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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Kolden wrote:

Source (scroll way down)

Found this. It's relevant, but I imagine it won't completely solve the issue at hand.

Please read the Tenets of YMDC. Facebook is not a valid source.

I don't agree with the answer off of facebook, but it's very disingenuous to point to the Tenets of YMDC when said Tenets were last updated in 2014, well before GW started using facebook in such a way.
I certainly won't take the social media teams word for it, but it is a valid source for answers. I hope they'll correct it because it just doesn't make any sense. The question was worded in a very leading way, just outright claiming that DKoK don't have a doctrine, and the logical answer for the social team was "sure, if they don't have a doctrine they should be able to pick one".

nekooni wrote:
I don't agree with the answer off of facebook, but it's very disingenuous to point to the Tenets of YMDC when said Tenets were last updated in 2014, well before GW started using facebook in such a way.

How about this from the 'About' section of their Facebook page?..

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

DKoK, Elysians and R&H all seem to have Doctrine-like abilities already in the FW Index. And in the case of R&H they're not even a pure AM force. I don't think these lists should get Codex AM Doctrines and Stratagems, though they will of course use the Codex Datasheets for any regular AM vehicles updated from the Index that they are permitted to choose.

nekooni wrote:
I don't agree with the answer off of facebook, but it's very disingenuous to point to the Tenets of YMDC when said Tenets were last updated in 2014, well before GW started using facebook in such a way.

Not really. In addition to the above mention of the "About" page, the first half of rule 2 "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs." means Facebook, MySpace and literally any other source other than the rulebooks and FAQs are invalid for discussion here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
DKoK, Elysians and R&H all seem to have Doctrine-like abilities already in the FW Index. And in the case of R&H they're not even a pure AM force. I don't think these lists should get Codex AM Doctrines and Stratagems, though they will of course use the Codex Datasheets for any regular AM vehicles updated from the Index that they are permitted to choose.

Not unless Forge World errata or otherwise give permission to do so. Until they update via errata or FAQ you use the Index.

Yeah its real nice that some community intern answered on facebook. But it needs to be in the faq.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
DKoK, Elysians and R&H all seem to have Doctrine-like abilities already in the FW Index. And in the case of R&H they're not even a pure AM force. I don't think these lists should get Codex AM Doctrines and Stratagems, though they will of course use the Codex Datasheets for any regular AM vehicles updated from the Index that they are permitted to choose.

Not unless Forge World errata or otherwise give permission to do so. Until they update via errata or FAQ you use the Index.

Nope nope nope. Let's not have incorrect info in two threads... it's on topic in the other one though so best continue discussing there: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/741314.page

This thread's about the Doctrines.

If you don't want incorrect info, why did you post said incorrect info in this thread?

DKoK are found in the IA book, which tells you to use the Index. Nothing about using the most current rules matters here because the IA book explicitly tells you to ignore that and use the Index.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you don't want incorrect info, why did you post said incorrect info in this thread?

DKoK are found in the IA book, which tells you to use the Index. Nothing about using the most current rules matters here because the IA book explicitly tells you to ignore that and use the Index.

Nothing tells you to ignore the instruction to use the most up to date Datasheet. You're fabricating that - please cite the exact passages over in the thread where it's on topic to continue discussing. So far you've tried one 'by the same logic' that has an express exemption for SW, and just called me wrong. Lay me out all your reasoning with backup in the other thread. It would be refreshing.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you don't want incorrect info, why did you post said incorrect info in this thread?

DKoK are found in the IA book, which tells you to use the Index. Nothing about using the most current rules matters here because the IA book explicitly tells you to ignore that and use the Index.

Yes and you have been ignoring arguments that anyone makes about the case for as long as you have been on this thread to the point I do my best to ignore anything you bother to type. You have said your piece I respectfully ask that you please bother a different thread now.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I don't agree with the answer off of facebook, but it's very disingenuous to point to the Tenets of YMDC when said Tenets were last updated in 2014, well before GW started using facebook in such a way.

