Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Imperial Guard(8E)

Templates with weapon stats do not belong here.

So I mentioned in the history page that templates detailing what the weapons are should not be on here because they add nothing, and that's true. Not only does it mess up how the page looks, but everyone who has this army will already know what the weapons do, so repeating their profiles serves no purpose. This has been covered many times on many other tactics pages and not just by me, but a tactics page is not a page that displays all the rules something has, it is a page for tactics. All entries should be the name of something, whether or not it's good, and why. If you want to add in some humour or flavour it up a little then that's fine so long as it doesn't overshadow how something is and how it should be used.

There are a lot of entries where somebody adds in the profile of something, and I know people are going to try to use those as an example, and no, those aren't necessary either. If you want to talk about the stats of something in a weapon, then you should keep it to why a stat is good or bad (for example, Power Fists are terrible because despite S6 they cost too much and you're rarely going to make the points back, so stick to Power Mauls which are only slightly weaker). I also deleted the template on the main page before making this here because that template was hideous, taking up a massive chunk of screen with colours that don't blend and offering information that was annoying to read because none of it was grouped up properly. -- Triacom (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. The weapon stats are ALREADY listed, RIGHT NOW, in that section, just in a way that is more difficult to read than a table. If you want to restrict yourself to just the 4-5 weapons currently up, that's fine, but I cannot support presenting the same information in a harder-to-read format, regardless of rationale. Pick one: Either we are NOT presenting the stats of the melee weapons being discussed, or we are. If we are, the goal should be to present our information as cleanly as possible. I'm not sure which template you mean, but the templates I used to make the melee weapons table were dynamically colorable, so if the problem is that I chose a poor color scheme, that is easily rectified in-page. Anyway, I'll give you some time to respond, as an edit war serves no-one, but design consistency will make the page more useful for readers, 162.246.4.98 13:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I already addressed this, but first I'll have to disagree in that they're not more difficult to read than a table because they're not suddenly grouped into a bit that doesn't fit with the rest of the page while having their description below them. Regardless however, as I said before stats do not really belong on here unless you're using it to make a point, and this has been the case with the tactics pages on this site in general for several years now. If you don't want the same information in a 'harder-to-read' format, then I'll delete the stats there entirely except when it's talking about why something is good or bad (for example, an autocannon's 2 Damage should be mentioned for being really good against Primaris). -- Triacom (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Regiments

As Raw, the <KEYWORD> effect checks it is both <REGIMENT> and <REGIMENT GIVEN NAME>. For example, if you call your regiment FALLEN, it would not be affected by Cypher, as FALLEN is stated to be a <LEGION> keyword, not a <REGIMENT>. The same way a <CATACHAN> LEGION keyword wouldn't allow orders, as <CATACHAN> buffs are the class of <REGIMENT>

That is the way it should work, but it doesn't. There is nowhere stated that you have to have <LEGION> keyword to get buffs from the Cypher, nor that you must have <ASTRA MILITARUM> to recieve orders. <CADIA> is not <REGIMENT: CADIA>, and <REGIMENT> keyword is just a dud where you can insert anything. --Flutist (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's the RAW: Some datasheets specify what regiment the unit is drawn from (e.g. Lord Castellan Creed has the Cadian keyword, so is from the Cadian Regiment, while a Tempestor Prime has the Militarum Tempestus keyword, so is from the Militarum Tempestus Regiment)... ...When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which regiment that unit is from. So yes, it directly does say you need to because the word Regiment is basically invisible on the datasheets, but still functionally required. Even Voice of Command says it can only be used on models from the same Regiment faction, and it makes this very clear. Sorry to tell you Flutist, but <CADIA> actually is <CADIA REGIMENT>, as described by RAW. -- Triacom (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, Voice of Command requires same <REGIMENT> keyword, and nothing else. Not a single word about faction. What are you talking is RAI, because while rules describes it as Cadian Regiment, the keyword is <CADIA> nonetheless, and only keyword matters. To make things worse, nothing prevents to give your Guardsman <BLOOD ANGELS> keyword, as their list says "no Space Marine unit outside of this list may have <BLOOD ANGELS>" keyword,not "any unit". But c'mon, whoever is doing this trick is an ass not to be played with already. --Flutist (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

And I stated it requires the same <REGIMENT> keyword, and to use an example, <CADIA> is a <REGIMENT> keyword, and <FALLEN> is a <LEGION> keyword. RAW the Voice of Command cannot be used on a model that doesn't have a <REGIMENT> keyword, regardless of what that keyword is. As for faction, only the Imperial Guard get the <REGIMENT> keyword, as no other army in the game has that as their keyword. Also I don't get why you think only the keyword matters and not the regiment, when the book itself states: Orders may only be issued to Infantry units within 6" of this unit that have the same <REGIMENT> keyword as this unit. Simply put, no matter how bad you want it, <FALLEN> will always be a <LEGION> keyword, not a <REGIMENT> keyword, and as such Voice of Command will never work with them, or anyone outside the Imperial Guard for that matter. Likewise, Blood Angels is a <CHAPTER> keyword. You could call some IG <BLOOD ANGELS> but that only means they'll be a part of the Blood Angels regiment, not the Blood Angels chapter, and as such cannot receive buffs that apply to the Blood Angels Chapter keyword. -- Triacom (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As expected, that was FAQ'd: Media:First-day-FAQ.PNG. So RAW that was viable tactics, as I said, but now this cancer is over. Sadly, not a word about Ogryns and their <Militarum Auxilia> keyword, so expect more rules-lawyers. --Flutist (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

