New Codex Incoming!

[seriade]

Mitchverr lets try to explain this simply RAW

 

The rules for the cadian guard are found in the new astra militarium codex and use all the rules from said codex.  

The rules for the DKoK are found in Forgeworld Index Astra Militarium page 56 these rules make 0 refrences to codex astra militarium and therefore have 0 access to it when the new codex comes out you do not suddenly start taking the basilisk from the new codex you keep taking it from the index because that is where the army list tells you to.

 

Quote from part of page 56 part of how DkoK take there stuff note the underlined word

 

"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." 

 

Note the word the word faction not regiment you are completely changing the meaning DKoK are a faction of Guard just like blood angels are a faction of marines and thousand sons are a faction of chaos.  None of those have a doctrine.

[Zectz]

The Doctrine rules apply to any Astra Militarum datasheets that have a <Regiment>. Death Korps of Krieg and Elysians are Astra Militarum datasheets with a <Regiment>.

What? The doctrines rules apply to any Astra Militarum data sheet with the same <Regiment> keyword that you choose to replace <Regiment> with. Death Korps don't have <Regiment>. They have "DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG". It's really that simple.

 

An Infrantry squad can only benefit from Cadian doctrine if they replace <Regiment> with CADIA. This is not possible with Death Korps of Krieg as they don't have <Regiment>. It's automatically assigned as DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.

[seriade]

 

Some people here are seriously trying to be even worse then WAAC players.

 

Ok lets explain how this all works.  Raptors are a successor chapter of the raven guard they use the same chapter tactics as the raven guard.  They however cannot take shrike as he is a raven guard character and not a raptor.  The can take all the unique orders stratagems ie raptors can use strike from the shadows and they can use raven guard relics as they count as raven guard so the only restriction is characters.

This is wrong.  Raptors are NOT able to use Raven Guard Warlord Traits or Relics.  They can use the Stratagem only because the rules specifically say successors can use the parent chapter's stratagem. 

 

The rest of your post I won't bother addressing specifically since it's all hotheaded opinion that contradicts what is actually written down in the codex and what is said by GW.  The Doctrine rules apply to any Astra Militarum datasheets that have a <Regiment>.  Death Korps of Krieg and Elysians are Astra Militarum datasheets with a <Regiment>.

 

No as long as the raptors do not take Lyas or use the badab war stuff they can use all the ravenguard stuff as they are free to count as.  DKoK do not have a regiment keyword on page 55 of the index it refers to replace the <regiment> keyword with the DKoK faction keyword same with the drop troops they are a faction of guard just as the blood angels are and the dark angels are they do not get to take anything from the codex that has not been faqed for them to have. 

[Mitchverr]

 

An Infrantry squad can only benefit from Cadian doctrine if they replace <Regiment> with CADIA. This is not possible with Death Korps of Krieg as they don't have <Regiment>. It's automatically assigned as DEATH KORPS OF KRIEG.

 

 

Incorrect, they do not need to, the 2nd paragraph clearly states this, if your regiment doesnt have a doctrine, you may pick 1, they even give an example of their fluff regiment they made up selecting the vostroyan doctrine, theres literally nothing there saying you replace your keyword.

 

 

The 2 things literally have no connection unless you specifically pick a regiment which is FORCED to use a specific doctrine,

 

Where have you read that they replace their regiment keyword for doctrine and that it isnt the doctrine keyword that changes to the regiment? Because it isnt in the doctrine page, the warlord trait page, the relics page, the orders page and I cant think of a page that would have it outside of those.

 

edit: I mean, either way, it is for doctrine rules only, thats pretty clear under the doctrine rules, that you dont fully shift regiment, that you only count as for the doctrine.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Mitchverr

[seriade]

Mitch there is no regiment keyword on any of the DKoK stuff.  There for with no regiment keyword you may not pick a doctrine.  DKoK is a faction keyword as listed on page 55 of the Forge world index it is not a regiment keyword and therefore not entitled to a doctrine.

[BurntheHeretic]

This issue will definitely need to be FAQ´ed, but to me it makes no sense to allow ´homebrewn´ regiments to pick a doctrine, but not have them be able to benefit from the corresponding order. Now what does that do with the incentive to be creative and forge your own regiment?

 

I would interpret  the order match up with the corresponding  doctrine, not to the regiment. Special characters, now that is something else, they clearly don´t belong to a doctrine but to a regiment.

 

If we take things too narrow, even some doctrines stop making sense. Let´s take the catachan ´´brutal strength´´ doctrine, which reads infantry units ´´ can add 1 to their leadership characteristic if they are within ´´6 of a Catachan officer´´.  A narrow interpretation of this doctine would then basically mean I have to use ´´Catachan´´ officers in my homebrewn ´´Peregrinus´´ regiment that uses  the ´´brutal strength´´ doctrine in order to benefit from a leadership buff. Even though they can´t order them because the officers belong to a different regiment! Now where is the sense in that?