Not really. In addition to the above mention of the "About" page, the first half of rule 2 "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs." means Facebook, MySpace and literally any other source other than the rulebooks and FAQs are invalid for discussion here.

No, it's not invalid for discussion. It's invalid for RAW, but it can be included as a non-official suggestion of how GW might be leaning on the subject, and could be used by people as a basis for HIWPI. According to the tenets of YMDC, you are allowed to discuss HIPWI here. In the case of Facebook, just the qualifier that it's not official should be enough. That doesn't mean that any mention of an answer from Facebook should be forbidden, though.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
DKoK, Elysians and R&H all seem to have Doctrine-like abilities already in the FW Index. And in the case of R&H they're not even a pure AM force. I don't think these lists should get Codex AM Doctrines and Stratagems, though they will of course use the Codex Datasheets for any regular AM vehicles updated from the Index that they are permitted to choose.

Not unless Forge World errata or otherwise give permission to do so. Until they update via errata or FAQ you use the Index.

According to the quotes that had been provided, yes, they can use updated codex datasheets for units that are duplicated in the index with the same name as the codex would be the most recent datasheet for that unit. The permissions to do this have already been given by GW, and is independent on whether it's meant for a GW or a FW army.

 doctortom wrote:
According to the quotes that had been provided, yes, they can use updated codex datasheets for units that are duplicated in the index with the same name as the codex would be the most recent datasheet for that unit. The permissions to do this have already been given by GW, and is independent on whether it's meant for a GW or a FW army.

Please, open the IA book and the IA Errata and FAQ, and please point to me any mention of the AM codex. If you can do that, I will concede the point.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
According to the quotes that had been provided, yes, they can use updated codex datasheets for units that are duplicated in the index with the same name as the codex would be the most recent datasheet for that unit. The permissions to do this have already been given by GW, and is independent on whether it's meant for a GW or a FW army.

Please, open the IA book and the IA Errata and FAQ, and please point to me any mention of the AM codex. If you can do that, I will concede the point.

- There is mention of "Astra Militarum Datasheets" in the FW IA Index permitted unit lists.
- We know these were in Index Imperium 2 and are getting updated in Codex Astra Militarum.
- We know you must use the most recent Datasheet for any given unit name, and that these overwrite the Index Datasheets (Warhammer Community article you've already been linked to).
- We know your Space Wolves comparison is irrelevant due to the special paragraph about non-Codex Chapters in the same WHC article.

- So we know that when the Codex is released the Codex Datasheets overwrite the Index ones, and that anything previously using Index Imperium 2 Astra Militarum Datasheets now uses the Codex ones.

- So we know that R&H, for example, can use Codex AM Baneblades.

It does seem to only be you not following this now.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
- We know you must use the most recent Datasheet for any given unit name, and that these overwrite the Index Datasheets (Warhammer Community article you've already been linked to).

Except when the rules explicitly link to an index entry, otherwise you could claim you can charge after advancing, even though a rule says you can't, because another rule says you can.

-Shrug- People are free to play however they like and break whatever rules they like, but if you want to play by the actual rules, you use the Index for DKoK until FW update their books.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
- We know you must use the most recent Datasheet for any given unit name, and that these overwrite the Index Datasheets (Warhammer Community article you've already been linked to).

Except when the rules explicitly link to an index entry, otherwise you could claim you can charge after advancing, even though a rule says you can't, because another rule says you can.

-Shrug- People are free to play however they like and break whatever rules they like, but if you want to play by the actual rules, you use the Index for DKoK until FW update their books.

It's not breaking a rule. That is arguing in bad faith. Please don't do that. Nor the strawman - I reject that again (kid yourself it's a reductio ad absurdum all you will: it's not comparable so it's a strawman).

Even if you insist on the FW IA Index > Index 2 link being the crux, you're still not correct:
- IA links to Index Datasheet
- Datasheet is overwritten by new Codex version
- To all intents and purposes the Codex Datasheet now *is* the Index Datasheet. That's what overwritten means here and what GW is telling us should happen in the WHC article. Anything that pointed here now points to the new Datasheet that is overwriting it.