From reading the FAQ, it's pretty clear that the intent was to allow for customization of units and fluff, and not to allow circumventing of transport restrictions, as stated in the FAQ, so if you're using the keyword to circumvent the restrictions of transports, you're violating the RAI. --199.167.117.46 19:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't really FAQ'd. Here's what it says: "In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes – neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum." That's pretty much exactly what I said it was, and that's what I got from the original RAW. -- Triacom (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You said "it wouldn't work", GW said "don't do it because it will work, and that's not something we had in mind". Feel the difference. --Flutist (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Pask-vanquisher

Now that Pask has a BS2+ with his assigned Tank, can the Tank be a Vanquisher? Can he now snipe armour from afar on a 2+? It would be soo awesome...

Well, I'm not sure why you would think he couldn't take a Vanquisher, but even with Pask, the Vanquisher is still terrible.

2+ to hit S8 2 shots -3 with melta range damage dice? how in the name of the emperor is the vanquisher cannon a bad gun? most enemy armour is T7 3+ with few exceptions, i;ve had great success with my regular old Tank commander with a vanquisher mounted as his main gun.

Vanquisher gun is bad because the Battle Cannon (on average) out-damages it against your example by about 20%, while also being cheaper. Even the Punisher is almost as effective while also being cheaper. The Vanquisher is cool and fluffy, I like it, but it's not "good". -- VioletDiamond (talk) 4:50, 10-19-2017 (UTC)

Crunching the numbers, a Tank commander will cause 4 wounds with a battle cannon (7 shots, 4.667 hits, 3.11 wounds and 2 failed saves VS a t7 3+ sv target, average on 2d3 will be 4), the punisher will cause 26.67 hits, with 8.889 wounds and a total of 2.963 wounds (so 3 wounds) lastly the vanquisher will hit 1.33, wound .889 (so 1) and cause 0.741 wounds, which is infact 2d6 pick the highest. on 2d6 the average is 7, so statistically one dice will roll 1, 2 or 3 while the other rolls 4, 5, or 6. all in all the vanquisher causes anywhere between 4-6 wound each time it wounds it's target, which is most often as it's AP-3. as for points, the Punisher is 20 the battle cannon 22 and the vanquisher 25. a very modest increase in points for a possible 1-2 more wounds.

I believe you used 7 as your 2d6h1 average, which is incorrect. It's 4.47. Gonna check your math. Codex stats, shots are with a TC against T7 3+, using averages rounded to hundredths:

- Battle Cannon: 7 shots, 4.62 hits, 3.05 wounds, 2.01 unsaved wounds, 4.02 damage. 22pts.

- Vanquisher: 2 shots, 1.32 hits, 0.87 wounds, 0.72 unsaved wounds, 3.25 damage. 25 pts.

Battle cannon is slightly cheaper, better against hordes, better against armor. Also, Battle Cannon has significantly higher potential damage. A full squadron + TC with BCs vs vanquishers will buy your TC track guards, letting him issue orders/hide more consistently. -- VioletDiamond (talk) 6:45, 10-22-2017 (UTC)

Not quite getting how it ends up with 3.25 damage when you just said it averages a 4.47? would'nt that be the damage result since it's 2d6h1 rather than 3.25? apologise if my math was out. i still like my vanquisher VS a BC though, just feels right on a tank hunter.

Average of 2d6h1 is 4.47, but the TC Vanquisher averages less than 1 wound per phase, bringing it down. My formula for average damage done is (# of shots) * (chance to hit) * (chance to wound) * (average unsaved wounds) * (average damage). In this case, that's (2) * (0.66) * (0.66) * (0.83) * (4.47) = ~3.25. Don't take this as me turning my nose up at the Vanquisher. Flavor-wise, it's my favorite russ gun. In pick-up games, I run it. For the mathematically minded and those who want to maximize their lists, however, it's certainly not the best choice.

-- VioletDiamond (talk) 10:15 10-24-2017 (UTC)

Kriegers and Elysians Should get their own pages.

Seriously, this page is the size of a short novel by now, and though the statlines are similar the armies play out completely differently due to the differences in available units and special rules. They should get their own tactica's.

I disagree. They share enough units and rules for them to be lumped in with vanilla guard, and neither one is big enough to justify its own page yet. --Newerfag (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the units themselves being listed on here, nor do I mind if there's a brief section on tactics. But the Elysians tactics section is really long and not particularly well organized, and at the very least, it should be collapsed or broken off into its own article. It really kills the flow of the whole page (in addition to needing some serious editing). The Krieg section seems to be about right.--74.197.64.227 04:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Krieg section is a good size to function as a subsection but that is mostly because they mostly work as a guard force while elysians are completely different. I belive at least the elysian section needs to be separated in to their own page since it will infect other sections with irrelevant information about officer of the fleet interactions etc.--2001:6B0:17:FC09:8364:DFB:E226:5C9F 11:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually believe much of the Elysian section now is cluttered and redundant; I'm going to go cull the excess and see if that helps. --Newerfag (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And done. In retrospect, it seems most of that was written by one or two people with more enthusiasm than skill at creating tactics sections. --Newerfag (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of the section you "culled" where not redundant and have been added back in one way or another. And while lacking in many aspects a lot of the information you deleted should be re-written rather than deleted. People coming to these pages are surely more interested in a full picture of what different people think a certain unit can do than to have a single paragraph of a single opinion. I mean seriously when you cut off 90 % of the information and discussion about the platoon commander you thought non of that was relevant? --2001:6B0:17:FC09:8364:DFB:E226:5C9F 11:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The concept of anchors is hardly an Elysian-unique tactic by a long shot, and certainly should not be treated as such. It should go on the general Tactics page instead. And much of what was said about Elysian veterans (among others) is nearly identical to what can be said of their vanilla counterparts. And there's a world of difference between "giving more than one opinion" and providing a mess of contradictory advice that's more likely to confuse people than assist them. I get that you want to add more information, but you're going way overboard here. Look at the other Tactics pages or even the vanilla section of this one if you want an idea of how it ought to look like. (And for the record, the platoon commander stuff was all in the anchor section already, which again would've been better off in the general Tactics page.) --Newerfag (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking this may be a good move at this point as DKK tactics were removed recently as they were "uneeded" and as for overlap of units people can just be referred back to this page --Zaku212 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Tangentially related where is the faq stating that the OOTF ability affects elysian units?

