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.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
At the risk of kicking a hornets nest when it's down,what are people's thoughts on doctrines interacting with the 3 forge world regiments?

I thiiiiink it has been cleared up in an official FAQ that the FW Regiments have their own rules so don't benefit from Codex Doctrine rules too.

Edit: yup: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/imperial_armour_index_forces_of_the_astra_militarum.pdf

Ah yes i'd missed that. Answers my question, still not sure if it's intended to restrict All stratagems or just regiment specific ones.

You can use all but the Doctrines and Regiment-specific stuff.

blaktoof wrote:
If you are using a rule to give an unit an ability it cannot normally have by making up a regiment name you are going against the FAQ.

RAW making up a regiment still does not allow you to give storm trooper doctrine to a baneblade because the base rules do not allow it. You are trying to give an ability to an unit that cannot normally have it which the FAQ is directly addressing.

The restriction is only militarum tempestus scions can get storm trooper doctrine, and any unit with regiment cannot pick that. In the codex a bandeblade cannot get storm trooper, so per the FAQ making up a regiment cannot allow you to give an unit an ability it normally would not be able to get.

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <REGIMENT> and/or <CHAPTER> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

Have you seen the example in the codex? They make up a name and assign a doctrine from the list. These is no circumventing of restrictions.

Giving baneblade Storm troopers is circumventing restrictions.

The codex may not restrict that directly, however the FAQ does.

Circumventing what restriction? There is no restriction against giving you Baneblade a homebrew regiment name that is completely different from all existing faction names. There is no restriction on which doctrine you can assign to your homebrew regiment.

Therefore, assigning your Baneblade the regiment "Banebladus Temporus" and assigning that regiment the Storm Troopers doctrine does not violate any restrictions in the book, and is perfectly legal.

blaktoof wrote:
If you are using a rule to give an unit an ability it cannot normally have by making up a regiment name you are going against the FAQ.

RAW making up a regiment still does not allow you to give storm trooper doctrine to a baneblade because the base rules do not allow it. You are trying to give an ability to an unit that cannot normally have it which the FAQ is directly addressing.

The restriction is only militarum tempestus scions can get storm trooper doctrine, and any unit with regiment cannot pick that. In the codex a bandeblade cannot get storm trooper, so per the FAQ making up a regiment cannot allow you to give an unit an ability it normally would not be able to get.

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <REGIMENT> and/or <CHAPTER> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

This.

I don't see how these round about ways suggested are not in fact "circumvent[ing] the restrictions on what abilities affect what units."

Blaktoof, did you actually read what I posted?

I definitively prove otherwise.

Militarum Tempestus can ONLY have the Storm Troopers Doctrine. However, a custom regiment, with a custom keyword, can have whichever doctrine they want - they just can't have Relic, unique Characters, or Warlord Traits.

The exact same thing happens with Space Marine Chapters. Say I have Celestial Lions. They're a canon chapter with no set doctrines. According to GW, I can use ANY Chapter Tactics to represent them, but they don't have the actual Keyword of that Chapter. For example, I want my CL to have Ultramarines doctrines. However, they DON'T get the <Ultramarines> keyword - they don't get to take Guilliman or anything like that.

So, back to guardsmen. I have the <Salvar Chem-Dogs>. Canon regiment, no rules. GW SAYS I can pick whichever doctrine I want to represent them. There is NOTHING stopping me from picking the Storm Troopers Doctrine. However, there IS something stopping me from making my keyword <Militarum Tempestus> - but unless I want Relics and Warlord Traits, I don't need it.

Your example of "no picking a keyword for in game benefit" doesn't work here. Your example is from two seperate armies entirely. You're trying to make Space Marines have a <regiment> keyword. Whatever the wording of the Space Marine keyword is, it CANNOT interact with something that's an entirely different faction. So sure, you CAN have <Emperor's Chosen> Chapter and <Emperor's Chosen> Regiment, but because one is a CHAPTER and the other is a REGIMENT, they can't interact.

With OP's situation, no keywords are involved at all.

Thanks Smudge. I think that was a better way of phrasing it than I had.

Here's the logic, step by step. If you don't believe you can give your Baneblade the Storm Troopers doctrine, please point out which step you think is wrong, and explain your rules basis for believing it's wrong.

1. For any unit with the <REGIMENT> faction keyword, you can select a cannon regiment or make up your own regiment, so long as it isn't on the list of excluded options.

2. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS is a cannon regiment and is not an excluded option.

3. Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> faction keyword.

4. Based on 1, 2, and 3: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment.

5. If your regiment does not have a pre-defined doctrine, you can select a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum for your regiment to use.

6. SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS do not have a pre-defined doctrine.

7. Storm Troopers is a doctrine from Codex: Astra Militarum.

8. Based on 5, 6, and 7: You can select the Storm Troopers doctrine for the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment to use.

9. Based on 4 and 8: Baneblades can be given the SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS regiment and use the Storm Troopers doctrine.

Medicinal Carrots and others have the analysis spot on. As much as we may want to believe that this is an oversight on GW's part, the RAW makes it completely legal. Just remember that if you put Tempestus Scions in the same detachment as your Stormtrooper Doctrine SAVLAR CHEM-DOGS that they don't get to benefit from Stormtrooper Doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
Giving baneblade Storm troopers is circumventing restrictions.

The codex may not restrict that directly, however the FAQ does.

Which restriction is being circumvented, Blacktoof?

The Storm Troopers Doctrine does not limit itself to only the MT. The MT are restricted to only using the Storm Troopers Doctrine. A limit for one keyword does not limit units without that keyword.

Giving an unit an ability it cannot normally have is circumventing a restriction.

Can a baneblade have the storm trooper doctrine with any of the non-made up regiments?

The only answer is no.

If you try to circumvent that by making up a regiment you have broken the FAQ rules as written. The baneblade is an unit, you are trying to give it an ability it cannot normally have, storm trooper, by making up a regiment. The FAQ specifically is addressing that when it says you can't make up a regiment to give units abilities they cannot normally have.

The "analysis" above by others do not take into account the designers commentary FAQ, nor do they take into account that a baneblade cannot normally be given the ability stormtrooper- making them all flawed.

The only way to give them stormtrooper doctrine would be if it was a valid choice for a normal baneblade in a non made up regiment.

So again it is not a valid option.

I'd say it would be circumventing a restriction when you can say " you cant give a unit a certain ability normally, but if you do this instead, you can give it this ability"

It's not a matter of "is the net benefit positive/negative, as in, are there trade off being made i.e. no relics or named characters" but simply, "is the unit gaining something it otherwise cant normally?"

blaktoof wrote:
Giving an unit an ability it cannot normally have is circumventing a restriction.

Can a baneblade have the storm trooper doctrine with any of the non-made up regiments?

The only answer is no.

Why? Where does it state this? Where does it state the Baneblade cannot have the Storm Trooper Doctrine?

Regimental Doctrines do not restrict any Vehicle from using it. The Doctrine itself does not restrict any Vehicle from using it. The Doctrine does not exclude any homemade <Regiments> from using the Storm Troopers Doctrine. The only restriction the codex provides is trying to give <Regiment: Armageddon> the Storm Trooper Doctrine or from allowing Militarum Tempestus to use any Doctrine BUT Storm Troopers, and then only if all other units are <Regiment: Militarum Tempestus> as well.

blaktoof wrote:
The "analysis" above by others do not take into account the designers commentary FAQ, nor do they take into account that a baneblade cannot normally be given the ability stormtrooper- making them all flawed.

The only way to give them stormtrooper doctrine would be if it was a valid choice for a normal baneblade in a non made up regiment.

So again it is not a valid option.

Again, why? Where does it state this restriction?

The only Designer's Commentary quote provided so far is about combining <Regiment> and <Chapter> Keywords to be the same thing in a detachment or about treating a <Regiment> as something different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
I'd say it would be circumventing a restriction when you can say " you cant give a unit a certain ability normally, but if you do this instead, you can give it this ability"

It's not a matter of "is the net benefit positive/negative, as in, are there trade off being made i.e. no relics or named characters" but simply, "is the unit gaining something it otherwise cant normally?"

Which is true, but where is the circumvention actually happening? Where does it state that homemade <Regiments> cannot use the Storm Trooper Doctrine?

Agree with Charistoph, the FAQ only really made clear that if you give a chapter and a regiment the same custom name, you can’t use that similar keyword to use, for example, guard stratagems on space marine units


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is literally nothing wrong with giving a Baneblade or any other unit the storm troopers doctrine.

Blaktoof, tell me what restriction this circumvents.