Your overly-literal reading of the IA Index pointing to the then-current Index Imperium 2 version is clouding your ability to get this right. That link is necessarily mutable. You need to let that bit go. The Datasheets get overwritten on Codex release, thus 'redirecting' what units the FW IA lists can pick from to the new Datasheets of the same names in the Codex. R&H can use Codex Baneblades. DKoK can use Codex Tank Commanders. Etc, etc.

I'm lost as to other ways to explain this same thing to you. If all you have to offer in return is "you're breaking the rules" with no actual counter-argument (that stands up to scrutiny, as I disproved the SW tangent) then please don't just tell me I'm cheating. Because I'm not, and neither are the others who are correctly following GW's instructions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
P]lease, open the IA book and the IA Errata and FAQ, and please point to me any mention of the AM codex. If you can do that, I will concede the point.

Why in the world should the IA books mention the AM codex?!
If you play a "Aeldari, Drukhari, Kabal of the whatever floats your boat" detachment from Index Xenos 1 you could very well include a Tantalus from IA Xenos although the Xenos 1 book does not mention the IA Xenos book at all...


Read the rules on building a battleforged detachment on page 240 in the BRB:
All units belong to one or more of the many Factions that fight for dominance across the galaxy. A unit’s Faction is important when building a Battle-forged army because some Detachments require all units included in it to be from the same Faction. The Factions that a unit belongs to will be listed in the keywords section of its datasheet. For example, a Space Marine Captain has the IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES keywords, so belongs to both the Imperium and Adeptus Astartes Factions. This means that if a Space Marine Captain was part of a Detachment with the restriction that all units must be from the same Faction, all other units in that Detachment must either be from the Imperium Faction, or they must all be from the Adeptus Astartes Faction.
On the same page it reads
To include a particular Detachment in your army, simply organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed for that particular Detachment. A unit cannot belong to more than one Detachment, and you will often need to use additional information found on a unit’s datasheet, such as Faction and Battlefield Role (see below and right) to determine where it fits in a Detachment.
One the next page it reads
"Restrictions"
This section of a Detachment’s rules lists any additional restrictions that apply to the units you can include as part of the Detachment. If a datasheet does not adhere to a particular restriction, it cannot be included as part of the Detachment. The most common restriction is that all of the units included in a Detachment must be from the same Faction.

Notice: There is not a single word on one book mentioning another book or whatever... the only thing relevant for building batteforged detachments is faction keywords and the restrictions of the specfic detachment you are going to use!

The Astra Militarum Codex defines what a Astra Militarum detachment is... I cannot quote the rule as I dont have the book but it basically requires you to belong to the Astra Militarium and every unit in the detachment must have the same <REGIMENT>.
Elysian Drop Troops belong to "Astra Militarum" and all have "Elysian Drop Troops" as faction keywords (which is stated to be their <REGIMENT> on page 71 of IA - Astra Militarum) which is -by the rules from the new codex- everything they need to be part of a Astra Militarum Detachment!
Then the "Regimental Doctrines" rule from the codex says, if your army is battleforged (which it is!) all <Regiment> units (which EDT are!) in an Astra Militarum Detachment (which EDT belong to!), some blablabla, gain a regimental doctrin!


So, neither the Rulebook, nor the Codex Astra Militarum nor the IA: Astra Militarum says a word about units have to belong to one book or another or mentioning one book or another or whatelse for being part of a battleforged detachment (although you still insist on it as if it were some kind of god given law)... they clearly lineout which criteria you need to fulfill to be part of a battleforge detachment in general and an Astra Militarium detachment in special. EDT do fulfill those criteria so they logical conclusion when following the written rules is: they can benefit from the "Regimental Doctrines" rule!

Most keyword rules have a rule specifically calling out which factions fall into that keyword.

Anything not listed wouldn't benefit.

Much like space wolves, dark angels, blood angles would not benefit from chapter tactics.

Or deathguard thousand sons would not benefit from legion traits.

If the AM codex has similiar rules than neither DKOK or elysians would get doctrine access., And likely would not get access to Strategems.

blaktoof wrote:
Most keyword rules have a rule specifically calling out which factions fall into that keyword.

