Regimental Doctrines and Elysians/DKoK

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.

**Stephanius**

Aenarian wrote:
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?

If you add a Krieg unit to a detachment built using the AM army list, it is no longer an AM detachment and loses any Boni that require this, such as Regimental Doctrines. Compare with adding a GK unit to a SM detachment.

Aenarian wrote:

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.

I don't have a source that explicitly states this.

However, the implication is quite clear:
- the scheme is that you get special rules for building a detachment from a single army list instead of cherry picking from multiple sources. Therefore it is logical that the rules granting the special rules refer to the army list.
-the SM and AM codices, which explain that all other units from all other GW army lists that share the <codex name> Faction Keyword are either not eligible, break the bonus or may be included but do not get the bonus
- GW never acknowledges FW rules, therefore no such statements regarding DKoK or Elysians army lists are logical.

**Aenarian**

Stephanius wrote:
Aenarian wrote:
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?

If you add a Krieg unit to a detachment built using the AM army list, it is no longer an AM detachment and loses any Boni that require this, such as Regimental Doctrines. Compare with adding a GK unit to a SM detachment.

Aenarian wrote:

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.

I don't have a source that explicitly states this.

However, the implication is quite clear:
- the scheme is that you get special rules for building a detachment from a single army list instead of cherry picking from multiple sources. Therefore it is logical that the rules granting the special rules refer to the army list.
-the SM and AM codices, which explain that all other units from all other GW army lists that share the <codex name> Faction Keyword are either not eligible, break the bonus or may be included but do not get the bonus
- GW never acknowledges FW rules, therefore no such statements regarding DKoK or Elysians army lists are logical.

But why, since they have all the same keywords except one? Will adding a CATACHAN unit to a CADIAN detachment remove the ASTRA MILITARUM boni?

- What if they create a ROBOUTE GUILLIUMAN BATTLE TANK vehicle and just add the datasheet to the box? Or White Dwarf? That's a different source
- Do you have a page reference? And do you mean AdMech or AsMil?
- Sure, I can get behind that. But not all things in the rules are logical, and I think there would be more substantial arguments than that.

Thank you for the help

**Dionysodorus**

Stephanius wrote:

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.)

I don't think we're talking about army lists. The standard AM army list is in an entirely separate section of the codex. This section looks like the same sort of thing as the DKoK army list -- it's a bunch of datasheets that share a faction keyword. Nothing in either army list says anything about doctrines or stratagems, etc. There is, however, an entirely different section of the AM codex that explicitly says that it is there to provide rules for AM detachments. It even defines "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment", just in case there's any confusion, and the definition clearly encompasses DKoK detachments.

I just feel like this isn't a plausible method for reading the rules. Like, obviously if GW releases Chapter Approved and there's a section that says "this section will provide updated rules for Death Korps of Krieg", then those rules apply. Right? It's not "fishing for rules in other books" when GW releases a new book with a rule that says it applies to my army.

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.

I don't understand what's motivating this. Again, the AM codex explicitly defines what it means by "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment". An ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment is "any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units". Literally everywhere else in the rules we read this sort of language as pointing to the keywords that units have. DKoK units have the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword -- they are ASTRA MILITARUM units, and therefore a DKoK Detachment is an AM Detachment. The rules themselves are very clear in rejecting your interpretation of "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment" as a Detachment produced using only the AM army list.

What's the point of deciding whether a GK Detachment is an ADEPTUS ASTARTES Detachment? What rules difference does this make? What matters is that a GK Detachment is not a "Space Marines Detachment", as defined in the section of the SM codex that hands out Chapter Tactics.

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.

I don't see what it is I have to explain. Surely this suggests that I'm right -- the "army list" is the datasheets. GW additionally released rules separate from the AM army list that apply to all detachments made up entirely of ASTRA MILITARUM units.

**Stephanius**

Aenarian wrote:
...

But why, since they have all the same keywords except one? Will adding a CATACHAN unit to a CADIAN detachment remove the ASTRA MILITARUM boni?

"...all <Regiment> units in an Astra Militarum Detachment ... gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."
Codex AM, p. 132.

Aenarian wrote:
- What if they create a ROBOUTE GUILLIUMAN BATTLE TANK vehicle and just add the datasheet to the box? Or White Dwarf? That's a different source
- Do you have a page reference? And do you mean AdMech or AsMil?
- Sure, I can get behind that. But not all things in the rules are logical, and I think there would be more substantial arguments than that.

Thank you for the help

If there is something for an army list in a White Dwarf, it will state clearly that it is an addendum to that army list. Just like FW adds the datasheets for their AM models to the AM army list and explicitly says so.

**Aenarian**

Stephanius wrote:
Aenarian wrote:
...

But why, since they have all the same keywords except one? Will adding a CATACHAN unit to a CADIAN detachment remove the ASTRA MILITARUM boni?

