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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Index Datasheets get overwritten by the Codex ones.

Only for armies that use the Codex. IA books use the Index. These are the rules.

 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.

I think your characterization of the argument that DKoK gets doctrines isn't right. None of (1), (2), or (3) are at all relevant, I think. (3) is not even true. The new datasheets make no mention of doctrines at all -- doctrines are not mentioned anywhere in the army list, afaik. This is just like how similar rules were handled in the other codices; Space Marines units don't get Chapter Tactics because their datasheets say they do. I suspect you've been confused by a couple of arguments going on in this thread in parallel: does DKoK get doctrines, does DKoK get stratagems, do DKoK units use updated datasheets, and do DKoK units use updated points? The third and maybe fourth arguments are reliant on this idea that codex datasheets supersede index datasheets, but that's it.

The RAW argument that DKoK gets doctrines is relatively simple. The codex tells us they get them, all by itself and entirely on one page, ignoring for the moment any argument that DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is not a <REGIMENT>.

1) The codex contains a section that tells us it provides rules for all armies containing ASTRA MILITARUM detachments.
2) This section says that units in such detachments get a doctrine, if they're all from the same <REGIMENT> (with some listed exceptions like Commissars).

There's no RAW issue with DKoK getting a doctrine in addition to Cult of Sacrifice. Cult of Sacrifice is clearly not a doctrine. It's a special rule like Voice of Command or Grinding Advance -- units get it by virtue of having it on their datasheets, and it's so common to units in the army list that it was convenient for the writers to define it at the start rather than on each datasheet.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Index Datasheets get overwritten by the Codex ones.

Only for armies that use the Codex. IA books use the Index. These are the rules.

For everyone. Read that WHC article and every single post I've made on the topic. Please come back with a cogent argument.

Dionysodorus wrote:


The RAW argument that DKoK gets doctrines is relatively simple. The codex tells us they get them, all by itself and entirely on one page, ignoring for the moment any argument that DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is not a <REGIMENT>.

Except you don't get to ignore it.

This argument is like me saying "A flyer with a minimum move attribute can choose not to move, ignoring for the moment any argument that the minimum move value says it has to move, the rules for movement say the model can move UP TO it's move attribute and not moving is part of up to."

It's nonsense.

FW forces are and always have been their own forces. You don't get to ignore that.

 Lance845 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:


The RAW argument that DKoK gets doctrines is relatively simple. The codex tells us they get them, all by itself and entirely on one page, ignoring for the moment any argument that DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is not a <REGIMENT>.

Except you don't get to ignore it.

This argument is like me saying "A flyer with a minimum move attribute can choose not to move, ignoring for the moment any argument that the minimum move value says it has to move, the rules for movement say the model can move UP TO it's move attribute and not moving is part of up to."

It's nonsense.

FW forces are and always have been their own forces. You don't get to ignore that.

I mean, I was responding to someone who wanted to set that aside, so of course I get to ignore it in the context of the conversation I was having. I would refer you to my other posts in this thread if you're interested in understanding why DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is a <REGIMENT>, RAW. But in short: it's a regiment, so it satisfies the FAQ's requirement that we not replace keywords with unfluffy things, and we're otherwise told that we can replace <REGIMENT> with whatever we like. What you're saying seems obviously way too strong; surely you can replace <CHAPTER> with RAPTORS, even though this is a FW-specific chapter. But also I'm not sure where on earth this supposed rule about GW/FW separation you're claiming is coming from.

Edit: Like, remember that they had to issue a FAQ to say that I couldn't have my Tau come from sept ULTRAMARINES. It seems pretty unlikely that that was allowed, RAW, but treating DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG as a <REGIMENT> isn't.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:


The RAW argument that DKoK gets doctrines is relatively simple. The codex tells us they get them, all by itself and entirely on one page, ignoring for the moment any argument that DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is not a <REGIMENT>.

Except you don't get to ignore it.

This argument is like me saying "A flyer with a minimum move attribute can choose not to move, ignoring for the moment any argument that the minimum move value says it has to move, the rules for movement say the model can move UP TO it's move attribute and not moving is part of up to."

It's nonsense.

FW forces are and always have been their own forces. You don't get to ignore that.