Anything not listed wouldn't benefit.

Much like space wolves, dark angels, blood angles would not benefit from chapter tactics.

Or deathguard thousand sons would not benefit from legion traits.

If the AM codex has similiar rules than neither DKOK or elysians would get doctrine access., And likely would not get access to Strategems.

It's generally the opposite of this, actually. The army list in Codex: SM gives a non-exhaustive list of Chapters which it implies can't be used to replace <CHAPTER> , and then the section that covers special rules for "Space Marines Detachments" is explicit that non-codex compliant Chapters don't use these rules. Codex: CSM's army list places no general restriction on <LEGION>, but does give some special rules for a few specific Legions, such as that WORLD EATERS units must have KHORNE if possible. Its special rules section says Death Guard and Thousand Sons can't use these rules, but is otherwise wide open. It is not clear if all custom CSM armies must be Renegade Chapters, but there is no rule allowing custom <LEGION> keywords to gain a trait other than the Renegades one. Codex: AdMech is completely unrestricted in how you replace <FORGE WORLD> or <HOUSEHOLD> for the army list. Its special rules section is also completely unrestricted, although it does not appear that custom forge worlds get access to a unique stratagem or warlord trait.

The only keyword I saw in glancing over these that specifically tells you what you can replace it with is <MARK OF CHAOS>, which isn't relevant for determining access to stratagems or tactics.

The Guard codex is most like the AdMech codex. There is absolutely no restriction placed on what you can choose for <REGIMENT>, and the special rules section is explicit that if you've chosen a regiment which it doesn't provide a doctrine for, you can pick whichever doctrine you like. And while I don't see the stratagem boilerplate for Guard anywhere, the AdMech one doesn't even require that the detachment belong to a <FORGE WORLD> -- you can get access to AdMech stratagems even if you do not have a detachment that qualifies for a dogma.

If the wording is similar to C:SM , you probably cannot use stratagems because a Space Marine Detachment is defined using SM units, which are units with ADEPTUS ASTARTES and <CHAPTER> (or any of the mentioned ones) keywords. If it is the same for C:AM, you will not be able to use them because you don't have <REGIMENT>. However, you can use Warlord Traits (because it only requires ADEPTUS ASTARTES CHARACTER), although not relics because they want a Space Marines CHARACTER warlord.

Nonetheless, you will be able to use the vehicles from the codex because you can just create a detachment including any IMPERIUM units of which I presume the new codex Leman Russes and other units are. They might not have a doctrine, but neither DKoK or EDT lose their bonuses if they are in a mixed detachment.

I guess we'll see tomorrow how they write it out in the book.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Kolden wrote:

Source (scroll way down)

Found this. It's relevant, but I imagine it won't completely solve the issue at hand.

Please read the Tenets of YMDC. Facebook is not a valid source.

What does that have to do with anything? It's not like he said "Yo this is what Facespace said, so this is the answer." It IS relevant to the topic, as it has to do with *shock* DKoK and the new AM codex, but it is not a valid source, thus "it won't completely solve the issue".

Kolden wrote:

Source (scroll way down)

Found this. It's relevant, but I imagine it won't completely solve the issue at hand.

And I found this on /tg/...

What a twist! Following the rules means following the rules!

See what I mean when I said Facebook, Twitter etc shouldn't be used? Because we get 6 mutually exclusive answers to the same question. It's almost like the rules of YMDC were made with that in mind!

Dionysodorus wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Most keyword rules have a rule specifically calling out which factions fall into that keyword.

Anything not listed wouldn't benefit.

Much like space wolves, dark angels, blood angles would not benefit from chapter tactics.

Or deathguard thousand sons would not benefit from legion traits.

If the AM codex has similiar rules than neither DKOK or elysians would get doctrine access., And likely would not get access to Strategems.