"...all <Regiment> units in an Astra Militarum Detachment ... gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."
Codex AM, p. 132.

Sure, but that only goes for the Regimental Doctrine, does it not? Nothing about it removing the ability to take stratagems, relics or anything else? As a (fairly reasonable imho) DKoK player, I agree that we have presudo-doctrines and shouldn't get additional ones (although we should have ours changed). But I would like to be able to play with relics, stratagems and warlord traits other than the generic ones.

And I hope you're right about the WD argument, because I have no reason to believe that a) GW will just release something with clear rules and b) that it will spark another debate.

**Lance845**

Khadorstompy wrote:
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.

It's not about what they can or cannot abuse. It's what it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aenarian wrote:
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.

As said, permission based rules don't need to tell you everything you cannot do. They just tell you what you can do. Nothing tells you to treat FW armies as codex armies. So they arn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aenarian wrote:
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?

I disagree with BCB on this. Use the most recent dataslate for the unit.

Consider that DkoK do not get to use the units available to Codex IG. They get to use SOME of the same unit's in the same way that Deathguard can use deamon princes, nurglings, etc... while other chaos factions can also use them. But DKoK has a very specific list of all the dataslates that make up their army list. If a new model comes out for astra militarium DKoK do not get to use it unless they specifically say they can. You cannot build a 2k army out of all the dataslates in the codex and then replace <Regiment> with DKoK and have it work. Because DKoK cannot use all those dataslates. Because again, they are not a <Regiment>.

**Stephanius**

Dionysodorus wrote:
Stephanius wrote:

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.)

I don't think we're talking about army lists. The standard AM army list is in an entirely separate section of the codex. This section looks like the same sort of thing as the DKoK army list -- it's a bunch of datasheets that share a faction keyword. Nothing in either army list says anything about doctrines or stratagems, etc. There is, however, an entirely different section of the AM codex that explicitly says that it is there to provide rules for AM detachments. It even defines "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment", just in case there's any confusion, and the definition clearly encompasses DKoK detachments.

No, you are misunderstanding army list. Rules wise FW army list and GW codex (minus fluff) are equivalent.
If you look at the IA Index referring to the AM army list in the GW Index Imperium 2, you see that FW calls that army list.
If you look at the Index Imperium 2 p.10, you see that GW even calls it Astra Miilitarum Army List and under that heading you find <Regiment>, Orders and Wargear lists, followed by the datasheets.
It is immaterial that the Codex fills more pages with more headlines and recycled graphics, it is still the AM army list = the AM codex.

The AM Codex defines an AM detachment as "any Detachment that includes only Astra Militarum units".
You assume that what is meant is "any units with the Faction Keyword Astra Miilitarum". I assume that what is meant is "only units from this codex".
If your reading was right, why would they have to add the exceptions for units from other army lists that share the Faction Keywords?
Those are clarifications to avoid conflation, or in the AM codex case actually additional permissions for some units.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I just feel like this isn't a plausible method for reading the rules. Like, obviously if GW releases Chapter Approved and there's a section that says "this section will provide updated rules for Death Korps of Krieg", then those rules apply. Right? It's not "fishing for rules in other books" when GW releases a new book with a rule that says it applies to my army.

Obviously, if GW releases a rule that states something new explicitly or overrides other rules, then that goes.
The AM codex only replaces the Index Imperium 2 Astra Militarum army list. It does not in any way mention or claim that it updates the Death Korps of Krieg army list.
Your claim that DKoK gets to double dip, unlike any other army list is implausible and inconsistent with any other current GW rules.

Dionysodorus wrote:

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.

I don't understand what's motivating this. Again, the AM codex explicitly defines what it means by "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment". An ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment is "any Detachment which includes only ASTRA MILITARUM units". Literally everywhere else in the rules we read this sort of language as pointing to the keywords that units have. DKoK units have the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword -- they are ASTRA MILITARUM units, and therefore a DKoK Detachment is an AM Detachment. The rules themselves are very clear in rejecting your interpretation of "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment" as a Detachment produced using only the AM army list.

What's the point of deciding whether a GK Detachment is an ADEPTUS ASTARTES Detachment? What rules difference does this make? What matters is that a GK Detachment is not a "Space Marines Detachment", as defined in the section of the SM codex that hands out Chapter Tactics.

See above, you are misunderstanding the definitiion of Astra Militarum Detachment and insisting that it's not consistent with any other similar case between army lists.

Dionysodorus wrote:

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.

I don't see what it is I have to explain. Surely this suggests that I'm right -- the "army list" is the datasheets. GW additionally released rules separate from the AM army list that apply to all detachments made up entirely of ASTRA MILITARUM units.

As explained above, the army list isn't just datasheets, but the entire set of rules for fielding such an army. So you are simply wrong there.
GW only talks about GW rules. Them not mentioning DKoK is as shocking as only American Baseball teams winning the World Series.
So if one thing is certain, is that they were not thinking of DKoK when writing their rules.