I mean, I was responding to someone who wanted to set that aside, so of course I get to ignore it in the context of the conversation I was having. I would refer you to my other posts in this thread if you're interested in understanding why DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG is a <REGIMENT>, RAW. But in short: it's a regiment, so it satisfies the FAQ's requirement that we not replace keywords with unfluffy things, and we're otherwise told that we can replace <REGIMENT> with whatever we like. What you're saying seems obviously way too strong; surely you can replace <CHAPTER> with RAPTORS, even though this is a FW-specific chapter. But also I'm not sure where on earth this supposed rule about GW/FW separation you're claiming is coming from.

Edit: Like, remember that they had to issue a FAQ to say that I couldn't have my Tau come from sept ULTRAMARINES. It seems pretty unlikely that that was allowed, RAW, but treating DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG as a <REGIMENT> isn't.

The fact that your <Regiment> keyword is meant to be fluffy does not make a established Keyword a <Regiment> as a rules entity.

FW/GW separation is a fact of the way GW runs it's business. You will notice on the community site that the categories are not 40k, AoS, LotR. It's 40k, AoS, LotR, FW. As though FW is a game all on it's own despite providing material for every game system.

You will notice no codex... ever to my understanding, has ever acknowledged that any FW force has ever existed.

You might remember that the Necron FW force from 7th could not make use of the formations and Decurion from Codex Necrons. Because despite being necrons FW forces are their own forces and function off their own rules separate from the codex rules.

The only people who have ever referenced across the gap is FW itself. And the only likely source we will get will be FW. FW could have put out an FAQ saying that DKoK and Elysians and Red Scorpions, and all the other FW armies are meant to use the Chapter tactics, doctrines, etc etc... of their appropriate codex. But instead they have decided to tell us they will be making a book "soon". Which in fact tells us nothing. And since we are working off a permission based rule set, without having direct permission to treat Death Korps of Krieg as a <Regiment> you are not actually allowed to do so any more then you would be allowed to treat Dark Angles or Grey Knights as a <Chapter> or Thousand Sons as a <Legion>

 Lance845 wrote:

The fact that your <Regiment> keyword is meant to be fluffy does not make a established Keyword a <Regiment> as a rules entity.

FW/GW separation is a fact of the way GW runs it's business. You will notice on the community site that the categories are not 40k, AoS, LotR. It's 40k, AoS, LotR, FW. As though FW is a game all on it's own despite providing material for every game system.

You will notice no codex... ever to my understanding, has ever acknowledged that any FW force has ever existed.

You might remember that the Necron FW force from 7th could not make use of the formations and Decurion from Codex Necrons. Because despite being necrons FW forces are their own forces and function off their own rules separate from the codex rules.

The only people who have ever referenced across the gap is FW itself. And the only likely source we will get will be FW. FW could have put out an FAQ saying that DKoK and Elysians and Red Scorpions, and all the other FW armies are meant to use the Chapter tactics, doctrines, etc etc... of their appropriate codex. But instead they have decided to tell us they will be making a book "soon". Which in fact tells us nothing. And since we are working off a permission based rule set, without having direct permission to treat Death Korps of Krieg as a <Regiment> you are not actually allowed to do so any more then you would be allowed to treat Dark Angles as a <Chapter> or Thousand Sons as a <Legion>

This is of course purely a RAI argument until the very end, where it's completely wrong. I've noticed that people do this kind of thing a lot in YMDC threads, where they don't actually have any rules support for their position so they try to instead argue by analogy to some other situation that people know doesn't work the same way, but then they seem to forget to actually check the rules for that other situation. If they did they would notice that the situations aren't analogous.

