this is not intended. Blaktoof has it right.

No, he has not. He has not actually ever quoted the restriction, though he has been asked to do so several times.

He has misrepresented an FAQ post to mean more than it has. The answer was presented was asking if you can give an AM unit Chapter Tactics and an Astartes unit Doctrines by naming them the same thing. AM units do not ever have access to Chapter Tactics. Astartes units never have access to Doctrines. This is what the question presented and this is what it answered. Baneblades DO have access to Doctrines, and Storm Troopers is a Doctrine. The only Regiments who cannot access the Storm Trooper Doctrine are those who already have Doctrines assigned to them, like Armageddon or Cadia.

Keep in mind that Blacktoof is also a poster who repeatedly posted a Unit Name only refers to a datasheet and not a fielded unit, so I would put his presentations through a salt mine before just blindly accepting what he states.

I like how you are bringing up a 7th edition discussion, as well as misquoting me from over a year ago on a topic that ultimately I was correct on, unit rules in 7th edition raw did not affect attached ICs unless they said so specifically in the rule.

The FAQ question was more specific than the FAQ answer, however the FAQ answer is an official rules answer that says you cannot give units abilities they cannot normally have through assigning faction rules to faction names that don't have assigned rules. The FAQ answer covers more than the question asked.

blaktoof wrote:
I like how you are bringing up a 7th edition discussion, as well as misquoting me from over a year ago on a topic that ultimately I was correct on, unit rules in 7th edition raw did not affect attached ICs unless they said so specifically in the rule.

What an interesting attempt to divert from the actual point.

You were not correct in stating that a Unit Name is referring to a datasheet and not a fielded unit. GW never once stated anything in this regard, and had been pointed out, datasheets cannot be Deployed, cannot Shoot, nor cannot Charge, which would make the rules in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation completely useless. Nor did you ever correct yourself to stating that when a Special Rule referred to a Unit Name, it was restricting itself to only the models on the original datasheet, even when pointed out to you so you could correct it. You stuck with the statement that rules that gave a Unit Name as a target only targeted the datasheet.

GW never actually stated why it would work in one situation and not in another. Effectively, the GW FAQ answer to that was: if it wasn't a USR, it doesn't include joined ICs. Any category in which it would not work with a non-USR (where I said it would) would make it not work with a USR, and a USR was given as a working system.

blaktoof wrote:
The FAQ question was more specific than the FAQ answer, however the FAQ answer is an official rules answer that says you cannot give units abilities they cannot normally have through assigning faction rules to faction names that don't have assigned rules. The FAQ answer covers more than the question asked.

But you are taking the answer out of context, and I stated the context. Units with <Regiment> Faction Keywords cannot access Chapter Tactics. Units with <Chapter> Faction Keywords cannot access Doctrines. Units with <Regiment> Faction Keywords CAN access Doctrines, just like units with <Chapter> can access Chapter Tactics.

But, you still do not not answer the actual questions. Where is the restriction from any <Regiment> that is not <Regiment:Miliatarum Tempestus> (and not another <Regiment> with an associated Doctrine) from selecting the Storm Troopers Doctrine? Where does it state that ONLY <Regiment: Militarum Tempestus> may take the Storm Troopers Doctrine?

You are applying context to the answer that is not there to fit your narrative by interjecting words that are not part of the answer to create a possible intended meaning which is not actually there but supports your idea by limiting what the FAQ actually applies to.

Which I do commend your effort for as multiple people here who want to bend the rules simu ignore the FAQ in their reasoning and say "BUT THE CODEX SAYS.."

The answer to the FAQ deals with units getting abilities they cannot normally take by using keyword that have assigned rules.

RAW any unit with regiment keyword cannot select militarum Tempestus to get stormtrooper doctrine.

Using a regiment with no assigned traits to circumvent that is what the FAQ addressees specifically.

Um, the entirety of the actual answer is "No". The rest, the part below that in italics, is clarifying context of intent, relevant to the question. If you're against applying context or adding anything to the answer, then the answer is simply "No" to the specific question posed.

And there's nothing in the answer or context below it that mentions anything about circumventing what abilities units have. It specifically states that the intent isn't to allow you to circumvent what's "affect[ed]," there is no mention, anywhere, about what abilities units can have or units "getting" abilities, only what can be affected. Please stop adding words.

