The Emperor protects - a Codex: AM review

[Beams]

At that point, he's just a smashfacer. Run him up in front and hope he got shot.

[mertbl]

Anyone given any thought to using a custom regiment and taking the tempestus doctrine?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Problem with Invuln Bodyguard is that he takes Mortal Wounds if he intercepts shots. 

[Halfpint100]

Problem with Invuln Bodyguard is that he takes Mortal Wounds if he intercepts shots. 

 

IF he does. I would just use him as a cheap beat stick

[hhhdan]

Anyone given any thought to using a custom regiment and taking the tempestus doctrine?

 

Yeah, i have a nasty combo in mind, but not sure if they will allow it past the FAQ...

 

Stormlord + salamander command + trojan. 120% of shots hit on average if at half distance. It is quite expensive though, with max upgrades it is around 800 pts and you have to use the supreme command detachment to get the doctrine onto the stormlord. Add in 2 primaris psykers to give +1 to saves and -1 to hit, as well as the commander with old grudges and you are at around 900 points. Is it worth it? probably, but does limit what you can do..

[hhhdan]

 

Problem with Invuln Bodyguard is that he takes Mortal Wounds if he intercepts shots. 

 

IF he does. I would just use him as a cheap beat stick

 

 

Pretty much. You can also use another Ogryn bodyguard to have ablative wounds for him, as ogryn bodyguards are astra militarum characters themselves, so they can intercept wounds from each other... Until the FAQ at least, i imagine that is an oversight, otherwise you could spread the wounds a lot if running multiple bodyguards and it's back to the Grey knight paladins (end of 5th ed) level of wound allocation

Edited October 18, 2017 by hhhdan

[Finkmilkana]

I either way expect the slab shield to get an errata to only work on armor saves (as it allegedly already does in the German version of the Codex). Edited October 18, 2017 by Finkmilkana

[CoffeeGrunt]

Aber Deutsche Sprache ist schwere Sprache. That said, I agree that it'll be errataed though.

[olcottr]

I was thinking the same thing about Tempestus Doctrine, but it says under Soldiers of the Imperium <Regiment> rules that Militarum Tempestus keyword cannot be used to replace the <Regiment> keyword on any other datasheet.

[Jam Master Flex]

So... Here's a question.

 

Has anyone actually LOST a game with the new codex yet? Or even the Index? I haven't and I really haven't been using especially powerful lists. The same goes for my opponents, but still...

 

I'm getting to the point where I feel bad using my Guard because they just keep winning, even if I make a few mistakes. Since it's the only full army I actually own there's not a great deal I can do about it.

I've drawn, and lost once purely because I felt bad constantly beating my friends marines so picked an incredibly poor list on purpose.

 

I've actually been using a couple of other armies aswell so my friends don't end up not wanting to play.

 

However I'm due a game this coming week against Marines using the new Codex so I'm going all out to crush them..

[mertbl]

You aren't replacing regiment with militarum tempestus. You are replacing it with "Bob's super secret ninjas", and taking the tempestus doctrine.

 

I was thinking the same thing about Tempestus Doctrine, but it says under Soldiers of the Imperium <Regiment> rules that Militarum Tempestus keyword cannot be used to replace the <Regiment> keyword on any other datasheet.

[Lord_Caerolion]

You aren't replacing regiment with militarum tempestus. You are replacing it with "Bob's super secret ninjas", and taking the tempestus doctrine.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing about Tempestus Doctrine, but it says under Soldiers of the Imperium <Regiment> rules that Militarum Tempestus keyword cannot be used to replace the <Regiment> keyword on any other datasheet.

That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If you're having to make clever tricks on wording, it probably isn't intended to work that way. In the strictest sense of the rules, you are replacing the Regiment with Militarum Tempestus when you use that Doctrine.

 

In other words, either it Counts As or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose to get around restrictions. It's a step away from the old "my Guard have the Regiment of my Marine Chapter, so they can both use the same traits as Ultramarines".

Edited October 18, 2017 by Lord_Caerolion

[Feral_80]

The way I read it, as much as it may seem weird, you can probably give the MT *doctrine* to any regiment of your own creation, under the justification that 'you pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army' (p. 132).