AFAIK it's right in the forgeworld index - any unit with the Aeronautica Imperialis keyword replaces all instances of that keyword with Elysians, and the OOTF's Aura normally applies to all Aeronautica Units. --SiameseCookie 20:35, 12 August 2017 (CET)

The OotF ability states specifically that a model with the Aeronautica Imperialis keyword AND the Fly keyword only can benefit from Strafing Coordinates. While the FW FAQ changes the keyword from Aeronautica to Elysians, it doesn't affect the restriction of Fly, so no more free rerolls for EDT infantry, it seems. Hackney (talk)

OotF ability is a thing considering the wording of the OotF entry from index imperium 2. GW has now added the part about the fly keyword (we can asume to stop elysians from doing this very thing). The only question is if the new OotF is the one that is used by the Elysians or the old one. Most sensible people would argue that it is the new one from the codex (along with the new valkyrie etc) but there are certain raw fanatics whom take the stance that the fw index references the imperium index for drawing external units. I think we should operate under the assumption that units are drawn from the most current source (as instructed by gw) and remove all sections making obsolete references to OotF interactions with Elysian non-flyers.--Lontt (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Titanic and pask 2+

Is there a faq I missed because I can't find the rule you are talking about anywhere?
Titanic is not mentioned once in the core rullbook, And pask still has a bs profile statline.

the TITANIC keyword does not actually do anything like FLY does. However, there are many weapons that get bonuses to vehicles with the TITANIC keyword. it's just like how other weapons get bonuses against VEHICLE models, even though vehicle itself does not give any bonuses.

TITANIC keyword in 8th so far only has two purposes, it signifies its a platform capable of equipping Titan sized weapons (even though not all variants of said vehicle do so) and it marks them as a target for several anti-titan weapons e.g. Shadowsword has +1 hit and Titan Macro weapons do double damage against Building/Titanic targets. --WatcherZero (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It does also allow you to move and fire with Macro weapons "A model armed with a Macro weapon may not fire it if it has moved previously in the turn, unless the firing unit also has the TITANIC keyword." Though I'm not immediately aware of any macro weapon that isn't attached to a Titanic vehicle. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Far as I know there is only one, Tau Tiger Shark AX-1, has errata rule "Tank Hunter" that it can move and fire Macro weapons without itself being titanic (as its a flyer that cant hover), all other units that can take a Macro weapon are titanic and 1,500 point plus with the exception of the Necron Gauss Pylon which is a titanic stationary gun emplacement (but only 500 points) so it is a kinda pointless rule. --WatcherZero (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Are we sure how it works?

Is "Move and fire" order works this way, not another? I'd like to see some evidence. For some time in the discription was part "I confirmed that via Forge World email" but since then it is gone.

Do enyone have any proofs?

(sorry for English)

There is no "evidence". It is simply a logical conclusion reached by how the rules are written. The fw email part was probably edited out because fw emails are in no way an official ruling from games-workshop. I recieved the email and thought it was probably a nice tidbit to post on this site though in hindsite maybe not super useful. The part of the exhange regarding move and fire looked as follows:

Q "The move and fire order for the Elysians state that any infantry models in the ordered unit count their weapons as assault weapons until end of turn. I think it needs to be made clear exactly what this means. Does a lasgun for example become an assault 1 weapon until end of turn? Does frag and krak grenades become assault d6 and assault 1 weapons respectively? Would this mean that i can have each model in an ordered unit shoot their rifle and throw grenades?"

A "For the Move and Fire order, you would literally replace the words 'Rapid Fire' and 'Grenade' with 'Assault' in all cases."

At the end of the day how this rule is played has to be adressed by the event / gaming group since gw has not touched upon it in any official manner. Even though the intetion was hardly to let veterans throw a million grenades any other interpertation makes no sense.--Lontt (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you make a screenshot of this answer?

Commanders and Command Squads

Do they take up separate slots? Kind of annoying if they do.

yes they take up separate slots but because of this one can by taken without the other. BibiFloris (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Demo Charges and Power Weapons

Someone just tried to return those weapons, despite them not being listed on page 85 of the Imperial Guard Codex. Please define your actions.--2601:187:4000:CA0:7DB0:40A6:D962:3E9E 02:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I returned them because GW has already said you can still use models and equipment from the Index.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/ - is my source.