 

As for stacking codex doctrines with Death Korps or Elysians. If you play them as such, and not as regular guard counts as, they already have their  own orders and adjusted stats (basically their doctrine). Do you really want to stretch the rules and give them an additional codex doctrine as well? 

[Feral_80]

This discussion is bordering into the ridiculous. We can all agree that the rules are poorly written (what a surprise). But we all know the OBVIOUS, ie that DKK and Elysians are not meant to have any doctrine. Edited October 6, 2017 by duz_
Inappropriate

[Mitchverr]

Mitch there is no regiment keyword on any of the DKoK stuff.  There for with no regiment keyword you may not pick a doctrine.  DKoK is a faction keyword as listed on page 55 of the Forge world index it is not a regiment keyword and therefore not entitled to a doctrine.

 

There is no regiment keyword on named characters either, technically speaking.

 

But actually, reading the page, as it says "replacing the keyword", arguably the DKoK already replaced their keyword automatically in the same way a named character has. I believe its page 84 in the dex, if the person who was showing it didnt skip a page accidentally where they discribe how you create your regiment, literally the same way DKoK replace <regiment>.

 

The phrasing being, from the dex

 

<regiment>

Most astra militarum units are drawn from a regiment. Some datasheets specify which regiment the unit is drawn from (e.g. sergeant harker has the catachan keyword, so drawn from the catachan regiment). If an astra militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will have the <regiment> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which regiment that unit is from. You then simply replace the <regiment> keyword in every instance on the units datasheet with the name of your chosen regiment"

 

Thats the important bit

 

From the FW book, DKoK because elysian is simular but with planes included.

 

"Those they can use replace the <regiment> keyword on their datasheet in all instance with death korps of krieg."

 

I would argue just because they already have death korps in their name doesnt mean they aint a regiment, because they fall under the same instance as sgt harker, preselected into a regiment profile.

 

This then brings another question if you dont accept that, what about those units which did have <regiment>? Afterall, they technically are from the dex, are from a regiment without doctrine and follow your rule of having the word.

 

And again, it goes further, if they dont classify as a regiment, do they get to pickup the stratagems, relics, etc? If no, do those with <regiment>?

[Mitchverr]

This discussion is bordering into the ridiculous. We can all agree that the rules are poorly written (what a surprise). But we all know the OBVIOUS, ie that DKK and Elysians are not meant to have any doctrine.

 

 

As I said before.... This is something you should houserule with your group as forgeworld said in their reply to me, I am pointing out that in fact, people seem to be misreading rules as written and in fact, full entire comments.

 

Also really, no need to insult people for disagreeing with you.

Edited October 6, 2017 by duz_
Editted quote

[Feral_80]

NO, it should not need agreement among players, it should be common sense.

 

Like when, pre-FAQ, some people tried to argue that 'auxilia' or 'Blood angels ' were viable regiment keywords. We all knew the obvious and only answer to thus incredibly stupid claim, but thanks to some kind of players it needed clarification.

 

And YES, it is only fair to call people with their name. Freedom of opinion does not mean that all opinions are equally respectable. Especially if one is plainly abusive against the game - I repeat, GAME. We are talking about toy soldiers here, if someone feels the need to abuse such game than he'd better seek help.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Feral_80

[Mitchverr]

NO, it should not need agreement among players, it should be common sense.

 

Like when, pre-FAQ, some people tried to argue that 'auxilia' or 'Blood angels ' were viable regiment keywords. We all knew the obvious and only answer to thus incredibly stupid claim, but thanks to some kind of players it needed clarification.

 

And YES, it is only fair to call people with thief name. Freedom of opinion does not mean that all opinions are equally respectable. Especially if one is plainly abusive against the game - I repeat, GAME. We are talking about toy soldier here, if someone feels the need to abuse such game than he'd better seek help.

 

I would say it isnt like that at all especially given the ambiguous way that both GW and FW have replied to the situation lol, and fyi, if 2 players dont agree, they just dont do it, it wouldnt be hard for them to agree to disagree, without reverting to insults.

 

As for "thief", i dont know where that is from. As for freedom of opinion and respect, as you say, its a game, no need to abuse somebody personally over a game, you simply agree to disagree.

 

:)

[Feral_80]

*thief = theirs (corrected)

 

You agree to disagree if it is a matter of taste. If I say Tallarn is the best and you say Cadia is cooler, we agree to disagree.

 

But in a case like this, it is reason vs hybris. Either you see the game as a game and, for the common fun, actively try to take it easy when you come to poorly written rules whose meaning is, however, otherwise very clear. Or, you see it as a waac-competition in which you always try to stretch and abuse the rules way beyond the spirit of the game as it was conceived.