The only restrictions I see are:
1. Units cannot have the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword as their <Regiment> keyword.
2. Units with the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword can only use the Storm Troopers doctrine.
3. Relics, Warlord Traits and Strategems can only be used by units with the respective <Regiment>, not if they use the associated Doctrine.
4. Keywords cannot be used to give a Faction bonuses from a different Faction's keywords (ie, using a custom <Regiment> keyword to benefit from a <Chapter> keyword).

So, which rule does this break?

Also, if you're so insistent that <Salvar Chem-Dogs> can't have the Storm Troopers doctrine, what doctrine DO the <Salvar Chem-Dogs> get? None? That stands in opposition to what GW has said about Space Marines AND Guardsmen.
So me using the Born Soldiers doctrine (the one <Cadians> are locked into) is okay for the <Salvar Chem-Dogs>, but taking Storm Troopers is bad because...?

The ONLY restriction is that Storm Troopers HAS to be taken by units with the <Militarum Tempestus> (which is exactly the same as every other pre-generated <Regiment>, and that <Militarum Tempestus> cannot be chosen as a <Regiment>. This does not matter at all.

Can a baneblade be given the stormtrooper doctrine without making up a regiment?

If the answer is no, then per the FAQ you are circumventing the rules to give an unit an ability it normally cannot take.

That is the rule you are breaking, normally a baneblade is restricted to taking only certain doctrines, you are trying to give it one it cannot normally take by making up a regiment. Which the FAQ says you cannot do..

Can an unit baneblade normally take the ability stormtrooper as it's doctrine without making up a regiment to get that ability?

If the answer is yes, then you are allowed to take stormtrooper for a baneblade when you make up a regiment.

If the answer is no then you are circumventing a restriction normally in the rules to give the unit an ability it cannot normally get.

The answer is either yes or no.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lithuex wrote:
Agree with Charistoph, the FAQ only really made clear that if you give a chapter and a regiment the same custom name, you can’t use that similar keyword to use, for example, guard stratagems on space marine units


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is literally nothing wrong with giving a Baneblade or any other unit the storm troopers doctrine.

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units.

An unit getting an ability it normally is restricted from having by making up a faction name is what the FAQ verbatim covers.

blaktoof wrote:
Can a baneblade be given the stormtrooper doctrine without making up a regiment?

If the answer is no, then per the FAQ you are circumventing the rules to give an unit an ability it normally cannot take.

That is the rule you are breaking, normally a baneblade is restricted to taking only certain doctrines, you are trying to give it one it cannot normally take by making up a regiment. Which the FAQ says you cannot do..

Can an unit baneblade normally take the ability stormtrooper as it's doctrine without making up a regiment to get that ability?

If the answer is yes, then you are allowed to take stormtrooper for a baneblade when you make up a regiment.

If the answer is no then you are circumventing a restriction normally in the rules to give the unit an ability it cannot normally get.

The answer is either yes or no.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lithuex wrote:
Agree with Charistoph, the FAQ only really made clear that if you give a chapter and a regiment the same custom name, you can’t use that similar keyword to use, for example, guard stratagems on space marine units


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is literally nothing wrong with giving a Baneblade or any other unit the storm troopers doctrine.

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units.

An unit getting an ability it normally is restricted from having by making up a faction name is what the FAQ verbatim covers.

1) Yes. The Baneblade can be given the Storm Trooper Doctrine without making up a regiment. Here is my example.

My regiment is Savlar Chem-Dogs. That is a Games Workshop Regiment, with art and a fluff blurb in the Games Workshop codex.
My Games Workshop regiment has no proscribed Regimental Doctrine, so I choose one.
I choose the Storm Troopers Doctrine.
My Savlar Chem-Dogs Baneblade now has the Storm Troopers Doctrine, but is not Militarum Tempestus, and I have made nothing up.

2) Baneblades are not restricted to specific Doctrines; they receive the same doctrine as their <Regiment>, so they are as restricted as whatever Regiment you choose is, unless they are in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment.

3) Yes, a Baneblade can normally take the Storm Trooper Doctrine while using a G.W. official Regiment. The answer is yes.

blaktoof wrote:Can a baneblade be given the stormtrooper doctrine without making up a regiment?

If the answer is no, then per the FAQ you are circumventing the rules to give an unit an ability it normally cannot take.

That is the rule you are breaking, normally a baneblade is restricted to taking only certain doctrines, you are trying to give it one it cannot normally take by making up a regiment. Which the FAQ says you cannot do..