--2001:8003:38B7:5200:C884:A52C:552:F278 03:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

With everything GW does they say use common sense and or discus with your opponent, so use whatever you think is reasonable

For tournament play they say this

Publications in use All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as chaplain on Bike).

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/40K8_Grand_Tournament_Rules_Pack_FINAL.pdf

The question we get out of this what do we use a standard for the page.

My personal opinion is don't put it in or make it god dam clear that this is not tournament ready.

BibiFloris (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

We should leave it in. Source related says that the weapons not in the codex are perfectly legal.

--2001:8003:38B7:5200:C884:A52C:552:F278 11:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparison table

I do think that the tabel has a function! when chosing what <regiment> to take i want to by ablle to compare EVERITHING not only the heirloom or only the stratagem but everything in one place. If you have advice for a better location in the article or a better way to give it form the I am all ear until then let it rest on the talk page BibiFloris (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Look up table for easy comparisons between the regiments - Informative only, do NOT edit: For the actual tactica, keep on reading".

Please only put the rules in here no comments, tactics or other info!

comparison	Cadian	Catachan	Valhallan	Vostroyan	Armagaddon	Tallarn	Mordian	Militarum tempestus	Custom
Regimental Docterins	Born Soldiers - Models with this doctrine may re-roll 1s to hit during the Shooting phase if they did not move in the movement phase. If an infantry unit is issued the order "Take Aim!" and has not moved, they re-roll all failed to-hit rolls	Brutal Strength - Catachan INFANTRY units gain +1 Strength, and, if within 6" of a friendly Catachan Officer, +1 Leadership; if a Catachan vehicle fires a weapon with random shot volume, you may re-roll one die when determining the number of shots you get.	Grim Demeanour - Valhallan Infantry units halve (rounding up) the number of models that flee if they fail morale tests, which makes Conscript blobs safer to use without a Commissar nearby. Valhallan Vehicles with this doctrine that have damage tables instead count their remaining wounds as double their actual value for the purposes of determining what their characteristics are.	Heirloom Weapons - Units with this doctrine extend the range of all Rapid Fire (i.e. lasguns, bolters, and plasma guns) and Heavy weapons with a minimum range of 24" or more by a further 6".	Industrial Efficiency - Armageddon INFANTRY units may double the number of attacks they make with Rapid Fire weapons (i.e. lasguns, bolters, and plasma guns) at 18", like a watered down version of the Death Guard's Inexorable Advance. Armageddon VEHICLES treat attacks against them with AP-1 as AP0.	Swift as the Wind! - Tallarn Infantry units with this doctrine can advance and still shoot all weapons except Heavy weapons, and do not suffer the penalty to hit when advancing with Assault weapons.	Parade Drill - If all of a MORDIAN Infantry unit's models are touching the base of at least one other model in the same unit, it gains +1 leadership and can add +1 to Hit rolls on Overwatch. MORDIAN VEHICLES within 3" of other MORDIAN VEHICLES can add +1 to Overwatch rolls as well.	Storm Troopers - If a model with this doctrine is shooting a target at half range or less, they get an extra shot for each roll of 6+ to hit, which can't proc itself.	Any of the before
Infantry Order	NONE	Burn Them Out!: The ordered unit can re-roll the dice when determining the number of shots a Flamer or Heavy Flamer has. In addition, enemy units do not gain any benefit to their saves from being in cover.	Fire On My Command!: The ordered unit can shoot at enemies that are within 1" of another friendly unit, but any hit roll of 1 is resolved as a hit against the friendly unit instead. If more than one friendly unit is present, choose which one gets hit. This order can't be issued to a unit which is itself within 1" of an enemy unit.	Repel The Enemy!: Targeted unit can fire any of their weapons at enemies within 1", regardless of their type, but the squad can then only fire at enemy units within 1" until the end of the phase.	Mount Up!: Targeted unit may shoot and immediately embark as long as they're within embark range and did not disembark in the movement phase that turn.	NONE	Form Firing Squad!: All of a unit's Rapid Fire weapons may target Characters that are in range regardless of whether or not there are closer enemy units.	Elimination Protocols Sanctioned! Ordered unit re-roll failed wounds against MONSTERs and VEHICLEs.	NONE
Tank Orders	Pound Them To Dust! Ordered vehicle can reroll the dice rolls (not limited to one) for determining the number of shots of Leman Russ turret weapons until the end of the phase.	NONE	NONE	NONE	NONE	Get Around Behind Them! The ordered unit can move up to 6" before or after firing and this does not count against the range calculation for Grinding Advance	NONE	NONE	NONE
Warlord trait	Superior Tactical Training: Roll a die every time your Warlord issues an Order; on a 4+, the order can affect an additional Cadian unit of the same type.	Lead From The Front: The Warlord can perform a Heroic Intervention, and can move up to 6" when doing it. In addition, if your Warlord has charged, done a Heroic Intervention, or was charged, then they re-roll failed hit rolls until the end of the turn.	Tenacious: 5+ FNP, 6+ if a Vehicle, for your Warlord.	Honored Duelist: Re-roll failed hit and wound rolls in the Fight phase for attacks made by your Warlord.	Ex-gang Leader: Add 1 to the Warlord's attack characteristic. In addition, add 1 to all wound rolls made for your warlord in the Fight phase.	Swift Attacker: Your Warlord and every Tallarn unit within 6" can charge after Falling Back.	Iron Discipline: Roll a die for every model that flees from any friendly Mordian units within 6" of your Warlord. On a 4+, that model does not flee.	Faithful Servant of The Emperor: Your Warlord can attempt to deny one psychic power per phase, as if they were a Psyker.	NONE
Stratagem	Overlapping Fields of Fire (2 CP): When a Cadian unit causes an unsaved wound on an enemy unit, use this stratagem. All other Cadian units add 1 to hit when firing at that unit.	Vicious Traps (1 CP): Use this stratagem when an enemy unit finishes a charge move within 1" of a friendly Catachan unit that is wholly on or within a terrain feature. Roll a die, and on a 4+, the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.	Send In The Next Wave! (2 CP): Use this stratagem at the end of your movement phase. Select a Valhallan Infantry non-character unit that has been destroyed earlier in the battle. Set up the unit wholly within 6" of your table edge and more than 9" away from enemy models.	Firstborn Pride (1 CP): Used at the start of the shooting phase. Select a friendly Vostroyan unit; they add 1 to all hit rolls.	Armored Fist (1 CP): At the start of the shooting phase, select an Armageddon Infantry unit that disembarked from an Armageddon transport this turn. It can re-roll to-hit rolls of 1 until the end of that phase.	Ambush (3 CP): Use during the deployment phase. You may set up to three Tallarn units in ambush. At the end of your movement phase, you may deploy them within 7" of the table's edge and more than 9" from any enemy units.	Volley Fire (1 CP): Use before a Mordian Infantry unit shoots in the shooting phase; on a hit roll of a 6, that weapon can shoot again at the same target, and these extra attacks cannot proc additional attacks.	Superior Intelligence (1 CP): Use this strategy immediately when your opponent has a unit arrive on the battlefield within 12" of a Militarum Tempestus unit; they may fire at that unit as if it was their shooting phase, with a -1 hit penalty.	NONE
Heirloom	Relic of Lost Cadia: Unveil at the start of any turn. Until the end of that turn, all Cadian units within 12" of the bearer re-roll both hit and wounds rolls of 1; they re-roll all failed hits and wounds against Chaos units.	Mamorph Tuskblade: Replaces power sword; S+2 AP-3 D2. Worse than the Blade of Conquest against almost every possible target in the game; better against TEQs, specifically, since the extra AP won't matter but the average number of wounds dealt will be higher.	Pietrov's MK 45: A Valhallan model may replace its Bolt Pistol with this relic, which has D2 and AP-1, and prevents friendly Valhallan units within 6" from losing more than 1 model per morale check.	The Armour of Graf Toschenko: Vostroyan Infantry only; wearer has Toughness 4 and Sv 2+.	Skull Mask of Acheron: -1 to enemy ld within 6" of the wearer, -2 for Orks.	Claw of the Desert Tigers: A model with a Power Sword may replace it with a AP-3 D2 Power Sword, which gives two additional attacks.	Order of the Iron Star of Mordian: Mordian Infantry bearer has a 4+ FNP.	The Tactical Auto-Reliquary of Tyberius: When the Bearer uses Voice of Command, they may attempt to issue one additional order; roll a die before attempting, and on a 2+, the order happens.	NONE
Special charters	creed, Knight Commander Pask, Colour Sergeant Jarran Kell	Colonel "Iron Hand" Straken , Sergeant Harker	NONE	NONE	NONE	NONE	NONE	NONE	NONE
Notes