The question, answer, and clarifying context copied once more from the FAQ:

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

No. Hes saying that if the parent regiment has a restriction that makes it so x unit cannot gain access to its doctrine then naming your army whatever you want and having that army adopt that parent doctrine comes with all the same restrictions. You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
Um, the entirety of the actual answer is "No". The rest, the part below that in italics, is clarifying context of intent, relevant to the question. If you're against applying context or adding anything to the answer, then the answer is simply "No" to the specific question posed.

And there's nothing in the answer or context below it that mentions anything about circumventing what abilities units have. It specifically states that the intent isn't to allow you to circumvent what's "affect[ed]," there is no mention, anywhere, about what abilities units can have or units "getting" abilities, only what can be affected. Please stop adding words.

The question, answer, and clarifying context copied once more from the FAQ:

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

While I do understand yours and others' argument, the main takeaway from the Designer's Commentary excerpt is that "the intent of naming regiments, chaprers, etc... is to personalize your collections..." When you begin to rename your army in order to gain a doctrine that would otherwise unattainable, even though it is RAW on the Codex, it begins to conflict with the Designer's Commentary, which is a more recent publication than the Codex. Typically, we rely on the FAqs, erratas, and now CA's and Designer's Commentary in order to have GW explain to us what exactly the poorly worded and often omitted/insufficient wordings of rules were supposed to mean.

Here, the issue is that the Stormtrooper doctrine has a reasonable doubt that it was meant to be Militarum Tempestus only doctrine - it is the only doctrine (at non-custom levels) that has the most strict requirements in order for you to be able to take it. It comes at a cost of being able to take only using handful of units available in the entire Codex, before resorting to the custom regiment with stormtrooper doctrine. If such convenient method exists to by pass the requirements to unlock Stormtrooper doctrines, why bother going the extra mile making Militarum Tempestus a fixed regiment keyword? Is it just poor writing, or was the extra restrictions just for fun? As for the inability to use MT exclusive elements, inclusion of a real MT detachment would solve that problem.

Also, the phrases following the above quoted - "... and not unable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units," is merely a direct answer to the specific question: "do the abilities... now work on both the AM and AA units?", and not necessarily THE only thing that it is addressing regarding the designer's intent on allowing custom names.

Not arguing that you're wrong. Just a thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

No. Hes saying that if the parent regiment has a restriction that makes it so x unit cannot gain access to its doctrine then naming your army whatever you want and having that army adopt that parent doctrine comes with all the same restrictions. You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things.

Careful. They're gonna hit you with the "TAKING A DOCTRINE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TAKING ON MILITARUM TEMPESTUS REGIMENT" argument.

 skchsan wrote:
Careful. They're gonna hit you with the "TAKING A DOCTRINE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TAKING ON MILITARUM TEMPESTUS REGIMENT" argument.

Because it's not the same thing.

What it comes down to is that RAW, AM doctrine system, despite functioning exactly the same as Chapter Tactics, lacks precise keyword identification as found in Chapter Tactics page where each chapter tactic specifies the faction keyword it is applied to. Obviously, for <Custom Chapter>, all the bolded <Chapter> keywords are replaced with the said <Custom Chapter>. It's because doctrines only outline the TYPE of units it affects (if not army wide) that such "doctrine=/=regiment" argument becomes valid because "it's normally allowed, and your supposed restriction does not exist." It's a loophole based on a poorly written codex.

blaktoof wrote:You are applying context to the answer that is not there to fit your narrative by interjecting words that are not part of the answer to create a possible intended meaning which is not actually there but supports your idea by limiting what the FAQ actually applies to.

The context is provided by the question. The question was about naming a <Regiment> and <Chapter> the same so that they units with either Faction Keyword would be able to access both Doctrines and Chapter Tactics. From that question, we see that a unit with a <Regiment> Keyword should never gain a Chapter Tactic.

But that is largely immaterial because of our actual question.

blaktoof wrote:Which I do commend your effort for as multiple people here who want to bend the rules simu ignore the FAQ in their reasoning and say "BUT THE CODEX SAYS.."

The answer to the FAQ deals with units getting abilities they cannot normally take by using keyword that have assigned rules.

RAW any unit with regiment keyword cannot select militarum Tempestus to get stormtrooper doctrine.

Using a regiment with no assigned traits to circumvent that is what the FAQ addressees specifically.

And who has been saying that?