What is the RAI acccording to you
"Let's not mention that DKoK - unlike all other cases with GW army lists sharing the codex name faction keyword - doesn't get doctrines. Get popcorn, they will argue for our entertainment! MUAHAHA!"?
If they meant to treat DKoK better than any other army list, why wouldn't they have explicitly said so?
No, the logical explanation is that GW does not mention FW army lists or rules.

**Aenarian**

Lance845 wrote:

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

Edit2: Just to make things clear, if anything is fully capitalised, ex. DKOK or ASTRA MILITARUM, it refers to the keywords while DKoK or Astra Militarum would refer to the army, and AM is always Astra Militarum.

Certainly, but the rules in this case are a bit unclear depending on how you look at different publications applying to each other.

Codex: Astra Militarum tells us a few things, namely that an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment is composed solely of ASTRA MILITARUM units, but does not really define the latter (at least from what I have seen). Now, I presume that an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is then one with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, but I could be wrong (e.g, it could refer to those within the Codex only, or from GW publications, or whatever). But, if my interpretation is correct, we could argue like this:

1) If a detachment consists solely of units from the AM codex with this keyword, or includes the explicit exceptions given in the codex (priests etc.) it is an AM detachment.
a) If a detachment includes 9 units from C:AM and 1 from any other codex, it is not an AM detachment.

2) If we include one or more units from the Death Korps list in this original detachment, everything still has the AM keyword.
a) Following my interpretation, this is then still an AM detachment.

3) Because we have an AM detachment, we can use the stratagems.

4) Because we have the required keyword on most of our units (e.g. the Jury Rigging stratagem requires an AM VEHICLE), we can use them on our Krieg units that fulfill these requirements.

This, of course, falls apart if we do not consider DKoK AM units, but this is also the root of my question. Nothing actually specifies this, and the codex just gives us rules with very little requirements that my DKoK force would fulfill if we follow my reasoning. So, is there actually anything that gives a clear answer, because right now, point 2) seems to be the point of contention here and I haven't found a strictly defined answer. I understand the point about it being different books and GW ignoring FW rules, but that argument is not really logically sound in my opinion. We have some apocalypse rules for FW units. And I see the case where the Codex would not refer to anything outside of it, but nowhere is this stated and if we just look at the rulebook, codices and other publications as a library of rules, I should be able to apply it from any book if I can apply it from one, provided I fulfill any requirements and follow any restrictions.

I noticed that the relics just requires a) an AM warlord and then any AM CHARACTER can take one, does the DKoK Marshal fulfill this requirement as he is techincally an AM CHARACTER? If not, why? If I had a mixed detachment, I could have 1 AM CHARACTER as warlord and he could take the relic.

And then, one more thing. The Warlord Traits requires either a <REGIMENT>, MILITARUM TEMPESTUS or OFFICIO PREFECTUS CHARACTER. The DKOK keyword is about as defined as a <REGIMENT> as the other ones, could my DKOK officer take a Warlord trait? If not, is it because DKOK is not literally a <REGIMENT> or is it because of different publications? Can my DKOK Commisar with the OP CHARACTER keyword take one instead?

Thank you for all your help everyone, and the continued discussion.

Edit: I saw your point about the DKoK and usage of dataslates. Thing is, I don't need everything to have DKOK. I could have some DKoK units, because their "doctrine" is not dependent on it being a pure detachment, and if I wanted say Veterans, Pask or whatever in my Brigade, those specific C:AM units would not be able to take the DKoK keyword but I could still include them in the brigade as they share the AM or IMPERIUM keywords. I'm not asking whether or not I can actually take a DKOK Taurox, the list on pg. 55 is perfectly clear (and we could argue whether or not I am allowed to choose from the codex instead of the Index, but this is not what I am interested in, as I only use the Hydra unit from the Codex).
Edit123626: And just to be perfectly clear in my intentions, I don't want double doctrines. I want to be able to use stratagems, relics and warlord traits with my heavily gimped variant of the Imperial Guard, because Forge World is terrible at updating rules. Releasing errata next week fixing these issues would take very little time and solve a lot of problems, but it will probably happen somewhere along the release of 10th ed.

**Lance845**

Aenarian wrote:

This, of course, falls apart if we do not consider DKoK AM units, but this is also the root of my question. Nothing actually specifies this, and the codex just gives us rules with very little requirements that my DKoK force would fulfill if we follow my reasoning.

This is the issue right here. 1) It requires you to be correct on what you call a unclear statement and 2) nothing actually specifies that DKoK are AM units.

Nothing actually says DKoK are a <Regiment>.

Unfortunately, bring a permission based rule set, you very much need that one thing to go anywhere. And you don't have it.

**Aenarian**

Lance845 wrote:

This is the issue right here. 1) It requires you to be correct on what you call a unclear statement and 2) nothing actually specifies that DKoK are AM units.