Can an unit baneblade normally take the ability stormtrooper as it's doctrine without making up a regiment to get that ability?

If the answer is yes, then you are allowed to take stormtrooper for a baneblade when you make up a regiment.

If the answer is no then you are circumventing a restriction normally in the rules to give the unit an ability it cannot normally get.

The answer is either yes or no.

You're making rules up here. Making up a regiment and choosing a doctrine is 100% encouraged by GW. Why don't you understand this?

The Baneblade can ABSOLUTELY get the ability, because of the example I showed. You choose the doctrine (which you can always do UNLESS the regiment you have locks you into one) which best suits what you want. It just so happens that the pre-generated regiment associated with one of the abilities CANNOT be chosen as the <Regiment> - their Doctrine can.
Therefore, the Baneblade can 100% get this Doctrine.

It's no different to saying "I have <Salvar Chem-Dogs> and they'll use the Born Soldiers doctrine. Or is that banned by you because...?

You're pretending that all Regiments MUST be one of the pre-generated ones, and that this is the only way to get Doctrines. This is not true.

Lithuex wrote:
Agree with Charistoph, the FAQ only really made clear that if you give a chapter and a regiment the same custom name, you can’t use that similar keyword to use, for example, guard stratagems on space marine units


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is literally nothing wrong with giving a Baneblade or any other unit the storm troopers doctrine.

A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units.

An unit getting an ability it normally is restricted from having by making up a faction name is what the FAQ verbatim covers.

So then, what is your view on actually having a keyword that isn't <Cadia> <Catacha> <Mordian> <Valhalla> <Tallarn> <Vostroya> <Armageddon> or <Militarum Tempestus>? That they can't EVER have a Doctrine, because they don't have the right keyword? Is that it? You must be so lovely to people with homebrew factions.

Let's apply this to another example: Space Marine Chapters.

I want Guilliman in my <Chapter>, but I can't have him without making my keyword something specific. The only way to have <Guilliman> is to have the <Ultramarines> keyword. By what you say, I'm circumventing the rules by making my keyword <Ultramarines> so I can have something I can't normally access?

I mean, let's just change a few words around in your main piece of "evidence": "Can I take Guilliman in my army without choosing a Chapter?"
No?! Well in that case, I'm circumventing the rules by changing my keyword to give me something I can't normally take!

The FAQ deals with things like having the <Ultramarines> Regiment benefit from Guilliman's aura. It is NOT there to say "yeah, your custom guard regiment can't have any doctrines because they're a custom regiment".

So, I'll direct you back to what I posted - what am I missing on my list?

Heck, you can even point to the Praetorian Guard, who have official GW models you can play in GW stores and can choose the Storm Troopers Doctrine.

In fact, I think that'd be a neat way of demonstrating their difference from Mordians. If Mordians are Prussians with the Dreyse Needle Gun, then the Praetorians are Brits with the Martini-Henry .45 calibre breachloader, which would in fact have a higher rate of fire and therefore a 6+ to hit could let your trooper snag in that extra shot over, say, a Mordian.

Those are made up regiments in 8th.

A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword.

Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper.

You are trying to circumvent a restriction in place by the rules by making up a chapter.

Which the FAQ says you cannot do.

blaktoof wrote:
Those are made up regiments in 8th.

A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword.

Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper.

You are trying to circumvent a restriction in place by the rules by making up a chapter.

Which the FAQ says you cannot do.

How the hell is Savlar Chem-Dogs a "made up regiment"? Should I point you to the spot in the codex where their name, artwork, and fluff blurb is? Or the Warhammer Community article that talks about them?

"A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword. Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper." - these statements show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Guard Codex works.

1) Is correct. Militarum Tempestus cannot be chosen as a replacement for the <Regiment> keyword. This is why a regular Company Commander can't have the MT warlord trait, and why a unit of Veterans will never benefit from the Superior Intelligence stratagem.

2) is not correct. You do not have to take Militarum Tempestus as your regiment keyword to get the Storm Troopers doctrine any more than you have to pick Armageddon as your regiment to have the Industrial Efficiency doctrine. My 2nd Concordian Armoured has the "Brutal Strength" doctrine, but is not Catachan. Similarly, the Savlar Chem-Dogs could have the "Storm Troopers" doctrine without being Militarum Tempestus.

In fact, to suggest that a regiment Keyword is the same thing as a doctrine choice is to completely disallow people from playing anything other than the existing 8 (I think) regiments, because you could never replace the keyword with anything other than Armageddon, Cadia, Mordian, etc. and still get the doctrine.