And you have yet to answer our questions regarding the exclusivity of the Storm Troopers doctrine. Where is this exclusivity ever stated at any point in the codex? If you cannot provide an answer to this, bringing up the FAQ is 100% pointless.

skchsan wrote:Here, the issue is that the Stormtrooper doctrine has a reasonable doubt that it was meant to be Militarum Tempestus only doctrine - it is the only doctrine (at non-custom levels) that has the most strict requirements in order for you to be able to take it.

Again, the question, where does it state this? I see a restriction against Militarum Tempestus for Doctrines, I do not see a restriction regarding the Doctrine being pulled by anyone else who isn't Militarum Tempestus and doesn't already have their own Doctrine.

Again, on the Doctrines page, where does it state any exclusivity between the <Regiment> and the Doctrine that comes after it?

Simple fact is our hypothetical Baneblade cannot be MILITARUM TEMPESTUS, but it can have the Storm Troopers Doctrine if it's in a Supreme Command or Super Heavy Detachment containing exclusively units from a custom Regiment that has selected Storm Troopers as its Doctrine.

Lance845 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It specifically verbatim says "not to enable aywrs to circumvent restrictions on what abilities affect units.....

So you're saying that no custom chapters can ever have a chapter tactic? That's total nonsense and you know it.

No. Hes saying that if the parent regiment has a restriction that makes it so x unit cannot gain access to its doctrine then naming your army whatever you want and having that army adopt that parent doctrine comes with all the same restrictions. You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things.

Huh.

Am I right in thinking that ALL units with <Keyword> start off as a blank slate, right? So, nothing EVER starts with a specific Faction like <Ultramarines> or <Cadian> to start with, right?

So surely then me assigning any name to these blank slate <Keywords> is illegal? Because, as you say "You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things." Me naming a Tactical Squad with the <Ultramarines> keyword is therefore illegal, because it gives them rules they otherwise can't have if they didn't have that keyword. In that regard, the ONLY units which can have faction specific <Keywords> are ones that already have them, such as Guilliman, Creed, Straken etc etc.

This is a stupid line of argument. The FAQ is clear on what it addresses. It addresses cross-Faction naming, so Guardsmen can benefit from Space Marine bonuses. Not on if a custom regiment can have an entirely unrelated Doctrine.

skchsan wrote:While I do understand yours and others' argument, the main takeaway from the Designer's Commentary excerpt is that "the intent of naming regiments, chaprers, etc... is to personalize your collections..." When you begin to rename your army in order to gain a doctrine that would otherwise unattainable, even though it is RAW on the Codex, it begins to conflict with the Designer's Commentary, which is a more recent publication than the Codex. Typically, we rely on the FAqs, erratas, and now CA's and Designer's Commentary in order to have GW explain to us what exactly the poorly worded and often omitted/insufficient wordings of rules were supposed to mean.

What in the designer's commentary negates it? The only thing it addresses is abuse of keywords to get bonuses from NON-AM ARMIES.

What use is personalisation when you can't take any rules for it? Or are we only allowed to personalise the name?

Here, the issue is that the Stormtrooper doctrine has a reasonable doubt that it was meant to be Militarum Tempestus only doctrine - it is the only doctrine (at non-custom levels) that has the most strict requirements in order for you to be able to take it. It comes at a cost of being able to take only using handful of units available in the entire Codex, before resorting to the custom regiment with stormtrooper doctrine. If such convenient method exists to by pass the requirements to unlock Stormtrooper doctrines, why bother going the extra mile making Militarum Tempestus a fixed regiment keyword? Is it just poor writing, or was the extra restrictions just for fun? As for the inability to use MT exclusive elements, inclusion of a real MT detachment would solve that problem.

This isn't true.

Storm Troopers, the Doctrine, is no more restricted than any other Doctrine. Nothing about it says it.
The ONLY thing that is restricted is <Militarum Tempestus>. That is it. No-one is trying to take <Militarum Tempestus>. They are taking a Doctrine which has no restrictions on it's use.

The reason <Militarum Tempestus> has those restrictions is not because of the Doctrines. It's so it stops Scions benefiting from cheap Officers from the AM book, tanks and transports that have never been part of the MT army, or taking Conscripts/normal Guardsmen in what should be a more elite army.

<Militarum Tempestus> is so limited so it creates a forced unit shortage for the Scions. Not so Storm Troopers is their unique doctrine. If that was the case, why didn't GW just put it as a special rules on every MT datasheet a la "And They Shall Know No Fear"?