Nothing actually says DKoK are a <Regiment>.

Unfortunately, bring a permission based rule set, you very much need that one thing to go anywhere. And you don't have it.

But then, does anything specify what an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is? I haven't found anything, and of course everyone knows that it is intended for it to be at least units from the codex itself, but if there is no such mention, does that mean that RAW units in the codex cannot benefit from the rules that refer to AM units? Codex: Space Marines actually tells you what a Space Marine unit is on pg. 194, but not what a SPACE MARINE unit is. I would like something like this.

**Dionysodorus**

Stephanius wrote:

No, you are misunderstanding army list. Rules wise FW army list and GW codex (minus fluff) are equivalent.
If you look at the IA Index referring to the AM army list in the GW Index Imperium 2, you see that FW calls that army list.
If you look at the Index Imperium 2 p.10, you see that GW even calls it Astra Miilitarum Army List and under that heading you find <Regiment>, Orders and Wargear lists, followed by the datasheets.
It is immaterial that the Codex fills more pages with more headlines and recycled graphics, it is still the AM army list = the AM codex.

The AM Codex defines an AM detachment as "any Detachment that includes only Astra Militarum units".
You assume that what is meant is "any units with the Faction Keyword Astra Miilitarum". I assume that what is meant is "only units from this codex".

I think you're switching between two completely different things here. You're not really providing any reason to think that the army list is more than the datasheets and some information useful for interpreting them. I've been fine with that throughout this thread. What you want to show but haven't is that the completely separate section of the AM codex that discusses doctrines is part of an "army list".

But yes, if you interpret "ASTRA MILITARUM unit" in a completely different way than is obviously meant by the rules in literally every other context where they refer to <keyword> units, then you can deny stratagems to DKoK detachments. I simply don't see where you have any reason at all to do this, though.

If your reading was right, why would they have to add the exceptions for units from other army lists that share the Faction Keywords?
Those are clarifications to avoid conflation, or in the AM codex case actually additional permissions for some units.

I can't make heads or tails of this. What other army lists are you talking about? And this seems backwards -- it's the exception that proves the rule, in its old-fashioned sense. The existence of exceptions suggests that those exceptions are necessary in order for the text to have the intended meaning.

Later in your post you talk about my take on RAI but I don't see that we disagree on this re: doctrines, though I fully expect FW to at some point explicitly state that DKoK can use generic AM stratagems.

**Lance845**

Aenarian wrote:
Lance845 wrote:

This is the issue right here. 1) It requires you to be correct on what you call a unclear statement and 2) nothing actually specifies that DKoK are AM units.

Nothing actually says DKoK are a <Regiment>.

Unfortunately, bring a permission based rule set, you very much need that one thing to go anywhere. And you don't have it.

But then, does anything specify what an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is? I haven't found anything, and of course everyone knows that it is intended for it to be at least units from the codex itself, but if there is no such mention, does that mean that RAW units in the codex cannot benefit from the rules that refer to AM units? Codex: Space Marines actually tells you what a Space Marine unit is on pg. 194, but not what a SPACE MARINE unit is. I would like something like this.

You are assigning value to the keywords they do not have. Faction keywords are only there to help define what can and cannot go into a detachment. They have no rules baring outside of that in terms of what does and does not compose a specific army list.

Something is a ASTRA MILITARUM unit because it has that faction keyword which only means it can be included in a Astra Militarum Detachment. Similarly, Deathwing Knights and Sanguinary Guard can join a Ultramarines Predator in a Adeptus Astartes detachment because they all have the ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction keyword.

That is it. That is the extent of the meaning and value of Faction Keywords.

It doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.

Dark Angles are their own army list. As are Grey Knights. Sharing ADEPTUS ASTARTES does not allow them to pull from codex SM rules.

**Aenarian**

Lance845 wrote:
You are assigning value to the keywords they do not have. Keywords, and specifically faction keywords, are only there to help define what can and cannot go into a detachment. They have no rules baring outside of that.

Something is a ASTRA MILITARUM unit because it has that faction keyword which only means it can be included in a Astra Militarum Detachment. Similarly, Deathwing Knights and Sanguinary Guard can join a Ultramarines Predator in a Adeptus Astartes detachment because they all have the ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction keyword.

That is it. That is the extent of the meaning and value of Faction Keywords.

It doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.

Alright, then follow my train of thought and please point out the mistakes for each one

1) By your above definition then, a Death Korps Marshal is an ASTRA MILITARUM unit because he has the relevant ASTRA MILITARUM keyword and is a unit.
2) If he and his friends, which are all AM units form a detachment, they would be an AM detachment as everyone has the AM keyword and I declared it as such. Maybe I had one unit that could not take the DKOK keyword but had the AM one, so I couldn't declare DKOK.
3) The Codex states that AM detachments can use stratagems and whatnot from the codex, exactly what they gain is less important here. Our detachment from 2) is an AM detachment.

