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.

Astra Militarum Codex page 84

Units with the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword treat this as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects...

Page 132

If your army is Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment.

Note the same restriction of all units must be from same <REGIMENT> as is later reiterated for MT. Clearly, MT are treated exactly the same as any other Regiment, and the clarification is just that they don’t get their Doctrine if mixed with other Regiments.

Looks like a case of some random internet guy choosing to read part of the RAW and not apply all of it. These two quotes together prove, RAW, MT Regiments can include Advisors without losing their Doctrine.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Astra Militarum Codex page 84

Units with the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword treat this as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects...

Page 132

If your army is Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment.

Note the same restriction of all units must be from same <REGIMENT> as is later reiterated for MT. Clearly, MT are treated exactly the same as any other Regiment, and the clarification is just that they don’t get their Doctrine if mixed with other Regiments.

Looks like a case of some random internet guy choosing to read part of the RAW and not apply all of it. These two quotes together prove, RAW, MT Regiments can include Advisors without losing their Doctrine.

I find it hilarious you rudely accuse people of being trolls and ignoring the RaW when you yourself are ignoring the RaW. I'll break it down for you step by step.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:Note, however,

This line indicates that the next segment is an exception to the previous rules.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:that the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units

This section indicates which units the following rule applies to.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus

This section details how the aformentioned units do not get to benefit from a regimental doctrine unless certain conditions are met

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:(in which case they will gain the StormTroopers doctrine).

This is a reminder of which doctrine a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS detachment may take.

So, it all boils down to a simple yes or no question. "Is every unit in that Detachment from the Militarum Tempestus"? If it's Yes, they get the Doctrine. If the answer is No, then they don't. It truly is that simple. The Militarum Tempestus have a more restrictive doctrine criteria than other regiments, which is why the Advisers and Auxilla rule doesn't interact with their own rule.

Compare the two rules, side by side:

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:If your army is Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:Note, however, that the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus (in which case they will gain the Storm Troopers doctrine).

As you can see, Militarum Tempestus get their own unique rule, independent of any other Regiments.

I did not call you a troll, so don’t lie and say I did, thanks. I didn’t even address you directly... unless the shoe fits or something?

Some spectacularly patronising copy there. Top marks for condescension, not so many for comprehension. MT also get the rules I quoted - gosh, they conflict, does the game break or something!?!?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I did not call you a troll, so don’t lie and say I did, thanks. I didn’t even address you directly... unless the shoe fits or something?

Well you played your hand here because I didn't accuse you of calling me a troll, I said you accused people of being trolls. The lady doth protest too much methinks?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Some spectacularly patronising copy there. Top marks for condescension, not so many for comprehension. MT also get the rules I quoted - gosh, they conflict, does the game break or something!?!?

I only broke them down because you seem to not be understanding. Do you see now that the MT have a different, more restrictive rule?

I always thought that the Militarum Tempestus Doctrine was worded in that way just because they lack a <Regiment> keyword, so without a special entry they can't benefit from their own doctrine.
Anyone ever tried to ask directly to GW regarding these?

“Played my hand?” Do stow the Bard and comment on the Rules. (Also, on a point of information, you should understand the meaning of ‘protest’ in that quote is not protest in the modern usage, so your quote doesn’t belittle as you think. A common misinterpretation of the text... not that you’d ever do such a thing)

Anyway, rather than bicker with an intractable internet random looking for a scrap I’ll just email GW and hopefully they can tidy it up in the next FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fen wrote:
I always thought that the Militarum Tempestus Doctrine was worded in that way just because they lack a <Regiment> keyword, so without a special entry they can't benefit from their own doctrine.
Anyone ever tried to ask directly to GW regarding these?

Exactly. Some folk do try to use it to stop people using their mandollies though, which is fairly silly.

Andykp wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
It's a shame really, as it does make sense that at the very least a Commissar could be a part of the detachment and not affect their doctrine (they went to the same school and all!). It does read that way that a detachment must be all MT to get the doctrine. I would like it changed, however, to at least allow Commissars; partly as currently if you want an entire MT army, you are limited (by the rule of 3 if its used in your area) to one single super large Battalion Detachment, and maybe a patrol det. as well - but you still only get total of 8cp for an army.

Agreed, it's a dumb rule that also makes aircav and mechanized MT impossible to play how it is supposed to be played.

Why? Couldn’t you just use dedicated transports for the mechanised bit and an air support detachment for the valks. If you want commissars use a vanguard detachment with them in. No problem at all.