So then, I have a SM chapter I named <The Night's Watch>, and it is said to be a special subdivision of the <Deathwatch> tasked with the defense against the army of frozen nurgles hailing from the Northern fringes of the galaxy. It is a company that has no known parent chapter, while utilizing fully codex compliant chapter structure, so I decide that the army is best represented by the chapter tactics of <Deathwatch>, the army wide special issue ammunitions.

But see, they're <The Night's Watch>, whose <Chapter> keyword has been replaced with, and CLEARLY not <Deathwatch> because deathwatch doesn't get all the cool toys that SM does. Do all of my units available to SM but not deathwatch suddenly get the rule as well? Afterall, I never tried to replace <Deathwatch> with <The Night's Watch>, and I'm only taking the Chapter Tactics as <The Nighr's Watch> has no known connection to any chapters.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So surely then me assigning any name to these blank slate <Keywords> is illegal? Because, as you say "You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things." Me naming a Tactical Squad with the <Ultramarines> keyword is therefore illegal, because it gives them rules they otherwise can't have if they didn't have that keyword. In that regard, the ONLY units which can have faction specific <Keywords> are ones that already have them, such as Guilliman, Creed, Straken etc etc.

No, taking SM Codex variants and assigning them with Chapter tactics of BA or DA would be illegal.

Surely both BA and DA are part of <Adeptus Astartes> and undoubtly <Chapter>. Does having separate books discount BA and DA being part of the collective term "any chapter of your choosing"? If so, if MT were its own book of 5 pages of unit datasheets, would you then be disallowed to take Stormtrooper doctrine since it's a separate book, despite MT's surely being part of <Astra Militarum> and <Militarum Tempestus> undoubtedly being a <Regiment>?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This is a stupid line of argument. The FAQ is clear on what it addresses. It addresses cross-Faction naming, so Guardsmen can benefit from Space Marine bonuses. Not on if a custom regiment can have an entirely unrelated Doctrine.

You're reading in between lines. The primary point the Designer's Commentary addresses is the manipulation of flex-regiment system for purposes other than pure customization level.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What use is personalisation when you can't take any rules for it? Or are we only allowed to personalise the name?

Yes, precisely - it's only intended to personalize the name. The commentary is very specific and explicit regarding this

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This isn't true.

Storm Troopers, the Doctrine, is no more restricted than any other Doctrine. Nothing about it says it.
The ONLY thing that is restricted is <Militarum Tempestus>. That is it. No-one is trying to take <Militarum Tempestus>. They are taking a Doctrine which has no restrictions on it's use.

The reason <Militarum Tempestus> has those restrictions is not because of the Doctrines. It's so it stops Scions benefiting from cheap Officers from the AM book, tanks and transports that have never been part of the MT army, or taking Conscripts/normal Guardsmen in what should be a more elite army.

Can you point at us in the book where it states that MT having fixed faction keyword only was because of the reasons you state?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not so Storm Troopers is their unique doctrine. If that was the case, why didn't GW just put it as a special rules on every MT datasheet a la "And They Shall Know No Fear"?

Irrelevant.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And I'm waiting on something to refute that.

Many people seem to be missing the difference between <Regiment> and Doctrine. I'll make it easy.

<Regiment> =/= Doctrine There is no correlation between them, beyond that some <Regiments> force you to take Doctrines. However, no Doctrines force you to be a certain <Regiment>.

No doctrines forces you to be certain regiment because of the poor wording on the codex. Any other chapter tactics/regiment equivalents in other codice specifically indicate for which faction keyword it is applicable to. In any other armies, you're playing your custom named armies, but they're really the successor chapters of so and so, so it follows all of its applicable restrictions. You're utilizing the lack of such mechanism in doctrine system, which then would logically be concluded as, either AM's got special treatment that allows what youre claiming it can do, or there is a loophole in the system that allows AM to do what other armies can't.

 skchsan wrote:
So then, I have a SM chapter I named <The Night's Watch>, and it is said to be a special subdivision of the <Deathwatch> tasked with the defense against the army of frozen nurgles hailing from the Northern fringes of the galaxy. It is a company that has no known parent chapter, while utilizing fully codex compliant chapter structure, so I decide that the army is best represented by the chapter tactics of <Deathwatch>, the army wide special issue ammunitions.

But see, they're <The Night's Watch>, whose <Chapter> keyword has been replaced with, and CLEARLY not <Deathwatch> because deathwatch doesn't get all the cool toys that SM does. Do all of my units available to SM but not deathwatch suddenly get the rule as well? No.