If the first point is correct, we can continue. If not, a lot of stuff breaks as we don't actually know what an AM unit is unless we guess that it refers to units specifically within the codex that have the relevant keywords
If the second is correct, we can continue. If not, is there an argument as to why I can only do this with units from C:AM?

And finally, the third one. This one falls apart if we cannot apply the codex rules to our list from sources outside the codex. But if we just say that publications don't always apply to each other within the game, wouldn't there just be a lot of other pitfalls? If I fulfill requirements for rules from the codex but I cannot use them because I'm not allowed to actually use the book, what says that I'm allowed follow rules from a possible Cities of Death expansion book or other future publications, as I might not have explicit permission?

Am I correct in that your objection lies with point 3, as explained above?

**Stephanius**

Aenarian wrote:
Lance845 wrote:

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

Edit2: Just to make things clear, if anything is fully capitalised, ex. DKOK or ASTRA MILITARUM, it refers to the keywords while DKoK or Astra Militarum would refer to the army, and AM is always Astra Militarum.

Certainly, but the rules in this case are a bit unclear depending on how you look at different publications applying to each other.

Codex: Astra Militarum tells us a few things, namely that an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment is composed solely of ASTRA MILITARUM units, but does not really define the latter (at least from what I have seen). Now, I presume that an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is then one with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, but I could be wrong (e.g, it could refer to those within the Codex only, or from GW publications, or whatever). But, if my interpretation is correct, we could argue like this:

1) If a detachment consists solely of units from the AM codex with this keyword, or includes the explicit exceptions given in the codex (priests etc.) it is an AM detachment.
a) If a detachment includes 9 units from C:AM and 1 from any other codex, it is not an AM detachment.

2) If we include one or more units from the Death Korps list in this original detachment, everything still has the AM keyword.
a) Following my interpretation, this is then still an AM detachment.

3) Because we have an AM detachment, we can use the stratagems.

4) Because we have the required keyword on most of our units (e.g. the Jury Rigging stratagem requires an AM VEHICLE), we can use them on our Krieg units that fulfill these requirements.

This, of course, falls apart if we do not consider DKoK AM units, but this is also the root of my question. Nothing actually specifies this, and the codex just gives us rules with very little requirements that my DKoK force would fulfill if we follow my reasoning. So, is there actually anything that gives a clear answer, because right now, point 2) seems to be the point of contention here and I haven't found a strictly defined answer. I understand the point about it being different books and GW ignoring FW rules, but that argument is not really logically sound in my opinion. We have some apocalypse rules for FW units. And I see the case where the Codex would not refer to anything outside of it, but nowhere is this stated and if we just look at the rulebook, codices and other publications as a library of rules, I should be able to apply it from any book if I can apply it from one, provided I fulfill any requirements and follow any restrictions.

I noticed that the relics just requires a) an AM warlord and then any AM CHARACTER can take one, does the DKoK Marshal fulfill this requirement as he is techincally an AM CHARACTER? If not, why? If I had a mixed detachment, I could have 1 AM CHARACTER as warlord and he could take the relic.

And then, one more thing. The Warlord Traits requires either a <REGIMENT>, MILITARUM TEMPESTUS or OFFICIO PREFECTUS CHARACTER. The DKOK keyword is about as defined as a <REGIMENT> as the other ones, could my DKOK officer take a Warlord trait? If not, is it because DKOK is not literally a <REGIMENT> or is it because of different publications? Can my DKOK Commisar with the OP CHARACTER keyword take one instead?

Thank you for all your help everyone, and the continued discussion.

Edit: I saw your point about the DKoK and usage of dataslates. Thing is, I don't need everything to have DKOK. I could have some DKoK units, because their "doctrine" is not dependent on it being a pure detachment, and if I wanted say Veterans, Pask or whatever in my Brigade, those specific C:AM units would not be able to take the DKoK keyword but I could still include them in the brigade as they share the AM or IMPERIUM keywords. I'm not asking whether or not I can actually take a DKOK Taurox, the list on pg. 55 is perfectly clear (and we could argue whether or not I am allowed to choose from the codex instead of the Index, but this is not what I am interested in, as I only use the Hydra unit from the Codex).
Edit123626: And just to be perfectly clear in my intentions, I don't want double doctrines. I want to be able to use stratagems, relics and warlord traits with my heavily gimped variant of the Imperial Guard, because Forge World is terrible at updating rules. Releasing errata next week fixing these issues would take very little time and solve a lot of problems, but it will probably happen somewhere along the release of 10th ed.

Sorry for not quoting cleanly, but there is a logic error in your detachment building above. You do not have any permission to add a DKoK unit to a battleforged AM list. As stated on page 84 of the AM Codex: "...the codex contains all of the datasheets that you will need to fight battles with your Astra Militarum miniatures,..."