No, because taking chimeras as dedicated transports means you have non-MT units in an MT detachment and that breaks the stormtrooper doctine.

On second thought, air-cav still may work because the valks are in a separate detachment.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Exactly. Some folk do try to use it to stop people using their mandollies though, which is fairly silly.

Well, I think they are just trying to clarify that RAW sadly is that way, they don't need to agree with that.
I find it a little silly, but if an opponent or tournament organizer disagree with me and want to enforce it RAW there isn't much one can do to counter argoument if GW doesn't fix it (if they want to fix it)

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoiler:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Astra Militarum Codex page 84

Units with the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword treat this as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects...

Page 132

If your army is Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment.

Note the same restriction of all units must be from same <REGIMENT> as is later reiterated for MT. Clearly, MT are treated exactly the same as any other Regiment, and the clarification is just that they don’t get their Doctrine if mixed with other Regiments.

Looks like a case of some random internet guy choosing to read part of the RAW and not apply all of it. These two quotes together prove, RAW, MT Regiments can include Advisors without losing their Doctrine.

I find it hilarious you rudely accuse people of being trolls and ignoring the RaW when you yourself are ignoring the RaW. I'll break it down for you step by step.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:Note, however,

This line indicates that the next segment is an exception to the previous rules.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:that the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units

This section indicates which units the following rule applies to.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus

This section details how the aformentioned units do not get to benefit from a regimental doctrine unless certain conditions are met

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:(in which case they will gain the StormTroopers doctrine).

This is a reminder of which doctrine a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS detachment may take.

So, it all boils down to a simple yes or no question. "Is every unit in that Detachment from the Militarum Tempestus"? If it's Yes, they get the Doctrine. If the answer is No, then they don't. It truly is that simple. The Militarum Tempestus have a more restrictive doctrine criteria than other regiments, which is why the Advisers and Auxilla rule doesn't interact with their own rule.

Compare the two rules, side by side:

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:If your army is Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Copywritum wrote:Note, however, that the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus (in which case they will gain the Storm Troopers doctrine).

As you can see, Militarum Tempestus get their own unique rule, independent of any other Regiments.

Page 132 Codex: Astra Militarum wrote:The units listed below can be included in an Astra Militarum Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine.

Hence my statement of contradictory rules:

A: All units must be Mililtarum Tempestus to gain a Regimental Doctrine.

B: Advisors and Auxilla do not prevent other units from gaining a Regimental Doctrine.

A: All units must be Mililtarum Tempestus to gain a Regimental Doctrine.

B: Advisors and Auxilla do not prevent other units from gaining a Regimental Doctrine.

A: All units must be Mililtarum Tempestus to gain a Regimental Doctrine.

B: Advisors and Auxilla do not prevent other units from gaining a Regimental Doctrine.

.....

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I did not call you a troll, so don’t lie and say I did, thanks. I didn’t even address you directly... unless the shoe fits or something?

Some spectacularly patronising copy there. Top marks for condescension, not so many for comprehension. MT also get the rules I quoted - gosh, they conflict, does the game break or something!?!?

You say conflict, I would say override. The paragraph that you omitted provides a more specifc requirement for Militarium Tempestus.

We are told how <regiment> works in general and then ("however") told that it is more restrictive for MT.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Exactly. Some folk do try to use it to stop people using their mandollies though, which is fairly silly.

And here you go breaking tenet 5 (second clause) yet again.

My call would be BCB is in the right. Regiments and tempestus rules are worded differently. The exception is in the regiments rule, not in the tempestus one. Maybe GW will change it later but the current rules are what they are.

Gitdakka wrote:
My call would be BCB is in the right. Regiments and tempestus rules are worded differently. The exception is in the regiments rule, not in the tempestus one. Maybe GW will change it later but the current rules are what they are.

That's just the curious thing... My earlier post is directly after I made a call to the local GW where the tournament is held...

Slayer6 wrote:
Well, that's just the thing... I contacted my GW store where the Tournament is held and THEY said ARMY 2 would support Statement D too...

Yet when I play there, every single damn game, everyone says ARMY 2 does not support Statement D and I'm inclined to believe them...

So I'm getting double standards...

The rules for this Tournament is: 1000pts, 1 detachment (excluding fortifications or lords of war) with an optional auxilliary detachment...

So in essence, it is coming down to players vs staff...