False equivalence. The DEATHWATCH keyword has restrictions on it. You can't give any of the DEATHWATCH units a different <CHAPTER> keyword, not can you give Deathwatch rules to non-DEATHWATCH units. This is not the case for the Storm Troopers doctrine.

Deathwatch don't have any Chapter Tactics and you know it. They have a fixed faction keyword.

You've dug yourself a hole here and are too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

It's actually the exactly samr premises you're claiming.Please read the post in full or don't respond to the comment.

RAW, if the codex hasnt been released then Index suffices in place of it.

 skchsan wrote:
It's actually the exactly samr premises you're claiming.Please read the post in full or don't respond to the comment.

RAW, if the codex hasnt been released then Index suffices in place of it.

No, it really isn't the exact same premise. BCB was right in his statements responding to you.

I'm not actually sure he's read any of the books in question at this point.

 skchsan wrote:
It's actually the exactly samr premises you're claiming.Please read the post in full or don't respond to the comment.

RAW, if the codex hasnt been released then Index suffices in place of it.

You have clearly not read the Deathwatch rules then. There's no similarity at all.

<Deathwatch> has no Doctrine equivalent to it.

The ones from Codex: Space Marines DO have Doctrines associated with their <Keyword> like the AM do.

<Ultramarines> are locked into Codex Discipline, just as <Cadians> are locked into Born Soldiers. Deathwatch do not work this way, and you should know this.

skchsan wrote:So then, I have a SM chapter I named <The Night's Watch>, and it is said to be a special subdivision of the <Deathwatch> tasked with the defense against the army of frozen nurgles hailing from the Northern fringes of the galaxy. It is a company that has no known parent chapter, while utilizing fully codex compliant chapter structure, so I decide that the army is best represented by the chapter tactics of <Deathwatch>, the army wide special issue ammunitions.

But see, they're <The Night's Watch>, whose <Chapter> keyword has been replaced with, and CLEARLY not <Deathwatch> because deathwatch doesn't get all the cool toys that SM does. Do all of my units available to SM but not deathwatch suddenly get the rule as well? Afterall, I never tried to replace <Deathwatch> with <The Night's Watch>, and I'm only taking the Chapter Tactics as <The Nighr's Watch> has no known connection to any chapters.

Disproven as seen above.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So surely then me assigning any name to these blank slate <Keywords> is illegal? Because, as you say "You cannot circumvent rules restrictions and allowances simply by renaming things." Me naming a Tactical Squad with the <Ultramarines> keyword is therefore illegal, because it gives them rules they otherwise can't have if they didn't have that keyword. In that regard, the ONLY units which can have faction specific <Keywords> are ones that already have them, such as Guilliman, Creed, Straken etc etc.

No, taking SM Codex variants and assigning them with Chapter tactics of BA or DA would be illegal.

Surely both BA and DA are part of <Adeptus Astartes> and undoubtly <Chapter>. Does having separate books discount BA and DA being part of the collective term "any chapter of your choosing"? If so, if MT were its own book of 5 pages of unit datasheets, would you then be disallowed to take Stormtrooper doctrine since it's a separate book, despite MT's surely being part of <Astra Militarum> and <Militarum Tempestus> undoubtedly being a <Regiment>?

If all the MT units were in a different book, then I could understand them being seperate. However, as they are in the same book and Storm Troopers is treated no differently to other Doctrines, I see no reason they can't be treated like any other Doctrine.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This is a stupid line of argument. The FAQ is clear on what it addresses. It addresses cross-Faction naming, so Guardsmen can benefit from Space Marine bonuses. Not on if a custom regiment can have an entirely unrelated Doctrine.

You're reading in between lines. The primary point the Designer's Commentary addresses is the manipulation of flex-regiment system for purposes other than pure customization level.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What use is personalisation when you can't take any rules for it? Or are we only allowed to personalise the name?

Yes, precisely - it's only intended to personalize the name. The commentary is very specific and explicit regarding this

So in which case, if I take a custom regiment, they get no doctrine?

Is that what you're telling me?

Good job with that.

I suppose you'll also tell me that your <Nights Watch> Chapter must also then get no rules, because they're custom.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This isn't true.

Storm Troopers, the Doctrine, is no more restricted than any other Doctrine. Nothing about it says it.
The ONLY thing that is restricted is <Militarum Tempestus>. That is it. No-one is trying to take <Militarum Tempestus>. They are taking a Doctrine which has no restrictions on it's use.