It's generally the opposite of this, actually. The army list in Codex: SM gives a non-exhaustive list of Chapters which it implies can't be used to replace <CHAPTER> , and then the section that covers special rules for "Space Marines Detachments" is explicit that non-codex compliant Chapters don't use these rules. Codex: CSM's army list places no general restriction on <LEGION>, but does give some special rules for a few specific Legions, such as that WORLD EATERS units must have KHORNE if possible. Its special rules section says Death Guard and Thousand Sons can't use these rules, but is otherwise wide open. It is not clear if all custom CSM armies must be Renegade Chapters, but there is no rule allowing custom <LEGION> keywords to gain a trait other than the Renegades one. Codex: AdMech is completely unrestricted in how you replace <FORGE WORLD> or <HOUSEHOLD> for the army list. Its special rules section is also completely unrestricted, although it does not appear that custom forge worlds get access to a unique stratagem or warlord trait.

The only keyword I saw in glancing over these that specifically tells you what you can replace it with is <MARK OF CHAOS>, which isn't relevant for determining access to stratagems or tactics.

The Guard codex is most like the AdMech codex. There is absolutely no restriction placed on what you can choose for <REGIMENT>, and the special rules section is explicit that if you've chosen a regiment which it doesn't provide a doctrine for, you can pick whichever doctrine you like. And while I don't see the stratagem boilerplate for Guard anywhere, the AdMech one doesn't even require that the detachment belong to a <FORGE WORLD> -- you can get access to AdMech stratagems even if you do not have a detachment that qualifies for a dogma.

I am not sure what book you are looking at. P.194 of adeptus astartes clearly states specifically which chapters are adeptus astartes units to gain rules in that codex.


Similar for CSM.

Ad mech does say you can pick a dogma if you have a forgeworld not on that list.

There is a big difference here, having a "forgeworld not on that list" aka a Homebrew FW, you are using the rules from that book for all of your units. DKOK and Elysians are completely not in that boat as they have their own rules much like blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, death guard and thousand sons.

The leaks I have seen of the regiment rule is not worded the same as ad mech, and doesn't give permission to pick one if your regiment doesn't appear in the list. The text is obviously cut off before and after however so far it appears RAW if your not a listed regiment you don't get to pick.

Even if that text is in there it seems RAI based on CSM and SM that if your keyword is so divergent that it uses an army list outside of the codex you don't get to use the codex rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking at a YouTube review of the AM codex, it is clear that it absolutely does not contain wording similiar to the ad mech codex that you can pick a regiment doctrine. The ad mech codex has written permission for picking, the AM codex has zero permission to do so.

RAW DKOK and Elysians do not get any doctrines from the AM codex.

blaktoof wrote:

I am not sure what book you are looking at. P.194 of adeptus astartes clearly states specifically which chapters are adeptus astartes units to gain rules in that codex.

Similar for CSM.

Ad mech does say you can pick a dogma if you have a forgeworld not on that list.

There is a big difference here, having a "forgeworld not on that list" aka a Homebrew FW, you are using the rules from that book for all of your units. DKOK and Elysians are completely not in that boat as they have their own rules much like blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, death guard and thousand sons.

The leaks I have seen of the regiment rule is not worded the same as ad mech, and doesn't give permission to pick one if your regiment doesn't appear in the list. The text is obviously cut off before and after however so far it appears RAW if your not a listed regiment you don't get to pick.

Even if that text is in there it seems RAI based on CSM and SM that if your keyword is so divergent that it uses an army list outside of the codex you don't get to use the codex rules.

p194 of Codex: SM does not give an exhaustive list of possible replacements for the <CHAPTER> keyword. It explicitly includes <CHAPTER>, indicating that you can use these rules for anything that you can replace <CHAPTER> with. People are supposed to be able to use their SPACE PONIES.

C:CSM likewise explicitly includes <LEGION>.

The full text of the doctrines page in the Guard codex does in fact say that "If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army". Refer to winters SEO's review at 18:27, for example. Death Korps of Krieg is a regiment, I can replace <REGIMENT> with the name of any regiment, and nowhere does it say that I can't replace <REGIMENT> with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG for these purposes (the DKoK army list only says I can't replace <REGIMENT> with DKoK on particular datasheets). And there's no doctrine given for DKoK. So...