IS the GW staff making a false call here, or are the players misinterpreting the text? That is the crux of my query.

8th edition.
The edition where common sense died.
Hilarious.

It doesn't matter what players or staff "think" when it comes to what the rules say. The rule is clear, end of discussion. You're free to house rule it for tournaments or your own games as much as you want, but it doesn't change what the rules say.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It doesn't matter what players or staff "think" when it comes to what the rules say. The rule is clear, end of discussion. You're free to house rule it for tournaments or your own games as much as you want, but it doesn't change what the rules say.

This entire thread you have been parroting the same line, being as ambiguous as possible and NEVER stating your own view - WHAT IS THE "CLEAR" RULE THAT YOU ARE STATING???

You say it's clear, well many people have been saying that the army cannot use advisors, YET a GW staffmember said they can - and other people have stated the exact opposite.

Slayer6 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It doesn't matter what players or staff "think" when it comes to what the rules say. The rule is clear, end of discussion. You're free to house rule it for tournaments or your own games as much as you want, but it doesn't change what the rules say.

This entire thread you have been parroting the same line, being as ambiguous as possible and NEVER stating your own view - WHAT IS THE "CLEAR" RULE THAT YOU ARE STATING???

You say it's clear, well many people have been saying that the army cannot use advisors, YET a GW staffmember said they can - and other people have stated the exact opposite.

Literally the first reply of the thread. Did you not read the thread? GW staffers aren't anything special, they don't have some sort of magical rules authority, they are the equivalent of the dude at the cash register at Aldi, they just work in a GW store instead. The rules, as written in the rulebook, are clear and unambiguous, there is no way to "interpret" them as anything else without wilfully trying to break the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It doesn't matter what players or staff "think" when it comes to what the rules say. The rule is clear, end of discussion. You're free to house rule it for tournaments or your own games as much as you want, but it doesn't change what the rules say.

This entire thread you have been parroting the same line, being as ambiguous as possible and NEVER stating your own view - WHAT IS THE "CLEAR" RULE THAT YOU ARE STATING???

You say it's clear, well many people have been saying that the army cannot use advisors, YET a GW staffmember said they can - and other people have stated the exact opposite.

Literally the first reply of the thread. Did you not read the thread? GW staffers aren't anything special, they don't have some sort of magical rules authority, they are the equivalent of the dude at the cash register at Aldi, they just work in a GW store instead. The rules, as written in the rulebook, are clear and unambiguous, there is no way to "interpret" them as anything else without wilfully trying to break the rules.

Fine, I'll concede the point.

I'll see about forwarding them to this thread.

I really fail to see the reasoning for not applying the Auxilia exception to the MT regiments as well. It literally says that they can be included without losing the doctrine, so if you end up reading that so that including them loses the doctrine, you're probably doing it wrong.

w1zard wrote:

Andykp wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
It's a shame really, as it does make sense that at the very least a Commissar could be a part of the detachment and not affect their doctrine (they went to the same school and all!). It does read that way that a detachment must be all MT to get the doctrine. I would like it changed, however, to at least allow Commissars; partly as currently if you want an entire MT army, you are limited (by the rule of 3 if its used in your area) to one single super large Battalion Detachment, and maybe a patrol det. as well - but you still only get total of 8cp for an army.

Agreed, it's a dumb rule that also makes aircav and mechanized MT impossible to play how it is supposed to be played.

Why? Couldn’t you just use dedicated transports for the mechanised bit and an air support detachment for the valks. If you want commissars use a vanguard detachment with them in. No problem at all.

No, because taking chimeras as dedicated transports means you have non-MT units in an MT detachment and that breaks the stormtrooper doctine.

On second thought, air-cav still may work because the valks are in a separate detachment.

I meant using tarox primes. They’re great little units and look good with wheels on.

 Crimson wrote:
I really fail to see the reasoning for not applying the Auxilia exception to the MT regiments as well. It literally says that they can be included without losing the doctrine, so if you end up reading that so that including them loses t he doctrine, you're probably doing it wrong.

If there’s a way of interpreting rules that stops people using their toys, someone will always post it!

 Crimson wrote:
I really fail to see the reasoning for not applying the Auxilia exception to the MT regiments as well. It literally says that they can be included without losing the doctrine, so if you end up reading that so that including them loses the doctrine, you're probably doing it wrong.

Again, literally the first reply.