Certainly a White Dwarf or in fact the IA Indexes AM addendum can add units to your selection, but without such a permission "all AM datasheets" is defined as AM Codex content only.

**Aenarian**

Stephanius wrote:

Sorry for not quoting cleanly, but there is a logic error in your detachment building above. You do not have any permission to add a DKoK unit to a battleforged AM list. As stated on page 84 of the AM Codex: "...the codex contains all of the datasheets that you will need to fight battles with your Astra Militarum miniatures,..."

Certainly a White Dwarf or in fact the IA Indexes AM addendum can add units to your selection, but without such a permission "all AM datasheets" is defined as AM Codex content only.

But a battle-forged army list just requires that they must have keywords in common, which they have (both IMPERIUM and AM), pg. 214 of the rulebook. This also states that you must fulfill the requirements of pg. 240. This says that I must organise all units into detachments, and how I go about doing that (battlefield role and faction limitations), and then it refers to the detachment rules. All of the listed ones require my units to be of the same factions, and my DKoK units have at least three factions they belong to: IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM and DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.

As such, I could just say that they are all IMPERIUM and use them together with Dark Angels in a detachment, or say that they are all ASTRA MILITARUM and use them together with Astopaths or other units from the codex, or just say that they are all DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG and use only the provided list, no? It even gives an example with a Space Marine Captain, which states that it could be a part of either a Detachment where everyone is the IMPERIUM, or one where everyone is from ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

Anyway, I'm off to bed and will probably continue tomorrow. Have a good day or night, wherever all of you are from!

Edit: also the wording on pg 84 is just states that these are all I need, but not all that I am allowed, so I'm not sure how much I would trust it.

**JohnnyHell**

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.

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.

Are you still banging this drum?

They do the same thing any Index does: point to Datasheets. And what do we know happens to Datasheets after a Codex is launched? They get overwritten (GW's word) by the Codex ones. You're still ignoring GW's own directions.

You may think you're being clever but you're just being incorrect. The Astra Militarum Datasheets that DKoK et al can select from were in Index Imperium 2, but once updated it's assumed you're using the Codex versions. This is what GW have told us, and I'm STILL waiting for any cogent argument to support your POV. Been about two days and two threads so I'm assuming you don't have anything you can back up with rules.

**JohnnyHell**

Stephanius wrote:
Aenarian wrote:
Lance845 wrote:

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

Edit2: Just to make things clear, if anything is fully capitalised, ex. DKOK or ASTRA MILITARUM, it refers to the keywords while DKoK or Astra Militarum would refer to the army, and AM is always Astra Militarum.

Certainly, but the rules in this case are a bit unclear depending on how you look at different publications applying to each other.

Codex: Astra Militarum tells us a few things, namely that an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment is composed solely of ASTRA MILITARUM units, but does not really define the latter (at least from what I have seen). Now, I presume that an ASTRA MILITARUM unit is then one with the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword, but I could be wrong (e.g, it could refer to those within the Codex only, or from GW publications, or whatever). But, if my interpretation is correct, we could argue like this:

1) If a detachment consists solely of units from the AM codex with this keyword, or includes the explicit exceptions given in the codex (priests etc.) it is an AM detachment.
a) If a detachment includes 9 units from C:AM and 1 from any other codex, it is not an AM detachment.

2) If we include one or more units from the Death Korps list in this original detachment, everything still has the AM keyword.
a) Following my interpretation, this is then still an AM detachment.

3) Because we have an AM detachment, we can use the stratagems.

4) Because we have the required keyword on most of our units (e.g. the Jury Rigging stratagem requires an AM VEHICLE), we can use them on our Krieg units that fulfill these requirements.

This, of course, falls apart if we do not consider DKoK AM units, but this is also the root of my question. Nothing actually specifies this, and the codex just gives us rules with very little requirements that my DKoK force would fulfill if we follow my reasoning. So, is there actually anything that gives a clear answer, because right now, point 2) seems to be the point of contention here and I haven't found a strictly defined answer. I understand the point about it being different books and GW ignoring FW rules, but that argument is not really logically sound in my opinion. We have some apocalypse rules for FW units. And I see the case where the Codex would not refer to anything outside of it, but nowhere is this stated and if we just look at the rulebook, codices and other publications as a library of rules, I should be able to apply it from any book if I can apply it from one, provided I fulfill any requirements and follow any restrictions.

I noticed that the relics just requires a) an AM warlord and then any AM CHARACTER can take one, does the DKoK Marshal fulfill this requirement as he is techincally an AM CHARACTER? If not, why? If I had a mixed detachment, I could have 1 AM CHARACTER as warlord and he could take the relic.

And then, one more thing. The Warlord Traits requires either a <REGIMENT>, MILITARUM TEMPESTUS or OFFICIO PREFECTUS CHARACTER. The DKOK keyword is about as defined as a <REGIMENT> as the other ones, could my DKOK officer take a Warlord trait? If not, is it because DKOK is not literally a <REGIMENT> or is it because of different publications? Can my DKOK Commisar with the OP CHARACTER keyword take one instead?