• Could work, I like it: Even in the codex you have to look to one page, then go to a different section. We could hide it in an expanding section, saying "Look up table for easy comparisons - Informative only, do NOT edit: For the actual tactica, keep on reading". But can you make it expand to fit the width of the whole page? The cells are too thin. Perhaps it'd be better as an Image. Either Word or Paint or Excel. For easy reading, you see. After all, isn't that your point? Zerghalo2 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have got it to fill the with of the page but you still need a screen that makes it fit to work (AKA no mobile screens) BibiFloris (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Then an image would be better, not to mention you can't edit those. Illustrates the point, both easy on the eyes and on the edit, friendly to mobile users, etc. I appreciate the effort, but a pic better delivers your idea of a Regiment reference table. Like, your table gave me the idea to include a Mordian damage comparison...but an Excel screencap was both easier and informative. Zerghalo2 (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

INDEX VS CODEX

Hi evryone who wants to talk about index stuff great but please use a marker that indecates this is form the index, manely concerning roughriders and democharges
My proposal
<INDEX> (type this " &lt;INDEX&gt; " if you want to copy)

It doesn't matter if it's Index or Codex, Index rules are valid if the Codex doesn't mention them. So a marker is unnecessary. --2001:8003:38B7:5200:40EC:373F:D24C:B956 07:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Very much agreed. A blurb about not being found in the Codex is about as much indication as is needed.--CommissarSteve (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Deepstriking Tempestus with Hotshots

Aren't at least a few of your Hotshot lasguns going to be at exactly 9 in away when you deepstrike a unit of Scions? Thats perfectly at their rapid fire range, same goes for doctrines, now you wont always be at that perfect 9 in away but still at least a few are within that engagement envelope.

NO, becaus you need to deploy more than 9" away so by definition of the rule you cannot deep strike in rapid fire range (assuming no buffs are given) BibiFloris (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe they can double tap look at the assault faq for what that 9" is

Doesn't work. The 9" charge range is only because you have to be within 1" of an enemy model, whereas a shooting range has to cover the full distance. Rapid fire requires you be at MOST half range away (9" for scions). Deepstrike requires you be MORE than half range away. It's pretty clear-cut. They cannot arrive within RF range.