But yes, as I've said before in this thread, I think that probably DKoK is not intended to get access to doctrines -- presumably their special rule is intended to fill that role. Though note that the rules are very clear that they get access to stratagems, and it seems kind of dickish to try to prevent a DKoK player from using them on the basis of a pretty shaky RAI argument.

Edit: I'm not sure what youtube review you're referencing. Are you sure that you're looking at a shot of the codex where the full page is actually visible?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What a twist! Following the rules means following the rules!

See what I mean when I said Facebook, Twitter etc shouldn't be used? Because we get 6 mutually exclusive answers to the same question. It's almost like the rules of YMDC were made with that in mind!

Wait, does this mean you're also taking something from Facebook as gospel?

Dionysodorus wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

I am not sure what book you are looking at. P.194 of adeptus astartes clearly states specifically which chapters are adeptus astartes units to gain rules in that codex.

Similar for CSM.

Ad mech does say you can pick a dogma if you have a forgeworld not on that list.

There is a big difference here, having a "forgeworld not on that list" aka a Homebrew FW, you are using the rules from that book for all of your units. DKOK and Elysians are completely not in that boat as they have their own rules much like blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, death guard and thousand sons.

The leaks I have seen of the regiment rule is not worded the same as ad mech, and doesn't give permission to pick one if your regiment doesn't appear in the list. The text is obviously cut off before and after however so far it appears RAW if your not a listed regiment you don't get to pick.

Even if that text is in there it seems RAI based on CSM and SM that if your keyword is so divergent that it uses an army list outside of the codex you don't get to use the codex rules.

p194 of Codex: SM does not give an exhaustive list of possible replacements for the <CHAPTER> keyword. It explicitly includes <CHAPTER>, indicating that you can use these rules for anything that you can replace <CHAPTER> with. People are supposed to be able to use their SPACE PONIES.

C:CSM likewise explicitly includes <LEGION>.

The full text of the doctrines page in the Guard codex does in fact say that "If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine, you may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army". Refer to winters SEO's review at 18:27, for example. Death Korps of Krieg is a regiment, I can replace <REGIMENT> with the name of any regiment, and nowhere does it say that I can't replace <REGIMENT> with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG for these purposes (the DKoK army list only says I can't replace <REGIMENT> with DKoK on particular datasheets). And there's no doctrine given for DKoK. So...

But yes, as I've said before in this thread, I think that probably DKoK is not intended to get access to doctrines -- presumably their special rule is intended to fill that role. Though note that the rules are very clear that they get access to stratagems, and it seems kind of dickish to try to prevent a DKoK player from using them on the basis of a pretty shaky RAI argument.

Edit: I'm not sure what youtube review you're referencing. Are you sure that you're looking at a shot of the codex where the full page is actually visible?

Looking at the same video as you, I had only made it ten minutes in and at that point the discussion of regiments around the 5min mark does not indicate any permission to pick doctrines.

Looking where you referenced it does say you can pick. It then goes on to list a completely made up regiment that uses the same army list as the normal AM regiments, much like a successor chapter.

DKOK and Elysians already have a regiment with it's own bonuses. I don't see any TO allowing them to double dip and effectively grab a 2nd doctrine from the AM codex. The RAI is so obvious I don't see the need to split hairs over the RAW

Likewise saying the you lose grinding advance vehicle updates in the codex because the FW index references them to the AM index is BS because the AM codex updates all identical entries in the AM index. RAW there is a clear case that Russ variations that are only in the FW index don't get grinding advance, but the AM index ones do get it. RAI they both get it, but RAW clearly contradicts with the variations that are only in the FW dex.

 schadenfreude wrote:
DKOK and Elysians already have a regiment with it's own bonuses. I don't see any TO allowing them to double dip and effectively grab a 2nd doctrine from the AM codex. The RAI is so obvious I don't see the need to split hairs over the RAW

Likewise saying the you lose grinding advance vehicle updates in the codex because the FW index references them to the AM index is BS because the AM codex updates all identical entries in the AM index. RAW there is a clear case that Russ variations that are only in the FW index don't get grinding advance, but the AM index ones do get it. RAI they both get it, but RAW clearly contradicts with the variations that are only in the FW dex.