Your number 2 point is false.

You are taking an ability on an unit that cannot normally take it by creating a regiment. The FAQ directly addresses this as not being allowed.

Your final point is not what is being discussed at all.

You can make up a regiment and use any doctrine that is a normal choice for a regiment, however stormtrooper is not one of those due to it not being an option for any of the non made up regiments ie you cannot replace regiment with militarum tempestus so normally any unit with regiment cannot get stormtrooper.

P.84 of the guard codex tells the reader that regiment cannot be replaced with militarum Tempestus, therefore any unit with regiment is normally restricted to not being able to select stormtrooper.

blaktoof wrote:
Those are made up regiments in 8th.

A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword.

Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper.

You are trying to circumvent a restriction in place by the rules by making up a chapter.

Which the FAQ says you cannot do.

The FAQ says you can't choose a Regiment or Chapter keyword to try to circumvent restrictions. That FAQ question does not, however, state that you have any limit on the Doctrine you can choose. If Storm Troopers is listed as a Doctrine and you are told that you can choose that Doctrine if you are playing a regiment that is not listed for what doctrine it uses, then you can choose the Storm Troopers doctrine. You need to cite something that puts a restriction on the doctrine in order to keep a regiment from taking that doctrine. So far, there has not been anything so specify that only Militarum Tempestus may have the Storm Troopers doctrine. Until that is so, it is a legitimate choice. Somebody could name their regiment Clone War Survivors With Trademarks Deliberately Filed Off, and it's perfectly legal for them to choose the Storm Troopers doctrine.

If you are going to disagree, please provide the rules quote that [specifically states that only Militarum Tempestus can take the Storm Troopers doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
Your number 2 point is false.

You are taking an ability on an unit that cannot normally take it by creating a regiment. The FAQ directly addresses this as not being allowed.

Your final point is not what is being discussed at all.

You can make up a regiment and use any doctrine that is a normal choice for a regiment, however stormtrooper is not one of those due to it not being an option for any of the non made up regiments ie you cannot replace regiment with militarum tempestus so normally any unit with regiment cannot get stormtrooper.

Can you prove that the Storm Trooper Doctrine cannot be taken by any regiment other than Militarum Tempestus? Because all I see is proof that Militarum Tempestus has to take stormtrooper, and cannot replace the regiment keywords.

Nowhere does it say "Only" Militarum Tempestus can have the Storm Trooper doctrine.

Other than the restriction on point.84 of the Astra militarum codex that prevents a player from replacing regiment with militarum Tempestus, which prevents units with regiment keyword such as a baneblade from taking the storm trooper doctrine.

Can a baneblade normally replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to take storm trooper?

Yes or no?

If the answer is no then making up a regiment to take stormtrooper is circumvententing a restriction to get an ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Your number 2 point is false.

You are taking an ability on an unit that cannot normally take it by creating a regiment. The FAQ directly addresses this as not being allowed.

Your final point is not what is being discussed at all.

You can make up a regiment and use any doctrine that is a normal choice for a regiment, however stormtrooper is not one of those due to it not being an option for any of the non made up regiments ie you cannot replace regiment with militarum tempestus so normally any unit with regiment cannot get stormtrooper.

Can you prove that the Storm Trooper Doctrine cannot be taken by any regiment other than Militarum Tempestus? Because all I see is proof that Militarum Tempestus has to take stormtrooper, and cannot replace the regiment keywords.

Nowhere does it say "Only" Militarum Tempestus can have the Storm Trooper doctrine.

You mean other than p.84 that says regiment cannot be replaced with militarum Tempestus? And p.133 that lists the storm troopers doctrine as militarum tempestus?

You cannot make up a regiment to give an unit a doctrine it could not normally take.

All of the doctrines other than stormtrooper are valid possible options for any unit with regiment keyword as those units could be given any of the regiment options. However they cannot normally be given militarum tempestus to get stormtrooper. Making up a regiment to try and circumvent that is not a valid option per the FAQ

A Baneblade cannot replace its Regiment Keyword with Militarum Tempestus.

However, there is nothing that states the "Storm Trooper doctrine" cannot be a regimental doctrine for a regiment that isn't Militarum Tempestus.

That's my argument.