So, yes, it's a permission-based rules set, but I think you've misunderstood what this means. What permission do I have to replace <REGIMENT>? I don't see that the rules are anywhere explicit about this and we probably should be guided by the FAQ. The army list mentions replacing <REGIMENT> with the name of your regiment on datasheets. The section we're interested in doesn't mention replacing <REGIMENT> at all, but does give an example that clearly assumes that a detachment of "Ventrillian Nobles" would qualify as all being from the same <REGIMENT>. There's nothing about DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG not being a <REGIMENT>, just the DKoK army list telling you that some units aren't allowed to replace <REGIMENT> with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG (which does not appear to be different in kind from the codex army list's prohibition on giving MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to many units). So I think there's clearly implicit permission here to treat the identifying keyword of any regiment as <REGIMENT>, and nowhere does it say that that can't be DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. No additional permission would appear to be needed: you don't get to stop your opponent from shooting by asking where it says he can shoot on a Monday, specifically. I guess my question to you is: if I don't have permission to treat DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG as <REGIMENT> for purposes of determining eligibility for tactics, what gives me permission to treat MORDIAN as <REGIMENT> for same? What about VENTRILLIAN NOBLES, which the rules clearly intend to allow?

You then mention that you can't use the Chapter Tactics rules for Dark Angels or the Legion Traits rules for Thousand Sons. While correct, this is obviously not relevant, or if anything shows why DKoK do get doctrines. p194 of the SM codex says that Chapters which "deviate significantly in terms of organization and fighting styles" from the codex don't get to use these rules. It provides a non-exhaustive list, explicitly naming the Blood Angels and Space Wolves. This is clearly requiring a fluff judgment: do Dark Angels deviate sufficiently to qualify? Most people think yes. The Chaos codex is simply explicit that "...the Death Guard and Thousand Sons Legions deviate significantly... and therefore cannot make use of any of the rules or abilities listed in this section..." This appears to be what the writers do when there's something which is clearly a <CHAPTER> or <LEGION> but which they don't want to give these rules to. Of course, there's nothing like this for DKoK or Elysians, or indeed for any possible regiment no matter how much it deviates from the norm. All regiments get doctrines.

Dionysodorus wrote:

This is of course purely a RAI argument until the very end, where it's completely wrong. I've noticed that people do this kind of thing a lot in YMDC threads, where they don't actually have any rules support for their position so they try to instead argue by analogy to some other situation that people know doesn't work the same way, but then they seem to forget to actually check the rules for that other situation. If they did they would notice that the situations aren't analogous.

So, yes, it's a permission-based rules set, but I think you've misunderstood what this means. What permission do I have to replace <REGIMENT>? I don't see that the rules are anywhere explicit about this and we probably should be guided by the FAQ.

This is of course, purely a RAI argument until the very end, where it's completely wrong. You are using a FAQ "as a guide" for where permission is lacking. That is you looking for intent instead of looking for RAW. The RAW for what regiments exist is in the list of which regiments are acknowledged by the codex itself.

The army list mentions replacing <REGIMENT> with the name of your regiment on datasheets. The section we're interested in doesn't mention replacing <REGIMENT> at all, but does give an example that clearly assumes that a detachment of "Ventrillian Nobles" would qualify as all being from the same <REGIMENT>. There's nothing about DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG not being a <REGIMENT>, just the DKoK army list telling you that some units aren't allowed to replace <REGIMENT> with DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG (which does not appear to be different in kind from the codex army list's prohibition on giving MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to many units). So I think there's clearly implicit permission here to treat the identifying keyword of any regiment as <REGIMENT>, and nowhere does it say that that can't be DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.

Again, RAI arguments. Also, I think it's fair to restate that there is no reason why, in a permission based rule set, that the rule granting permission would mention that you cannot use this rule in conjunction with those guys from that book we refuse to acknowledge exists.

No additional permission would appear to be needed: you don't get to stop your opponent from shooting by asking where it says he can shoot on a Monday, specifically. I guess my question to you is: if I don't have permission to treat DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG as <REGIMENT> for purposes of determining eligibility for tactics, what gives me permission to treat MORDIAN as <REGIMENT> for same? What about VENTRILLIAN NOBLES, which the rules clearly intend to allow?

The rules in the codex do. They actually have a list of the regiments they acknowledge and the rules associated with them.

You then mention that you can't use the Chapter Tactics rules for Dark Angels or the Legion Traits rules for Thousand Sons. While correct, this is obviously not relevant, or if anything shows why DKoK do get doctrines. p194 of the SM codex says that Chapters which "deviate significantly in terms of organization and fighting styles" from the codex don't get to use these rules.