However, the regiment will never get the MT *keyword*, because that is explicitly forbidden (p. 84). This means it will never be able to use the MT order, stratagem, and heilroom, because all of these require the keyword.

 

So essentially, you can make a regiment with a MT doctrine, who however has no other benefit. Pretty much pointless, obviously, since even giving exploding 6s to hit to normal units does not make up for the loss of a lot of other assets. You get a sort of mini-MT whole army in exchange for giving up all the rest of the great rules - not worth it, not even with the frankly unattractive Stormlord 'combo' discussed above.

 

It probably helps to regard regimental doctrines and regimental keywords as separate entities, although they naturally tend to be associated 1:1. As I wrote already, I believe the whole MT thing has been poorly managed when it comes to the rules to include them. They are convoluted and unnecessarily complicated.

[Mitchverr]

 

You aren't replacing regiment with militarum tempestus. You are replacing it with "Bob's super secret ninjas", and taking the tempestus doctrine.

 

I was thinking the same thing about Tempestus Doctrine, but it says under Soldiers of the Imperium <Regiment> rules that Militarum Tempestus keyword cannot be used to replace the <Regiment> keyword on any other datasheet.

That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If you're having to make clever tricks on wording, it probably isn't intended to work that way. In the strictest sense of the rules, you are replacing the Regiment with Militarum Tempestus when you use that Doctrine.

 

In other words, either it Counts As or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose to get around restrictions. It's a step away from the old "my Guard have the Regiment of my Marine Chapter, so they can both use the same traits as Ultramarines".

 

 

It isnt "clever wording" its exactly how the doctrines are supposed to be used, the only reason a name of a regiment is in any of them is to make it easy to say "this regiment must use this doctrine", if you read the tempestus part on the opposite page, they specifically call it the stormtrooper doctrine, meaning that it isnt them and only them, but that its the doctrine they are supposed to use and that they have specific qualifiers around using it with scion forces.

 

You are not replacing regiment with tempestus scions, regiment and doctrines are 2 seperate things. You do get to pick and choose, you pick to use a generic regiment and the stormtrooper doctrine, you however then must follow the SAME rules as any other regiment, IE the rules around using tempestus regiment units in the army with reguards to how it breaks doctrine special rules.

 

It isnt a a step away from that at all,.... I dont mean to get upity or sound arrogant, but I am getting tired of telling people to read the damn doctrine page rules lol.

 

This is how it works,

 

You make a regiment

You pick a regiment name

If you pick a predefined regiment, you MUST use their doctrine, Tallarn = tallarn, militarum tempestus = MT

If you pick a NON existing/fluff/homebrew regiment then you pick to use ANY doctrine. 123rd Borkinators = any doctrine including storm troopers. You cannot pick a name that already exists to do this btw.

In any and all cases, you must still follow the rules of making an astra militarum regiment as defined in the beginning of making a regiment AND in the doctrine page.

 

If you create your own regiment, I would argue you do NOT get access to the doctrine you selects named regiments special units nor its special items, orders or stratagem. EG pick catachans doctrine, you dont get harker.

 

In any case, the rules for having militarum tempestus models with that keyword are clear with how they interact with other regiment models in the same detatchment.

 

In any case, the rules are clear that you CANNOT take a name of an existing group and use it to try and get boons  and abuse the system, it specially says this, which is why the comparing to space marine stuff is bad, because the space marine chapter tactics not only effect a different army, they are completely different in how they are written and apply.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Mitchverr

[duz_]

=][= Enough on the Regimental Doctrines rule interpretations. Several warnings in multiple threads have already been issued. =][=

[KhorneHunter57x]

 

It is an FAQ to a different document. I would say yes they can order themselves. The rules states they can order a friendly leman russ. Both Pask and the tank commander are friendly leman russes. If they wanted to keep the index FAQ bit in, they would have added it into the codex, but they didn't. Infantry guard officers can order themselves, why not their tank versions? they do that the rest of the crew in their tank.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. The index is a different document agreed, the question in the FAQ is based on the rules in the index, but the rules haven't changed from index to codex. IMHO the FAQ stands. From my perspective the use of the word "friendly" and"within 6" of this model" indicates the rule it is to be used on other LRBT not the tank commander issuing an order to themselves. You can feasibly issue an order to a Tank Commander via Pask and vice versa however.