Agreed!

Sigh I was hoping that they would be reasonable with the update but seems like they are going to be asinine about it. So I guess to spit in their face I am going to be spaming nothing but command squads with 3 damage Overcharged Plasma guns since they don't want to fix the obvious problems. Yeah I'm a little salty.

All discussion of <Regiment> aside, I still haven't seen a plausible way that explains how DKoK would access the Regimental Doctrines rule.

As far as I understand it, the argument goes:

1) FW provided instructions on how to adapt GW AM Index Datasheets (Master of Ordnance, Hydras, Tank Commander, Hellhounds, Basilisks, nothing else).
AM Infantry units - so only the Master of Ordnance - gains Cult of Sacrifice.
2) GW instructed us to use codex datasheets instead of index datasheets.
3) AM Codex Datasheets presumeably include a reference to the new Regimental Doctrines from the AM army special rules.

Therefore,
- an AM Codex Hydra, Tank Commander, Hellhound or Basilisk would retain the AM Regimental Doctrine, even when used in an DKoK army list and
- an AM Codex Master of Ordnance would retain AM Regimental Doctrine, but gain Cult of Sacrifice on top.

I hope I got that correct.

Now, that is all nice and tidy, but it makes some false assumptions:
a) GW considers interactions with FW rules in their publications
b) FW updates their rules reliably and promptly when GW changes something.

Because of a), the GW instruction to use codex rather than index cannot be argued to modify the FW instruction in the DKoK army list.
Because of b), we cannot expect to get an FAQ on this from FW in any resaonable time.
Since at the time of writing of the DKoK army list there was no Codex and no Regimental Doctrines, the conversion rule does not take those into account.

The way I see it:
RAW, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. No doctrines.
RAI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. There were no doctrines when the FW rule was written.
HIWPI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by index or codex datasheets for points and stats, but obviously don't get Regimental Doctrines.

 Stephanius wrote:
All discussion of <Regiment> aside, I still haven't seen a plausible way that explains how DKoK would access the Regimental Doctrines rule.

As far as I understand it, the argument goes:

1) FW provided instructions on how to adapt GW AM Index Datasheets (Master of Ordnance, Hydras, Tank Commander, Hellhounds, Basilisks, nothing else).
AM Infantry units - so only the Master of Ordnance - gains Cult of Sacrifice.
2) GW instructed us to use codex datasheets instead of index datasheets.
3) AM Codex Datasheets presumeably include a reference to the new Regimental Doctrines from the AM army special rules.

Therefore,
- an AM Codex Hydra, Tank Commander, Hellhound or Basilisk would retain the AM Regimental Doctrine, even when used in an DKoK army list and
- an AM Codex Master of Ordnance would retain AM Regimental Doctrine, but gain Cult of Sacrifice on top.

I hope I got that correct.

Now, that is all nice and tidy, but it makes some false assumptions:
a) GW considers interactions with FW rules in their publications
b) FW updates their rules reliably and promptly when GW changes something.

Because of a), the GW instruction to use codex rather than index cannot be argued to modify the FW instruction in the DKoK army list.
Because of b), we cannot expect to get an FAQ on this from FW in any resaonable time.
Since at the time of writing of the DKoK army list there was no Codex and no Regimental Doctrines, the conversion rule does not take those into account.

The way I see it:
RAW, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. No doctrines.
RAI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by Index datasheets. There were no doctrines when the FW rule was written.
HIWPI, DKoK uses their army list and datasheets, supplemented by index or codex datasheets for points and stats, but obviously don't get Regimental Doctrines.

You're conflating two things.

The Index Datasheets get overwritten by the Codex ones. The Datasheets themselves don't cover regimental Doctrines - that's Rules material in the Codex.

So FW variant IG armies use the updated Datasheets where applicable, but as the armies already have Doctrine-esque rules from the FW IA Index they don't get additional Codex Doctrines. .

Hope that clarifies.