Except DA Don't deviate significantly. DA actually, historically, go super far out of their way to appear as codex compliant as possible so as to not draw attention to the fact that they are legion building with their successor chapters. BA likewise, are codex compliant. Red Scorpions, the codex is their crack. Never could use any of the Sm codex stuff before. Can't now either.

It provides a non-exhaustive list, explicitly naming the Blood Angels and Space Wolves. This is clearly requiring a fluff judgment: do Dark Angels deviate sufficiently to qualify? Most people think yes. The Chaos codex is simply explicit that "...the Death Guard and Thousand Sons Legions deviate significantly... and therefore cannot make use of any of the rules or abilities listed in this section..." This appears to be what the writers do when there's something which is clearly a <CHAPTER> or <LEGION> but which they don't want to give these rules to. Of course, there's nothing like this for DKoK or Elysians, or indeed for any possible regiment no matter how much it deviates from the norm. All regiments get doctrines.

Your missing the major point here. GW will mention GW codex armies in their codex books. But at no point do they, or have they ever, mentioned FW forces. Of course the IG codex does not mention DKoK. They are not a codex army. In the same way that the Necron codex does not and will not mention the Maynarhk. The SM codex doesn't mention Red Scorpions, Minotaurs etc etc...

Their absence is not permission. You don't get to assume permission because you were not specifically denied it. You were never granted permission to use the DKoK army list as a IG codex list.


I would like to note that I think this is a REALLY dumb way for GW to handle their property. This separation of GW and FW is dumb as feth. FW should just make models for GW publications instead of this insanity. DKoK and Elysians should be in the IG codex. But they are not. And that is important.

We are not talking about forces that have no rules to themselves like the vast majority of the chapters/regiments/dynasties/craftworlds/etc out there. We are talking about an army that has a very specific army list of which units it can and cannot take and which has it's own characters and special rules that separates them from everyone else. DKoK are to Cadians what Dark Angels are to Ultramarines. Again, own characters, rules, army list.

You don't have permission, and no rules you have quoted have given it to you.

Again: the rules clearly intend that I can treat VENTRILLIAN NOBLES as <REGIMENT>. They talk about having a regiment that doesn't have an associated doctrine. I assume you're okay with this. What is giving me permission to do that, or to use some other made-up regiment that they don't use as an example specifically, but not DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG?

I think you're confusing a couple different senses of RAI. It is of course very often the case that the RAW, in the most literal sense, simply don't work. There's a typo, say. It is obviously an argument about intent to say that, well, clearly they didn't really mean "ULTARMARINES". But nobody's going to argue that this is a serious problem. We just don't have to do much interpretation to figure out what's up.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are intent arguments that depend on really trying to dig into the psychology of the GW writers.

There's a lot of room in the middle here. There are a lot of things where it's obvious from the text alone that RAW isn't quite right, even if you know basically nothing about the history of the game or the fluff or GW. Like with the shooting rules, where, RAW, pistols don't appear to work within 1" of the enemy since the unit firing them can't shoot. As with typos, nobody's arguing that there's a serious problem here. The rules clearly envision units shooting with pistols within 1" of the enemy. Likewise the rules clearly envision using a regiment other than one of the ones that have particular associated doctrines. Once more, they even use a made-up regiment of Ventrillian Nobles as an example. The rules must be interpreted such that they're consistent with that.

I note that it of course still is an intent argument to say that you can treat MORDIAN as <REGIMENT> because it has a listed doctrine. This is just an example of how you're also very comfortable with this kind of argument where the intent is very clear from the text alone.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Again: the rules clearly intend that I can treat VENTRILLIAN NOBLES as <REGIMENT>. They talk about having a regiment that doesn't have an associated doctrine. I assume you're okay with this. What is giving me permission to do that, or to use some other made-up regiment that they don't use as an example specifically, but not DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG?

Because VN and homebrews don't have their own rules. In the case of regiments that either a) don't exist or b) don't matter enough to get unique models/rules you are meant to pick the doctrines that most closely resemble and go. DKoK HAVE their own rules and HAVE their own list and will be getting their own book or at the very least be a part of a book that has yet to be released.