We're not talking about keywords anymore. I agree with you on that point, but the keyword a unit has has nothing to do with what regimental doctrine it uses, unless that keyword is one of the 8 proscribed ones that must use the associated doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
Other than the restriction on point.84 of the Astra militarum codex that prevents a player from replacing regiment with militarum Tempestus...

Your initial premise is flawed, and thus your argument is invalid. No-one is saying that they're replacing the <REGIMENT> keyword with MILITARUM TEMPESTUS. That is not the only way to get the Storm Troopers doctrine.

blaktoof wrote:
Other than the restriction on point.84 of the Astra militarum codex that prevents a player from replacing regiment with militarum Tempestus, which prevents units with regiment keyword such as a baneblade from taking the storm trooper doctrine.

Can a baneblade normally replace regiment with militarum Tempestus to take storm trooper?

Yes or no?

If the answer is no then making up a regiment to take stormtrooper is circumvententing a restriction to get an ability.

Incorrect. You are making an assumption here. You can not replace regiment with Militarum Tempestus. Where does it say, however that a unit can not choose Storm Troopers as a Doctrine? It is not in what you are talking about, so it is not a restriction.

blaktoof wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Your number 2 point is false.

You are taking an ability on an unit that cannot normally take it by creating a regiment. The FAQ directly addresses this as not being allowed.

Your final point is not what is being discussed at all.

You can make up a regiment and use any doctrine that is a normal choice for a regiment, however stormtrooper is not one of those due to it not being an option for any of the non made up regiments ie you cannot replace regiment with militarum tempestus so normally any unit with regiment cannot get stormtrooper.

Can you prove that the Storm Trooper Doctrine cannot be taken by any regiment other than Militarum Tempestus? Because all I see is proof that Militarum Tempestus has to take stormtrooper, and cannot replace the regiment keywords.

Nowhere does it say "Only" Militarum Tempestus can have the Storm Trooper doctrine.

You mean other than p.84 that says regiment cannot be replaced with militarum Tempestus? And p.133 that lists the storm troopers doctrine as militarum tempestus?

You cannot make up a regiment to give an unit a doctrine it could not normally take.

blaktoof wrote:Those are made up regiments in 8th.

A baneblade cannot get stormtrooper doctrine normally as it is restricted to militarum tempestus units which cannot be chosen as a replacement for the regiment keyword.

Your custom guard regiment can have doctrines, but it cannot choose stormtrooper because normally a regiment cannot take militarum tempestus in place of regiment to get storm trooper.

You are trying to circumvent a restriction in place by the rules by making up a chapter.

Which the FAQ says you cannot do.

Incorrect.

You are correct in that Militarum Tempestus cannot take any other Doctrine, and that <Militarum Tempestus> cannot be taken as a <Regiment>. Show me where GW have said "ONLY units with the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword can take the Storm Troopers doctrine." Go on. I'll be waiting.

You are INcorrect that a regiment cannot have the Storm Troopers doctrine. This is because anyone can have any doctrine, provided their <Regiment> allows it. In the case of every pre-gen <Regiment>, they are locked into certain choices (including Militarum Tempestus). The only difference is that <Militarum Tempestus> cannot be a chosen <Regiment>. This doesn't affect the fact that a custom Regiment can access ANY Doctrine, because they're not locked out of any.

There is no reason I can't take the Storm Troopers doctrine instead of ANY OTHER DOCTRINE. What about Storm Troopers is any different to Born Soldiers?

The only difference between the two is that you can pick Cadian your <Regiment>, but not Militarum Tempestus. However, this has no effect on what doctrines you can take

Again, blaktoof, reply to my comment - can I take <Salvar Chem-Dogs> with the Born Soldiers or not?

So normally a baneblade can take stormtrooper doctrine without using a regiment that has no assigned doctrine?

No one wants to face the truth?

You are taking a doctrine on an unit that cannot normally replace it's faction keyword with the faction that gets the ability you are trying to take. You are circumventibg the rules to get said ability by making up a regiment, regardless of what the codex days the faw specifies this is not allowed.

Savlar chem dogs can take any of the regiment doctrines for any unit with the regiment keyword that an unit with the regiment keyword could normally take, that would include born soldiers as units with the regiment keyword could get that, but would exclude storm trooper because that is normally excluded for units with the regiment keyword per the FAQ.

You are trying to give a faction keyword <regiment> a rule, stormtrooper, which cannot normally be taken by units with keyword <regiment> by using a regiment with no associated doctrine, which the FAQ directly states is not allowed.