 

These two visions are incompatible. And it is quite clear which (only) one has any dignity among adult and mentally sane persons.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Feral_80

[BurntheHeretic]

So we have some DK sub-regiments with big abs, some DK regiments that gun down their own conscripts, some DK regiments with heirloom weapons, etc.?

 

These guys have their own order, their own stats (WS +1 and resistant vehicles), and are resistant to morale shock. Is that not a doctrine in its own right, if not in name then in effect? Apart from the technicalities on whether they were  named a AM regiment or a faction of their own, that´s very clearly a military tradition in itself. Regardless of the ambiguity of GW´s answers, it doesn´t make any sense to have them benefit from an additional doctrine. 

 

I rest my case. 

Edited October 5, 2017 by BurntheHeretic

[our_baz]

This conversation is is getting circular, the only place a circular conversation leads is down a barrel of a melta gun. I've nailed my colours to the mast on this. So I'm not going to repeat them.

But going forward until this gets FAQ'd, if you want to run DKoK with Cadian doctrines there is nothing explicitly stopping you, my advice would be run it past your opponent.

[Mitchverr]

This conversation is is getting circular, the only place a circular conversation leads is down a barrel of a melta gun. I've nailed my colours to the mast on this. So I'm not going to repeat them.

But going forward until this gets FAQ'd, if you want to run DKoK with Cadian doctrines there is nothing explicitly stopping you, my advice would be run it past your opponent.

 

Yup, pretty much how i view it, I just disagree that its open and shut not rules written or intended, simply due to a lack of a firm no in the times I have seen the companies asked to comment on the matter.

 

Was nice to politely discuss it btw.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Mitchverr

[mertbl]

Now that that's settled and clear as mud. How do you guys feel about crusaders? I'm thinking a squad of 10, priest, psyker in a valk. 30 attacks, rerolling misses,2++ from the psyker. Seems pretty solid. If only I could make them catachan...

[BurntheHeretic]

I like the idea of using crusaders. But I´m not sure about the Valk because:

 

1. Their strength (esp. with spyker buff) lies in superb defence, not offence (their S3 prevents them from dealing a lot of damage). Perhaps counterassault, but good to deny the enemy access to your glass cannons.

 

2. The priest boosts their offence of course, but with the Valk the priest is only going to buff them. When holding the line the priest also buffs all your nearby regulars. 

 

But on the other hand, using the valkyrie to drop suicide plasma gunners isn´t really original..

Edited October 5, 2017 by BurntheHeretic

[Withershadow]

So we have some DK sub-regiments with big abs, some DK regiments that gun down their own conscripts, some DK regiments with heirloom weapons, etc.?

 

These guys have their own order, their own stats (WS +1 and resistant vehicles), and are resistant to morale shock. Is that not a doctrine in its own right, if not in name then in effect? Apart from the technicalities on whether they were  named a AM regiment or a faction of their own, that´s very clearly a military tradition in itself. Regardless of the ambiguity of GW´s answers, it doesn´t make any sense to have them benefit from an additional doctrine. 

 

I rest my case. 

 

The Cult of Sacrifice is not the same as as Doctrine, because you are paying a 20% surcharge on your infantry models to get it, you give up the 2 best orders available to the Guard, and are missing quite a few power units, such as: Conscripts, command squads with 4 specials, special weapon squads, veteran squads and scout sentinels.  It also gives nothing to vehicles.

 

Give me a 20% discount on infantry, give all Krieg vehicles free mine-sweepers and armor plates, restore Take Aim and FRFSRF orders, and maybe add a unique stratagem, and you got yourself a deal. 

 

I fully expect FW to put out a comprehensive FAQ after Chapter Approved is published, which will hopefully solve these issues.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Withershadow

[duz_]

We have discussed the Regiment rules in multiple places enough for now. Nothing new has been added to the differing opinions.

 

Lets move on to other parts of what the new codex will bring.

[BurntheHeretic]

 

Give me a 20% discount on infantry, give all Krieg vehicles free mine-sweepers and armor plates, restore Take Aim and FRFSRF orders, and maybe add a unique stratagem, and you got yourself a deal. 

 

I fully expect FW to put out a comprehensive FAQ after Chapter Approved is published, which will hopefully solve these issues.

 

 

Agreed that both are needed. The Codex and the FW Index simply don´t seem to allign very well at this moment. In the same vein FW needs to address Grinding Advance, Earthshaker Cannon stats and other things that don´t add up with the codex. But all in due time, the codex isn´t even out yet! 

[Withershadow]

NO, it should not need agreement among players, it should be common sense.

 

Like when, pre-FAQ, some people tried to argue that 'auxilia' or 'Blood angels ' were viable regiment keywords. We all knew the obvious and only answer to thus incredibly stupid claim, but thanks to some kind of players it needed clarification.