I think you're confusing a couple different senses of RAI. It is of course very often the case that the RAW, in the most literal sense, simply don't work. There's a typo, say. It is obviously an argument about intent to say that, well, clearly they didn't really mean "ULTARMARINES". But nobody's going to argue that this is a serious problem. We just don't have to do much interpretation to figure out what's up.

I am not confusing anything. You are searching for intent to justify the use of the codex rules for a army that is not from the codex. That is you looking for RAI and calling it RAW. I play nids, where RAW for 2 editions pyrovores blew up the entire game table with their volatile rule. I understand the difference between RAW and RAI. Here, on YMDC, we discuss the RAW. You can say HIWPI if you want to, but thats all it is and it's meaningless. The entire time I played nids I was a loud proponent for how ridiculous the RAW of Pyrovores was and HIWPI but that has no baring AT ALL on the actual rules.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are intent arguments that depend on really trying to dig into the psychology of the GW writers.

There's a lot of room in the middle here. There are a lot of things where it's obvious from the text alone that RAW isn't quite right, even if you know basically nothing about the history of the game or the fluff or GW. Like with the shooting rules, where, RAW, pistols don't appear to work within 1" of the enemy since the unit firing them can't shoot. As with typos, nobody's arguing that there's a serious problem here. The rules clearly envision units shooting with pistols within 1" of the enemy. Likewise the rules clearly envision using a regiment other than one of the ones that have particular associated doctrines.

Except they clearly don't. Because FW has said DKoK and Elysians will be getting their own publication down the line. Which means in the exact same way that Space wolves, Tsons, and BA have to wait for their books DKoK and Elysians have to wait for theirs.

I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because FW has said DKoK and Elysians will be getting their own publication down the line.

Which publication did they say that in? Remember, e-mails and facebook don't count as sources.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.

No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.

DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".

DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.

VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.

Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.

 Lance845 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.

No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.

DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".

DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.

VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.

Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. We have an updated publication that tells us it provides rules to use with DKoK detachments. Like, do you ignore the FAQs because the codices don't tell you to refer to them?

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.

No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.

DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".

DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.

VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.

Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. We have an updated publication that tells us it provides rules to use with DKoK detachments. Like, do you ignore the FAQs because the codices don't tell you to refer to them?

DATASLATES for the individual models. Yes. DKoK get to use the latest version of any of the units they have access to through their Imperial Armor Index army list. Just like everyone, they are expected to use the most recent profile. So the newest profiles get used with the newest costs.

That has nothing to do with doctrines.

 Lance845 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.

No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.

DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".

DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.

VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.

Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. We have an updated publication that tells us it provides rules to use with DKoK detachments. Like, do you ignore the FAQs because the codices don't tell you to refer to them?

DATASLATES for the individual models. Yes. DKoK get to use the latest version of any of the units they have access to through their Imperial Armor Index army list. Just like everyone, they are expected to use the most recent profile. So the newest profiles get used with the newest costs.

That has nothing to do with doctrines.

What? No. The doctrines page clearly says it applies to DKoK detachments. Right at the top: it's giving rules for any detachments that contain only ASTRA MILITARUM units.

Again, the interpretive method I'm proposing here is I think pretty simple and intuitive. It's just: "if there's an up-to-date, official Warhammer 40k rule that says it applies to you, you should follow it"

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I mean, it seems very clear at this point that you're relying on the flimsiest sort of intent argument to distinguish VENTRILLIAN NOBLES from DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG. And I agree with you that that's how it's intended to work. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that seems to justify that distinction.

No. I am not. I am not guessing at intent at all. I am working purely off the rules we have been given.

DKoK and Elysians have a publication RIGHT NOW that is not the same book as either of the books that had rules for Astra Militarium in this edition. We also have word for FW, the guys who made the current book for DKoK and Elysians that they will be getting an Imperial Armor "soon".

DKoK and E... rules exist already. Updated rules are coming.

VN... no specific rules exist. No rules are known to be coming.

Thats not a flimsy distinction. That's the letter of the RAW.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. We have an updated publication that tells us it provides rules to use with DKoK detachments. Like, do you ignore the FAQs because the codices don't tell you to refer to them?

DATASLATES for the individual models. Yes. DKoK get to use the latest version of any of the units they have access to through their Imperial Armor Index army list. Just like everyone, they are expected to use the most recent profile. So the newest profiles get used with the newest costs.