The reason <Militarum Tempestus> has those restrictions is not because of the Doctrines. It's so it stops Scions benefiting from cheap Officers from the AM book, tanks and transports that have never been part of the MT army, or taking Conscripts/normal Guardsmen in what should be a more elite army.

Can you point at us in the book where it states that MT having fixed faction keyword only was because of the reasons you state?

Can you tell me otherwise?

After all, the Doctrine doesn't factor into it, due to the rules of the Doctrine itself.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not so Storm Troopers is their unique doctrine. If that was the case, why didn't GW just put it as a special rules on every MT datasheet a la "And They Shall Know No Fear"?

Irrelevant.

How.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And I'm waiting on something to refute that.

Many people seem to be missing the difference between <Regiment> and Doctrine. I'll make it easy.

<Regiment> =/= Doctrine There is no correlation between them, beyond that some <Regiments> force you to take Doctrines. However, no Doctrines force you to be a certain <Regiment>.

No doctrines forces you to be certain regiment because of the poor wording on the codex. Any other chapter tactics/regiment equivalents in other codice specifically indicate for which faction keyword it is applicable to. In any other armies, you're playing your custom named armies, but they're really the successor chapters of so and so, so it follows all of its applicable restrictions. You're utilizing the lack of such mechanism in doctrine system, which then would logically be concluded as, either AM's got special treatment that allows what youre claiming it can do, or there is a loophole in the system that allows AM to do what other armies can't.

Not true. A successor ISN'T just a "count-as" of their predecessor. If this were the case, I would be able to take Guilliman and Blaylock in the same list. Can I do that?

No. I can't.

The issue with the regiment =\= doxtrine is you all are obfuscating the facts that:

1.) Doctrines are normally tied to specific regiments unless you use a regiment with no assigned doctrine/orders

2.) Normally any unit with <regiment> cannot select the regiment that allows for the stormtrooper ability

Claiming doctrine =\= regiment isn't a valid argument as the statement in itself doesn't validate giving an unit with <regiment> an ability it could not normally take without using a keyword with no assigned orders/relics/doctrines.

Which is what the designers commentary FAQ addresses.

The FAQ doesnt say you can't take a regiment, it says you can't use the keyword system to give units abilities they would not have access to normally. Normally a baneblade could not select the regiment that would give the ability you are trying to give it without using a keyword that has no assigned traits due to real written rules restrictions on p.84 of the AM codex.

blaktoof wrote:
The issue with the regiment =\= doxtrine is you all are obfuscating the facts that:

1.) Doctrines are normally tied to specific regiments unless you use a regiment with no assigned doctrine/orders

Irrelevant. Being able to choose a doctrine for a regiment with no assigned doctrine is just as normal as choosing a regiment that has an assigned doctrine. You do not wish to accept that.

blaktoof wrote:
2.) Normally any unit with <regiment> cannot select the regiment that allows for the stormtrooper ability

Which is also irrelevant. when you make your own regiment, or choose a regiment that does not have one assigned, as part of the normal process you get to choose a doctrine. They have not placed any limitations on choosing doctrines.

blaktoof wrote:
Claiming doctrine =\= regiment isn't a valid argument as the statement in itself doesn't validate giving an unit with <regiment> an ability it could not normally take without using a keyword with no assigned orders/relics/doctrines.

Claiming doctrine =/= regiment isn't qa valid argument is in and of itself not a valid argument. Again, they have not placed any limitations on choosing doctrines. Units that aren't assigned getting to choose doctrines is a normal process. Therefore, you do not get to claim that they are circumventing a normal process when they are following a normal process.

You still have not provided any proof for your assertions that by RAW you can not select Storm Troopers without trying to claim that it's because you can't normally select MT as a regiment if you're not MT, and basing it on a FAQ question that is about trying to give a regiment and a chapter the same name so that they could try to use the rules for both regiment and chapter for marines and for guard. THAT is the circumventing rules that normally prevent you from getting an ability that they're talking about. Since their procedure for choosing doctrines if you don't have one assigned has absolutely no exception for the Storm Troopers doctrine and that getting to select a doctrine IS a normal procedure, this is not the circumvention they're talking about. You are just trying to make it that by taking it out of context and distorting things.

Which is what the designers commentary FAQ addresses.

The FAQ doesnt say you can't take a regiment, it says you can't use the keyword system to give units abilities they would not have access to normally. Normally a baneblade could not select the regiment that would give the ability you are trying to give it without using a keyword that has no assigned traits due to real written rules restrictions on p.84 of the AM codex.