Grand Strategist real bonus

Grand strategist lets you regain 1CP on a 5+. That'd normally be CP times 1.33. However, that CP you just regained can be regained yet again on a further roll of 5+. Thus, 1 CP ends up being worth 1 + (1/3) + (1/3)² + (1/3)³ + (1/3)⁴ + (1/3)⁵ + (...) = 1.4999999. Tell me if that's not the same as multiplying 1 times 1.5 Zerghalo2 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Where is this further roll coming from? Magic? Quindraco (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You may regain a CP on a 5+ every time it's used. Even if it's a CP you regained from Grand Strategist earlier. A simplified example, you had 6CP and regain 2, that's 6*1.33 = 8. But then you use one of those 2CP you re-gained, and you further re-gain one. That's 6*1.5 = 9; -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Aha, there's the missing explanation. I'll go add that to the page, if it's not there already. Quindraco (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ld boosts and Commissars

Mordia's +1Ld stacks on top of a Lord Commissar's aura due to units in Parade Drill formation getting +1Ld, and Catachan don't because they add +1Ld specifically to their Leadership characteristic, which gets overwritten by the Commissar's...but what about the Regimental standard making units "add 1 to their Leadership". As in, they use the Lord Commissar's Ld9 and add 1 to it like Mordians do? -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It stacks for Ld 10 Guardsmen, why shouldn't it? --Flutist (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Elysian Orders clarification.

Forge World FAQ'ed how Elysian order "Move and Fire" works via email answer.So no more tricks. A-a-and both Forge World army lists are now totaly outclassed by the vanilla Guard. What a potatoes...

Hi there.

Thanks for contacting us. For this order you would replace any weapon types with Assault (rather than Rapid Fire for example). However, we believe that this order should only allow Rapid Fire weapons to change to Assault, rather than Grenades as well and we have asked our studio to address this in a future FAQ/errata.

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.

Regards, Forge World

If you have a query about your order, please call 0115 900 4995 within the UK

-- Tris Buckroyd forgeworld@gwplc.com

http://s019.radikal.ru/i637/1710/2a/f45782492c74.jpg

Forge world emails are not FAQs. Another interpertation (the opposit) was offered by forgeworld email to me a while back. How this rule works needs to be worked out in the local gaming group or by an event organiser. Though allowing everything to throw grenades harly seem like the intent.

Can we see another interpretation as a screenshot too then?

DKK tank commanders

Has anyone seen if FW has clarified if Russ tank commanders in a DKK detachment can take a Mars-Alpha chassis or not as this seems a little odd?--Zaku212 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

it says they can take a normal tank commander, and there is no where in the normal tank commander rules where you can take a alpha, so yea. no alpha pattern for your commanders

I know what it says it just smells of FW/GW oversight tbf, plus you didn't actually answer my question but thank you for taking the time. --Zaku212 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC) (Retroactive sigging)

SABRE WEAPONS BATTERY

Does its searchlight bonus provide additional bonus for snipers, custom regiments with "Tempestus" doctrine (additional shoot on 6+) and stuff like mordian strategem (additional shoot from the same weapon on 6+)? This will mean that this stuff procs on 5+, which turns mordians and any customized regiment into mob-annihilators with FRFSRF. And it can buff vehicles, and probbly can stack with Salamander command vehicle (who gives another +1 to hit which leads us to 2+ hittin baneblade which makes another shoot on 4+(!)).

Sabre Weapons batteries cannot have the Militarum Tempestus doctrine (so can't affect Scions), nor the Miliatarum Auxilia (can't affect Ratlings), and Sniper weapons need a 6+ to wound, not to hit. Furthermore, they only affect Infantry and other Sabres. But they can have Mordian and thus do help with their stratagem. Mate, it's in there, go have a read. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry about last part, you're right - i didnt read the FAQ. But whats up with tempestus doctrine? If you pick their doctrine as doctrine for custom faction with example name <Solo Nobre Auxilia>, via wording it should work next way: you dont get any tempestus trait, heirloom, stratagem, or order, because they are strictly stated for Miliatarum Auxilia. And even further - any of your scions will not get doctrine if you put them in same formation as your custom dudes. But as wording states - your doctrine now works as Miliatarum Auxilia one, for every unit which has <REGIMENT> keyword. So, you can get Leman russ make additional shoot at half distance with 6 on hit.

I read and re-read, and it doesn't say you cannot take Storm Troopers for your own regiment, the same way you're taking Heirloom Weapons for Ventrilian Nobles. I say yes. I'd also like to see more opinions. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Rough Riders and Ministorum Priests

The Rough Rider section mentions interactions with the Ministorum priests a few times. To my knowledge, the Priest only buffs ASTRA MILITARUM INFANTRY and ADEPTUS MINISTORUM INFANTRY. Given that Rough Riders are not infantry, are these entries correct? Straken's rule definitely affects them, but would like to edit this section.

the vehicle weapons section

just so everyone knows what I am doing on the main page, i'm trying to take all the weapons on vehicles and examine them in a vacuum/ compare them to alternatives. im mostly leaving out point costs and any mention of the platform that they are usually on. currently im copy-pasting parts from existing entries but I will also add weapons that have not been covered yet in general. im leaving the initial entries i'm copying intact.

Elysians and Officer of the Fleet

I didn't know whwre to put this but here seems as good a place as any.