That has nothing to do with doctrines.

What? No. The doctrines page clearly says it applies to DKoK detachments. Right at the top: it's giving rules for any detachments that contain only ASTRA MILITARUM units.

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, Since Dark Angels are Astartes they get to pick a chapter tactic to use in conjunction with their other special rules and have access to relics, warlord traits, and strategems?

I like the idea that GW publications only apply to GW produced stuff. I mean, GW does not acknowledge FW in their rules, so I guess I don't have to follow the rules other than the explicitly listed rulebook and can safely ignore any Chapter Approved or other errata?

 Aenarian wrote:
I like the idea that GW publications only apply to GW produced stuff. I mean, GW does not acknowledge FW in their rules, so I guess I don't have to follow the rules other than the explicitly listed rulebook and can safely ignore any Chapter Approved or other errata?

Pointless straw man. Especially since Errata and chapter approved are GW publications. Way to contribute.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:
I like the idea that GW publications only apply to GW produced stuff. I mean, GW does not acknowledge FW in their rules, so I guess I don't have to follow the rules other than the explicitly listed rulebook and can safely ignore any Chapter Approved or other errata?

Pointless straw man. Especially since Errata and chapter approved are GW publications. Way to contribute.

Wouldn't that be the (un)reasonable continutation from agreeing that GW publications don't apply to FW?

I mean, I'm all for that we don't get regimental doctrines and warlord traits because it requires <REGIMENT> and the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG keyword isn't listed as a regiment or a keyword that replaces <REGIMENT>*, but since everything else (more or less) only requires ASTRA MILITARUM, I don't see why those rules wouldn't apply. It seems to me that we are then ignoring rules for the sake of differing between publications, i.e. the straw man you claimed.

*I mean, nowhere is it written that e.g. Pask has replaces his <REGIMENT> with CADIAN, only that some datasheets have specified what regiment they are from but never which datasheets. You could argue that ADEPTUS MINISTORUM is a regiment or that Pask does not have one and that his CADIAN is just another keyword, not a <REGIMENT>-keyword from what I've gathered.

 Aenarian wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:
I like the idea that GW publications only apply to GW produced stuff. I mean, GW does not acknowledge FW in their rules, so I guess I don't have to follow the rules other than the explicitly listed rulebook and can safely ignore any Chapter Approved or other errata?

Pointless straw man. Especially since Errata and chapter approved are GW publications. Way to contribute.

Wouldn't that be the (un)reasonable continutation from agreeing that GW publications don't apply to FW?

I mean, I'm all for that we don't get regimental doctrines and warlord traits because it requires <REGIMENT> and the DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG keyword isn't listed as a regiment or a keyword that replaces <REGIMENT>*, but since everything else (more or less) only requires ASTRA MILITARUM, I don't see why those rules wouldn't apply. It seems to me that we are then ignoring rules for the sake of differing between publications, i.e. the straw man you claimed.

*I mean, nowhere is it written that e.g. Pask has replaces his <REGIMENT> with CADIAN, only that some datasheets have specified what regiment they are from but never which datasheets. You could argue that ADEPTUS MINISTORUM is a regiment or that Pask does not have one and that his CADIAN is just another keyword, not a <REGIMENT>-keyword from what I've gathered.

I would have had to have made the argument that GW publications don't apply to FW to begin with.

Which I never did. Which is what makes it a straw man.

I said GW publications don't acknowledge FW exists. Which is a very different thing.

HIWPI is that yes, DKoK and Elysians could use generic IG strategems, warlord traits, and relics. I think that is very reasonable during the unknown and probably very long wait for a IA publication or a clarification from FW on what if any of the codex rules those armies have access to. But there is also no way in hell I would allow doctrines or any of the more specific regiment related things. But again, that is just HIWPI and is meaningless in a RAW discussion.

 Lance845 wrote:
<These quotes tend to become a little too large for my taste>

Alright, then I just misunderstood you and admit my error. Anyway, then, what is your strictest RAW take on the question then?

Agreed

DKoK and Elysians and any other FW army continues to be their own army, in the same way that they always have been. Red Scorpion don't fall under Codex space marines. DKoK don't fall under Codex IG. The Maynarhk Dynasty doesn't fall under Codex Necrons.