Thank you for all your help everyone, and the continued discussion.

Edit: I saw your point about the DKoK and usage of dataslates. Thing is, I don't need everything to have DKOK. I could have some DKoK units, because their "doctrine" is not dependent on it being a pure detachment, and if I wanted say Veterans, Pask or whatever in my Brigade, those specific C:AM units would not be able to take the DKoK keyword but I could still include them in the brigade as they share the AM or IMPERIUM keywords. I'm not asking whether or not I can actually take a DKOK Taurox, the list on pg. 55 is perfectly clear (and we could argue whether or not I am allowed to choose from the codex instead of the Index, but this is not what I am interested in, as I only use the Hydra unit from the Codex).
Edit123626: And just to be perfectly clear in my intentions, I don't want double doctrines. I want to be able to use stratagems, relics and warlord traits with my heavily gimped variant of the Imperial Guard, because Forge World is terrible at updating rules. Releasing errata next week fixing these issues would take very little time and solve a lot of problems, but it will probably happen somewhere along the release of 10th ed.

Sorry for not quoting cleanly, but there is a logic error in your detachment building above. You do not have any permission to add a DKoK unit to a battleforged AM list. As stated on page 84 of the AM Codex: "...the codex contains all of the datasheets that you will need to fight battles with your Astra Militarum miniatures,..."

Certainly a White Dwarf or in fact the IA Indexes AM addendum can add units to your selection, but without such a permission "all AM datasheets" is defined as AM Codex content only.

And that is an overly-literal reading of what amounts to sales copy; taking it as rules isn't appropriate. The sheer existence of the FW IA Index demonstrates that the AM Codex *isn't* the sole source of AM Datasheets. The sentence you quote is in no way part of the rules. It also doesn't define "all AM Datasheets" - it simply tells you the book has all you need if you're a regular Guard player... which for DKoK isn't true, so see above.

**Lance845**

Aenarian wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
You are assigning value to the keywords they do not have. Keywords, and specifically faction keywords, are only there to help define what can and cannot go into a detachment. They have no rules baring outside of that.

Something is a ASTRA MILITARUM unit because it has that faction keyword which only means it can be included in a Astra Militarum Detachment. Similarly, Deathwing Knights and Sanguinary Guard can join a Ultramarines Predator in a Adeptus Astartes detachment because they all have the ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction keyword.

That is it. That is the extent of the meaning and value of Faction Keywords.

It doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.

Alright, then follow my train of thought and please point out the mistakes for each one

1) By your above definition then, a Death Korps Marshal is an ASTRA MILITARUM unit because he has the relevant ASTRA MILITARUM keyword and is a unit.
2) If he and his friends, which are all AM units form a detachment, they would be an AM detachment as everyone has the AM keyword and I declared it as such. Maybe I had one unit that could not take the DKOK keyword but had the AM one, so I couldn't declare DKOK.

Here is your first mistake. When you pick a detachment you choose a faction keyword that defines it. It does not inherently become a AM detachment because everyone happens to be AM. You pick what it is and then you work with the restrictions and benefits you have given yourself. All units must have that keyword to be battleforged. A Astra Militarum detachment gains no doctrine. However, a Cadian one does.

3) The Codex states that AM detachments can use stratagems and whatnot from the codex, exactly what they gain is less important here. Our detachment from 2) is an AM detachment.

See above. A pure AM detachment gets the permissions of a purely AM detachment. But if you choose to make your detachment DKoK then it is NOT a AM detachment and gains no rules allowances from the codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnnyHell wrote:

Sorry for not quoting cleanly, but there is a logic error in your detachment building above. You do not have any permission to add a DKoK unit to a battleforged AM list. As stated on page 84 of the AM Codex: "...the codex contains all of the datasheets that you will need to fight battles with your Astra Militarum miniatures,..."

Certainly a White Dwarf or in fact the IA Indexes AM addendum can add units to your selection, but without such a permission "all AM datasheets" is defined as AM Codex content only.

And that is an overly-literal reading of what amounts to sales copy; taking it as rules isn't appropriate. The sheer existence of the FW IA Index demonstrates that the AM Codex *isn't* the sole source of AM Datasheets. The sentence you quote is in no way part of the rules. It also doesn't define "all AM Datasheets" - it simply tells you the book has all you need if you're a regular Guard player... which for DKoK isn't true, so see above.

Agree with this. There are other sources for AM datasheets otherwise none of the FW stuff would work at all. DKoK CAN be a part of a AM detachment. AM detachments do not gain doctines. <Regiment> detachments do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am going to reiterate my position here for clarification because we seem to be coming to a head here.