Many of the points in the section on Elysians rely of the Officer of the fleet giving everyone the reroll 1s ability due to him sharing the same regimental keyword, however I have just noticed that the Codex entry for the Officer of the Fleet has different wording for his strafing coordinates to the one in the Index.

"Strafing Coordinates: At the start of the Shooting phase, pick an enemy unit, other than one which can FLY, within 18" of this model. For the duration of the phase, you can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for any friendly AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS units that can FLY that target the unit you picked"

The important point is he now only grants the reroll ability to units that can FLY.

I'm not sure who is responsible for editing the Elysian section but this needs to be referenced there, and the whole section will require changes.

Tempestus Doctrine

Stop this idiotic dogfighting, you can (and should) take whatever doctrine you want/like for your custom regiment, and "Storm Troopers" doctrine are not exception.

Now try to convince the moron who seemingly can't read as all is written quite clearly in the codex.--Flutist (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Controlling Bloat

A lot of bloat (and obnoxious reading) seems to be coming from back-and-forth conversation in various sections. As a result much of this article is dedicated to making points that are either refuted by the end of the paragraph or receive extra sub-paragraphs dedicated to caveats where the misinformation above could simply be corrected (ffs, sub-paragraphs arguing with a sub-paragraph arguing with the main paragraph?). This is very sloppy. Recommendation: Where this occurs, replace the conversation containing several conflicting conclusions with the final conclusion and, if appropriate, provide succinct alternatives. On a related note, I suspect this got started to such a degree that it did from people establishing strong, biased, and widely-disagreeable opinions. Recommendation: Should you stumble across a strong statement it is generally cleaner to modify the statement to be a bit more moderate (or at least simpler), rather than dedicating a paragraph (or several) to arguing with it.

A little back-and-forth is helps give this wiki flavor but this article is suffering in terms of readability, nobody is even using the strikethrough to make reading easier, and this is a decent sized codex without the added bloat. Does anyone take issue with my recommendations? If not, I'm going to get on with cleaning things up a little. -- WolfgangLMclain (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you're saying, but strikethroughs that aren't for comedic effect are terrible for flow and lead to passive-aggressive edit wars, which we're having a problem with already. If someone posts something factually incorrect, it should be corrected. If it's a matter of opinion, then maybe summarizing both points of view and letting the reader choose for themselves would be best.--CommissarSteve (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've culled a lot of the more egregious stuff, but there's plenty more to do. I don't think we need to have paragraphs and paragraphs of Mathhammer or regimental comparisons for each and every unit. If people really want that stuff, stick it under a cut so that it's not in the way.--CommissarSteve (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe separate pages for each regiment would work? Or drop downs?--148.74.9.175 02:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Allies with "armory" stratagems

The way the Relics of the Chapter and similar stratagems are worded, is it possible to spend CP to get relics from an allied army, even if your warlord is from another army? For example, if I'm playing SM with Imperial Guard, could I make my warlord a Marine, and then use Imperial Commander's Armoury to get one "extra" AM relic, going from 0 to 1?

I doubt it works that way

Yes, you can! They did a FAQ on a CSM and DG example, allowing you to use the relic stratagem.

Power Mauls for Characters?

Through the 8th edition tactics page there are multiple mentions of Power Mauls being available as melee weapon options for Characters (such as company commanders, commissars, etc). No codex, index, errata or rules update, that I can find, has Power Mauls as an option for anything beyond the Ogryn units/characters, so I'm naturally confused as to where this information comes from. I would love for this to be true, but does anyone have specific citation/confirmation of this? Otherwise the mauls would (sadly) not be valid melee options for anyone but Ogryn. --Lurkingdaemon (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Index allows Power Mauls for characters and is still valid for equipment selections per GW. Also, sign your posts. --2001:8003:3895:3A00:7141:50CA:BC40:59B6 12:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Found it, thank you. I'd suggest making a footnote in the wargear section to highlight how the Index/Codex interact in this case, since it seems to be a recurring issue of confusion/concern. --Lurkingdaemon (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Dropped moddels

Do dropped models have to be on this Page ? After all this is the Tactics page and nothing else, in my opinion they dont belong here. I do understand why they were posted here in the first place, after 8e/the codex dropped this section was quite usefull, but i dont think it is necessary anymore.

I see what you mean. Instead of dropping it entirely (as these are cool fluffy pieces that many people own), I'll place their respective models as notes underneath the Baneblade and Hellhammer entries respectively. -- Kracked Mynd (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

We'll miss you Jacobus

I've removed Jacobus' entry because as of Chapter Approved 2018, you cannot include him in the Imperial Guard. If you want to include him on a section about allies, like how other tactics pages have done in the past, then I think that would be a good idea, but it's not a good idea to list a unit as a part of a faction when they cannot be taken by that faction. -- Triacom (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Taurox Prime Missile Launcher?