They pull from Dataslates in other GW publication (Namely the codexes) to build their army lists but that those army lists are their own army. Much in the way the Tsons are not Codex CSM and Dark Angles are not Codex Space Marine.

Until GW/FW gives us permission to treat them otherwise they are their own army and they have to wait for their own updates to get official rules.

 Lance845 wrote:

Agreed

DKoK and Elysians and any other FW army continues to be their own army, in the same way that they always have been. Red Scorpion don't fall under Codex space marines. DKoK don't fall under Codex IG. The Maynarhk Dynasty doesn't fall under Codex Necrons.

They pull from Dataslates in other GW publication (Namely the codexes) to build their army lists but that those army lists are their own army. Much in the way the Tsons are not Codex CSM and Dark Angles are not Codex Space Marine.

Until GW/FW gives us permission to treat them otherwise they are their own army and they have to wait for their own updates to get official rules.

Which means they don't get goodies like Strats, Traits, and Doctrines but they also don't get price bumps (Plasma and mortars), restrictions (no 1 command squad per officer), and get to keep playing oversights (Damage 3 Overcharge plasma guns).

Fun eh? Take a look at my Salt list in Armylists to see how you can abuse this.

 Lance845 wrote:

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, Since Dark Angels are Astartes they get to pick a chapter tactic to use in conjunction with their other special rules and have access to relics, warlord traits, and strategems?

This does not seem like a sincere question, since we already went back and forth on this exact issue within the last 24 hours and at this point you should probably be able to produce my response yourself. It is frustrating to be asked to repeat myself for no other reason than -- I suppose -- to drag out the argument over multiple posts instead of reaching at least a reasonable point where we can both say we understand what the other is saying but still disagree. If you'll recall, last time you made this same flawed analogy I pointed out that the SM codex, unlike the IG codex, explicitly states that certain chapters are ineligible for tactics, stratagems, etc., and gives what is clearly a non-exhaustive list of excluded chapters, with the criterion for exclusion being the extent to which the chapters depart from standard organization and fighting style. ISTM that the Dark Angels having Ravenwing and Deathwing means that they'd count. Like, I'm not that up on SM fluff but are the Dark Angels really so much more codex-compliant than the Blood Angels, who are explicitly excluded? At the very least surely you can see that it is ambiguous whether Chapter Tactics apply to Dark Angels whereas there's no similar language that would bar any IG regiment from getting a doctrine.

 Lance845 wrote:
Text

I'm a little curious about this. The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications, so it seems to me that any rules that are given in a codex or other select publication (White Dwarf, website releases or whatever they choose) would apply to anything the rule itself lists as a requirement. I.e. a rule that states that ASTRA MILITARUM units gain +1 BS would apply to all units with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, even if it came from Codex: Tyranids. But I can also see why it would not, because some publications are somewhat self-containing, and it might be weird to list Space Marine rules in Codex: Tau Empire.

But anyway, if I understand your RAW-thoughts correctly, my question is if you have any official support for this interpretation because I'm a bit curious where it comes from.

 Aenarian wrote:
The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications,

The rules also don't say I can drop kick a puppy 60 yards for +2 to my wound rolls either.

The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.

In fact, the DKoK rules are super extra permissive, they explicitly tell you to use the Index and NOTHING else. Until FW issue an errata or faq, that's all they get to use.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:
The rules in C:AM for example do not make a restriction based on publications,

The rules also don't say I can drop kick a puppy 60 yards for +2 to my wound rolls either.

The rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, then add restrictions on top of that.

Of course, but the rules tell me that I can do this when I have that. For example, if I have an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment, I can use the stratagems. DKoK have this keyword, and I guess I can declare it an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment then. So why would I not be able to use the AM stratagems? Do the rules tell me I can use rules from other sources (i.e. White Dwarf), if it is not said in the magazine itself?

What if I mix units from the Codex and Index: FotAM? Does it become less of an AM detachment if some of my AM units come from the Codex and some from the IA index?

Dionysodorus wrote:

...
What? No. The doctrines page clearly says it applies to DKoK detachments. Right at the top: it's giving rules for any detachments that contain only ASTRA MILITARUM units.