The MT follow a different rule as to whether they can get their doctrine or not. Other regiments say "so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite)" while MT say "unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus". MT unfortunately don't get to benefit from the Auxillary exceptions.

I break it down in depth here https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/755709.page#10061192

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The MT follow a different rule as to whether they can get their doctrine or not. Other regiments say "so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite)" while MT say "unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus".

Those are the same thing. The sentence in parenthesis is just a reminder, that it is not repeated does not mean that it doesn't apply. The Auxilia rule is listed after both of these rules and would apply to both.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The MT follow a different rule as to whether they can get their doctrine or not. Other regiments say "so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite)" while MT say "unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus".

Those are the same thing. The sentence in parenthesis is just a reminder, that it is not repeated does not mean that it doesn't apply. The Auxilia rule is listed after both of these rules and would apply to both.

Then why bother making the MT have their own rule? The MT have their own, distinct rule. You can't just ignore it because you don't like it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Then why bother making the MT have their own rule? The MT have their own, distinct rule. You can't just ignore it because you don't like it.

Because their rule also contains the provision of them being added to detachments composed of other regiments without those regiments losing their doctrine. The Auxilia rule is clear, you can't just ignore because you want to be a contrarian.

And the circular argument continues. There will be a definitive answer whenever GW gets around to providing one. I suggest you email them if you care to see it on the next FAQ.

Andykp wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
It's a shame really, as it does make sense that at the very least a Commissar could be a part of the detachment and not affect their doctrine (they went to the same school and all!). It does read that way that a detachment must be all MT to get the doctrine. I would like it changed, however, to at least allow Commissars; partly as currently if you want an entire MT army, you are limited (by the rule of 3 if its used in your area) to one single super large Battalion Detachment, and maybe a patrol det. as well - but you still only get total of 8cp for an army.

Agreed, it's a dumb rule that also makes aircav and mechanized MT impossible to play how it is supposed to be played.

Why? Couldn’t you just use dedicated transports for the mechanised bit and an air support detachment for the valks. If you want commissars use a vanguard detachment with them in. No problem at all.

Yeah, but it was rather pounded in in 7E, especially with the Militarum Tempestus codex, that they could take formations of Valkyries and Lord Commissars with them. At this point, I personally would be fine with just that. They had all sorts of cool paintjobs, and I think that the codex said that Scion regiments would be assigned their own person Valkyries to be used at their order-following leisure.

I remember that but is easily workable around even if you are limited to 3 detachments. One of scions, one of valks. One of commissars. It actually reflects how they would be organised anyway and on the table makes no difference. Paint them how you like? When I play guard I like to break my list down into detachments for each element. I have an armoured detachment, infantry, AUXILLA. Etc. Just feels right to the geek in me. Prob don’t maximise the CPs but dint mind.

 alextroy wrote:
And the circular argument continues. There will be a definitive answer whenever GW gets around to providing one. I suggest you email them if you care to see it on the next FAQ.

No surprise with certain lier who claims playing 100% raw when it's provenly false just wanting to stir trouble. That's his goal in ymdc. Make trouble. He doesn#t even play how he advocates

Tneva, keep it civil.

I sent an email to GW yesterday.

Hi,

I have two questions:
Am I able to use 3rd Edition Warhammer 40000 Stormtroopers as Tempestus Scions? Granted the models are about 20 years old; or do I need to buy 25 squads to replace them in my list?

The Advisors and Auxilia rule - does this also affect Militarum Tempestus when building their list for the Stormtroopers doctrine?
HQ: Tempestor Prime
Troops: Scions
Troops: Scions
OR
HQ: Lord Commissar
Troops: Scions
Troops: Scions

Are both of the above forces eligible for the Stormtroopers doctrine? (I am aware the Commissar won’t benefit from it).

Regards,


This is the reply:

Hi

You can indeed use the old Stormtrooper models as Scions, as long as the weapons are all WYSIWYG (don't worry Hellguns are the same as Hotshot Lasguns)

the Advisors and Auxilia rule still applies as normal as <Militarum Tempestus> is just a replacement for <Regiment>

so the list you sent would get the Doctrine rule

hope this helps
Jamie

Before you visit Warhammer World, please check upcoming changes to service we are currently aware of: http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/category/service-changes/

Thanks,

Warhammer World



So clearly the rule is still ambiguous, as is the use of proxy Stormtroopers - had 3 tournaments turn me away citing that Stormtroopers are Stormtroopers, not Tempestus Scions.