I see your point on INF officers issuing orders to themselves via interpretation of the rules wording, but practically who would use an order to give your Platoon commander FRFSRF for example. again in IMHO this hasn't been FAQ'd as its not very likely to occur, whereas for Tank commanders there is a a obvious benefit hence the FAQ.

 

But the rules have changed from Index to Codex.

 

The Tank Orders rule in the Index specifies that it cannot be used on Characters; that restriction has been removed in the Codex.

[Finkmilkana]

 

But the rules have changed from Index to Codex.

 

The Tank Orders rule in the Index specifies that it cannot be used on Characters; that restriction has been removed in the Codex.

 

Yes, the very basis for the FAQ (the line "though the unit you pick cannot be a character") was removed in the Codex, thus that FAQ cannot be applied.

If they now want Codex Tank Commanders being unable to order themselves, they will need to do it as Errata (reintroducing the limitation on characters or making it only valid on "leman russ battle tank" units) and not as FAQ (which by its nature only clarifies existing rules, but doesn't change or correct them).

[our_baz]

 

 

It is an FAQ to a different document. I would say yes they can order themselves. The rules states they can order a friendly leman russ. Both Pask and the tank commander are friendly leman russes. If they wanted to keep the index FAQ bit in, they would have added it into the codex, but they didn't. Infantry guard officers can order themselves, why not their tank versions? they do that the rest of the crew in their tank.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. The index is a different document agreed, the question in the FAQ is based on the rules in the index, but the rules haven't changed from index to codex. IMHO the FAQ stands. From my perspective the use of the word "friendly" and"within 6" of this model" indicates the rule it is to be used on other LRBT not the tank commander issuing an order to themselves. You can feasibly issue an order to a Tank Commander via Pask and vice versa however.

I see your point on INF officers issuing orders to themselves via interpretation of the rules wording, but practically who would use an order to give your Platoon commander FRFSRF for example. again in IMHO this hasn't been FAQ'd as its not very likely to occur, whereas for Tank commanders there is a a obvious benefit hence the FAQ.

 

But the rules have changed from Index to Codex.

 

The Tank Orders rule in the Index specifies that it cannot be used on Characters; that restriction has been removed in the Codex.

 

 

 

 

 

But the rules have changed from Index to Codex.

 

The Tank Orders rule in the Index specifies that it cannot be used on Characters; that restriction has been removed in the Codex.

 

Yes, the very basis for the FAQ (the line "though the unit you pick cannot be a character") was removed in the Codex, thus that FAQ cannot be applied.

If they now want Codex Tank Commanders being unable to order themselves, they will need to do it as Errata (reintroducing the limitation on characters or making it only valid on "leman russ battle tank" units) and not as FAQ (which by its nature only clarifies existing rules, but doesn't change or correct them).

 

Yup thanks for pointing this out again. As a said earlier in the thread (post 153) I misinterpreted the rules / misread I hold my hand up I was wrong. 

[Sete]

I just saw the FAQ the commissars with the warlord trait can issue orders.

[Plasmablasts]

I just saw the FAQ the commissars with the warlord trait can issue orders.

Jolly good - Gaunt can lead his Ghosts now!

[Withershadow]

Yes but commissars in general are now more of a danger than a benefit.

[mertbl]

Do you have to use the summary execution rule or can you just not use it? Can I just take lord commisar and use him to his ld 9.

[Mitchverr]

I believe you must use the execution rule.

[Withershadow]

Do you have to use the summary execution rule or can you just not use it? Can I just take lord commisar and use him to his ld 9.

It's mandatory.

 

So say you have your unit of Conscripts next to your lord Commissar.  The enemy kills 9 of them, forcing a morale check.  You get luck and roll a 1, losing only 1 model.  However, since you technically failed morale, Summary Executioner kicks in... you shoot one guy, forcing a re-roll, which will then always kill at least 1 more guy.  It's incredibly stupid. 

[Feral_80]

Updated the original post to incorporate the most important changes introduced by the 1.1 FAQ.