Again, the interpretive method I'm proposing here is I think pretty simple and intuitive. It's just: "if there's an up-to-date, official Warhammer 40k rule that says it applies to you, you should follow it"

Your method is simple and intuitive, but it's wrong.

Let me show you my reasoning.

A) A DKoK army has no access to AM army list rules.

When building a DKoK army you start at the FW DKoK Army List, which tells you explicitly what rules and unit you have access to.
Anything that isn't mentioned isn't permitted. You have no permission to go fishing for rules in other books.
It can be argued that the five AM Index datasheets that the DKoK list grants access to can be replaced with the Codex datasheets, but that doesn't permit you to access anything else in the book.
Therefore, you don't get to read about boni applicable to AM detachments - if you bother to follow your army list's permissions.
Yes, that means anything the AM codex says does indeed not apply to FW army lists like Elysians or the Death Korps.

(Also, unlike Power from Pain et al, the AM Codex does not include a reference to regimental doctrines in the datasheets, so forget about that line of argument which I falsely assumed you were using.)


B) A DKoK army list detachment is not an AM detachment

The way I understand your argument is like this:
1) the AM codex says AM detachments get regimental doctrines.
2) the DKoK datasheets have, besides Imperium and DKoK, the AM faction keyword, making them AM detachments. (false)
3) therefore AM Codex rules are applicable to DKoK armies. (false).

You are conflating two things: Faction Keywords and Army Lists/Codices.

When GW says AM Detachment, they say <Codex Name> detachment, i.e. a detachment formed following the rules in this codex/army list.
With FW, it's an <Army List> detachment. Like Corsairs, Elysians, Armoured Company, Unending Host - or DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.

If you build a detachment using the DKoK army list, you end up with a DEATH KORPS of KRIEG Detachment, not with an Astra Militarum Detachment, even though the AM faction keyword is there.
If you build a detachment using the GK codex, you end up with a GREY KNIGHTS Detachment, not with a Adeptus Astartes Detachment, even though the AA (hic!) faction keyword is there.

Yes, the SM Codex explains explictly that special marine chapters like SW/GK/BA/DA/etc. do not get chapter tactics. That is because GW rules do consider other GW rules, and therefore
explain that IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> should not be conflated with IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, GREY KNIGHTS.

This AM/DKoK situation is exactly the same thing, except for the fact that GW does not ever consider FW rules. That means for them DKoK, Elysians and FW AM units do not exist.
Therefore GW does not explain in the AM Codex that IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, <REGIMENT> should not be conflated with IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.
They do explain how this works with Militarum Tempestus, Advisors and Auxilia units, since those are all relevant GW mini-army lists which could be conflated. See the pattern?


C) Death Korps of Krieg is (ruleswise) an allied, but completely indepentent faction from Astra Militarum

Now, assuming for arguments sake I am mostly wrong above - how do you explain the rules we do find in the IA book?

ASTRA MILITARUM ARMY LIST
This section serves as an addendum to the Astra Militarum army list found in Warhammer 40.000 - Index: Imperium 2, and features all of the additional datasheets for the Astra Militarum range of models produced by Forge World.
...

IA: Index Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 7

DEATH KORPS of KRIEG ARMY LIST
There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the Death Korps of Krieg - presented in the box on the left.
(List with 5 gerneric AM datasheets from the GW index and 9 generic AM datasheets from the FW index.)
...
If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list, it cannot be from the Death Korps of Krieg, and so cannot have the Death Korps of Krieg Faction keyword.
...

IA: Index Forces of the Astra Militarum, p. 55

Clearly, ForgeWorld considers the Death Korps of Krieg NOT to be part of the Astra Militarum army list, but it's own, completely seperate thing.

 Stephanius wrote:
Text

What if I start with an AM detachment and add one unit (or more) from Krieg, which is allowed since they have shared keywords? What kind of detachment does that become? Where can I find anything that says that when GW is referring to a <Faction> detachment, it means <Codex: Faction> detachment since this is, as far as I know, only specified in the C:SM? Why are GW rules so inconsistently written? Why can't they just talk to each other?

I'm actually curious about this and not trying to debate you.