1) DKoK are not part of the AM codex and are not a <regiment> as a rules entity. None of the forgeworld armies are a part of their codex groups.

2) RAW, a DKoK Detachment gains no benefit what-so-ever from the codex. But HIWPI is to allow them the use of generic Warlord traits, relics, and strategems. That seems reasonable to me. But it's not RAW. It's just me being a good sport.

3) A AM detachment gets all the generic stuff by RAW which can be composed of any AM units. DKoK and Elysians have the AM Keyword. They can be included in the detachment. But that doesn't make it a DKoK army. And nobody in this detachment gets a doctrine.

This thread is about if DKoK or Elysians get doctrines. RAW, they don't. And there is no way for you to give one to them.

**Aenarian**

Lance845 wrote:
<Going through these one at a time>

Well, the question I had was always whether I get non-doctrinal benefits such as the ability to get stratagems, the ability to pick relics and the ability to pick warlord traits, not if I get doctrines which seem to be what you are trying to answer, also I think you've misunderstood my questions.

Here is your first mistake. When you pick a detachment you choose a faction keyword that defines it. It does not inherently become a AM detachment because everyone happens to be AM. You pick what it is and then you work with the restrictions and benefits you have given yourself. All units must have that keyword to be battleforged. A Astra Militarum detachment gains no doctrine. However, a Cadian one does.

Isn't this exactly what I said? That I pick it as an AM detachment, which would mean that I would get the codex benefits that only require this (stratagems) unless something forbids me from accessing them because they are "codex rules".

I am going to reiterate my position here for clarification because we seem to be coming to a head here.

1) DKoK are not part of the AM codex and are not a <regiment> as a rules entity. None of the forgeworld armies are a part of their codex groups.

2) RAW, a DKoK Detachment gains no benefit what-so-ever from the codex. But HIWPI is to allow them the use of generic Warlord traits, relics, and strategems. That seems reasonable to me. But it's not RAW. It's just me being a good sport.

3) A AM detachment gets all the generic stuff by RAW which can be composed of any AM units. DKoK and Elysians have the AM Keyword. They can be included in the detachment. But that doesn't make it a DKoK army. And nobody in this detachment gets a doctrine.

This thread is about if DKoK or Elysians get doctrines. RAW, they don't. And there is no way for you to give one to them.

So, what I gather from this is simply that I RaW do not get access to the codex benefits I want (stratagems) because I am not part of the codex group, correct? Well, then it answers my question anyway although it becomes a bit unclear why. Anyway, I'll start a new thread

**Lance845**

Aenarian wrote:

So, what I gather from this is simply that I RaW do not get access to the codex benefits I want (stratagems) because I am not part of the codex group, correct? Well, then it answers my question anyway although it becomes a bit unclear why. Anyway, I'll start a new thread

If you make a AM detachment and decide to fill it with nothing but DKoK you would get the AM general benefits including the generic warlord traits, strategems and relics. BUT if any of DKoKs rules requires a DKoK detachment you will loose those. You give up specific faction bonuses for broader faction options. Not making use of those units is your choice at that point. That would be the RAW.

Again, I personally would be fine with a DKoK making use of those traits as a DKoK detachment until such time as they get their own traits from their own book. But it's not technically allowed and you cannot expect that from your opponents.

**Aenarian**

Lance845 wrote:
Aenarian wrote:

So, what I gather from this is simply that I RaW do not get access to the codex benefits I want (stratagems) because I am not part of the codex group, correct? Well, then it answers my question anyway although it becomes a bit unclear why. Anyway, I'll start a new thread

If you make a AM detachment and decide to fill it with nothing but DKoK you would get the AM general benefits including the generic warlord traits, strategems and relics. BUT if any of DKoKs rules requires a DKoK detachment you will loose those. You give up specific faction bonuses for broader faction options. Not making use of those units is your choice at that point. That would be the RAW.

Again, I personally would be fine with a DKoK making use of those traits as a DKoK detachment until such time as they get their own traits from their own book. But it's not technically allowed and you cannot expect that from your opponents.

Alright, thank you. I started another thread but it seems my question got answered anyway. And just as a note, all units from the Death Korps list has the keywords IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM and DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG, with two units also having ORDO PREFECTUS.

**Sgt_Smudge**

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/40K_8th_ed_Update_Imperial_Armour_Index_Forces_of_the_Astra_Militarum_ver_1.1.pdf

Well, FW have released their FAQ, and no, DKoK, Elysians and Renegades can't take Doctrines or anything regiment specific.

**Captyn_Bob**

Not even stratagems.
I guess they could make use of them if you had an AM detachment to unlock it.

**Kolden**

I wish the question and subsequent answer addressed non-regiment specific strategems, relics, and warlord traits. The answer seems to be saying that the DKoK and Elysian entries in the IA index and C:AM are separate and can't be used in conjunction with one another, but since it's only addressing "regiment specific" stuff, that's still grey area issues left unresolved.