 

And YES, it is only fair to call people with their name. Freedom of opinion does not mean that all opinions are equally respectable. Especially if one is plainly abusive against the game - I repeat, GAME. We are talking about toy soldiers here, if someone feels the need to abuse such game than he'd better seek help.

Pretty offensive attitude to have in general given that we are reading what the rules say, and GW so far has confirmed that reading to be accurate.  You can call people all the names you want, but this forum has rules of conduct.  Why is it okay that the base index Krieg regiment is pretty crap compared to all the stuff every other Astra Militarum regiment gets, but having an extra rule that they PAY EXTRA POINTS for is not fair all of a sudden?

 

It's not even a circular argument as _duz stated anymore, it's just you throwing epithets at people, so back to things I'm excited to try:

 

I really wish Veterans were troops. Often what you would take them for can be done equally well or better by troop choices. 

 

Three flamers, a heavy flamer, and a heavy bolter team is a cute idea, especially for Catachans, but do we really have a shortage of volume of attacks?  We have mortars of all sorts and varieties.  A better and cheaper place for flamers specifically seems to be special weapon squads, especially jumping out of a valkyrie.  Still, I do think this unit is very thematic and provides enormous hobby opportunities.  Stuff this unit in a Valkyrie with Straken and a Priest for good times.  I would automatically grant an extra VP to an opponent bringing a unit like this in a Valkyrie converted to be an attack helicopter with shark teeth.  Badass, even if not the most effective thing for the points invested.

 

Three plasma-guns and like a missile launcher is another idea.  Best use seems to be a Vostroyan Veteran Squad outflanking and going after characters.  Tallarn also can do this decently with a non-relic way to outflank, and being able to close in from the flank faster due to their Doctrine.  Still, in both cases it seems like a simpler route is just to take Stormtroopers.

 

Malcador Heavy Tanks loaded for bear.  FW already missed giving them Grinding Advance before, but Swift as the Wind makes them great again.  Probably aren't competitive with Leman Russ tanks for the points, unless they also get Grinding Advance.  Regardless, I will enjoy having that battle cannon and 3 lascannons on the move.

 

Infiltrated Malcador Infernus.  Ahaha.

 

And at least until GW clarifies it, I will be try my Krieg Grenadiers with 'Swift as the Wind' to make their storm chimeras not suck.  Combat Engineers are also turned up a notch with Swift, although 'Brutal Strength' can work also for their heavy flamers and acid bombs and for more S4 attacks when they charge in with a Priest and Regimental Standard for +2 attacks.  Probably same as the halo drop squad above, more cool than an effective use of points.

 

A classic Siege Battalion with artillery and heavy weapon teams would be very nice with 'Born Soldier', finally getting those re-rolls to 1s while being resistant to morale and a bit better in melee.  And before everyone starts crying "degenerate" and "disturbed WAAC monster" and whatever other nonsense, Cadia actually does this better.  They get to re-roll all misses rather than just 1s on their infantry, have that amazing coordinated fire stratagem, and Creed+Kell+Cadia warlord trait are an infinitely superior command module than Venner.

 

All in all, exciting times to be a Guardsman.

[Guardsman Bob]

Is anyone else considering waking early Saturday and going out with a sledgehammer and exact change?

[narcolepticltd]

Is anyone else considering waking early Saturday and going out with a sledgehammer and exact change?

 

I'll have to wait a bit before I can pick up a copy - but I don't think they'll spoil in the package before I swing by the shop :) 

[Mitchverr]

 

Malcador Heavy Tanks loaded for bear.  FW already missed giving them Grinding Advance before, but Swift as the Wind makes them great again.  Probably aren't competitive with Leman Russ tanks for the points, unless they also get Grinding Advance.  Regardless, I will enjoy having that battle cannon and 3 lascannons on the move.

 

Infiltrated Malcador Infernus.  Ahaha.

 

 

I have a malcador infernus and the first thing I thought was to ambush with it to be honest lol.

 

As for grinding advance, 2 versions of the malcador have this, the 2 with the hull mounted demo cannon. So as soon as the FW index grinding advance changes, those 2 will get the full use of the upgrade, of which 1 is arguably the "best" choice outside the flame thrower (which might also need a buff, they currently are points ineffective vs plain hellhound chassis imo, so with hellhound buffs, this might need a buff just to keep comp) is the 1 with what is it, 5 heavy bolters in the top and 2 possible sponsons? Given it has the better overwatch ability (i know, people say but you cant overwatch on 5s with it, but the way its written thats clearly intended) i would say those would work very well with tallarn.

 

Now, its just a shame that tank commanders can only order leman russ vehicles, you would think that a TC could give orders to his scout troop, heavy support troop etc but, oh well.

[Withershadow]

ForgeWorld is currently pushing Krieg hard, including some stuff that has been out of print for a while, so I think we will get a FAQ sooner rather than later.