Before Chapter Approved 2018, the Taurox Missile Launcher was an absolute joke of a weapon, demanding we spend 50 points for Heavy 2 S8 AP-2 Damage D6 or Heavy 2D6 S4 AP0 Damage 1, but now it's 30 points for those same two things. Obviously, twin frag missiles do not match a gattling cannon, but what about the twin krak missiles? It's an almost-twin Lascannon for a fraction of the cost, so is it worth mentioning its merits instead of the current "you should only consider the battle cannon for range" bit? --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Duty Unto Death unlimited duration

My edit was deleted for "wrong" because I stated that RAW a unit can only be affected by one order per turn. This is the last line of voice of command in Imperial Armour: Astra Militarum. It is also the last line of voice of command in Codex: Astra Militarum. It is not wrong, and just because rules lawyer cheese can be countered by more rules lawyer cheese does not make it wrong. 2601:540:10D:E391:98EA:EBFB:B337:C8EE 04:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It is wrong. Otherwise the relic that lets you give multiple orders to a unit would be useless. --2001:8003:3800:800:9FC:5982:C956:DE47 06:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thats called specific overriding general. Youre literally arguing that the words written in the book are not there. Are you going to say that theres no rule that says you cant shoot characters if theyre not the closest because that would make sniper weapons useless too? Let me ask you this: if that rule doesnt exist, what does said relic do? Negate a rule that doesnt exist? 73.79.235.147 08:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Then the relic is useless. Point out where it says the Relic can override the Order restriction. Like how Sniper weapons ignore the Character rule. --1.129.108.248 08:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have a hard time understanding specific overrides general you really shouldnt be editing for a wiki about the game. Its a basic tenet of pretty much any games rules. The relic says "you may immediately issue an additional order" which overrides the general rule. Just like we dont ignore the snipers rule that says it ignores the general rule just because it doesnt specifically say "this ability ignores the normal rules for targeting characters". When two rules conflict, the specific one wins. 73.79.235.147 08:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

...the rule for snipers -does- say they ignore character targeting restrictions. If you don't bother to read the book, don't edit.--2001:8003:3800:800:F079:1CF:3B4C:DCA 09:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

uh, no it doesnt. The rule in its entirety says "A model firing a sniper weapon may target a character even if they are not the closest enemy unit.". It does not specifically say it ignore the general rule any more than the relic specifically says it ignores the voice of command general rule. Instead it just tells you what it can do and assumes you understand that when 2 rules contradict the specific one wins. Honestly do you really expect them to need to print "even if the unit has already been given an order" on an ability that can only trigger on a unit thats already been given an order by its very nature? Thats insane. Also, you appear to not understand what a strawman is. 73.79.235.147 09:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

...you have to be trolling at this point. There's two options here:

• A: Specific Rule Overrides, as you said. In this case, Duty Unto Death, the Sniper rule and the Relic all ignore the standard rule.
• B: Standard Rule Overrides. In this case, all those rules are irrelevant.

So, if the Relic functions (and we'll assume it does), then Duty Unto Death also overrides the 'one order per turn' rule. Because you can't pick and choose, friend. --2001:8003:3800:800:F079:1CF:3B4C:DCA 09:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah ah ah, i was waiting for you to make this argument. Because no where in Duty Unto Death does it say or even imply that it ignores the one order per turn rule. Sniper rule specifically says it can shoot characters. Relic specifically says it can give an additional order. All Duty Unto Death says is a target can make a melee attack when they die (and note doesnt say "even though dead units normally cant attack" lol). So there is no reason to assume you can give the Duty Unto Death order and then give another second order, except that you want it to be. 73.79.235.147 09:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you anons but you're both right and wrong, the laurels and sniper rifles both ignore restrictions in the same way, and as such you could issue an order to a unit giving them Duty Unto Death and an additional order provided you got the roll. That being said, after you're finished giving orders to that unit you would not be able to order them ever again because they would no longer be an eligible candidate for receiving orders, which is a requirement of the laurels. -- Triacom (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

thank you Triacom, that is exactly my argument. 73.79.235.147 09:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly

(and note doesnt say "even though dead units normally cant attack" lol)

As you have pointed out, specific > standard. So this is irrelevant. Secondly, A unit may only be affected by one order per turn. Not -issued-, -affected-. So legally you can issue units multiple orders. (This also, coincidentally, means that the relic is once again useless, as the second order can be issued, but won't do anything)

Also, can we please all recognise we are debating RAW faggotry that will never be relevant in an actual game?

--2001:8003:3800:800:F079:1CF:3B4C:DCA 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because of that technically the relic doesnt function. And yes, I 100% acknowledge that this is all bullshit that realistically will never come up because anyone who tries to argue any of this will never find an opponent to play against. The whole point of my original edit was to humorously counter RAW lawyer BS with more RAW lawyer BS. 73.79.235.147 09:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If we're playing that level of mental gymnastics, issuing multiple orders to the same unit all at once is technically only one order since they all happen immediately. -- Triacom (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Im not sure I follow that one. Just because they happen at the same time doesnt mean theyre the same. Two cars can cross an intersection at the same time but theyre not the same car. 73.79.235.147 09:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The orders are the same order because you figure out if both or more can be applied at the same time and they don't count up to how many orders you're issuing. Also if we wanted to get really fucked, First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire! Doesn't affect the unit, they affect the unit's wargear if we wanted to get really fucking specific for no reason at all. -- Triacom (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

After reconsidering and re-reading, I -do- see the point of said edit, so apologies for the instant revert. Also, -technically- one could argue that they could issue both orders (as there's no limit on issuing multiple orders) and then either choose which is applied or go by the one that would be applied first (which wouldn't be Duty, as that happens in a later phase). But, this will just result in more WAAC bullshit.

Hence, this is my proposed change, replace the mention of it not ending with Due to the poor wording of this rule, one could technically argue that it does not end. However, this will result in a full blown argument on rules, so we advise you avoid doing this if you want to actually play the game. --2001:8003:3800:800:F079:1CF:3B4C:DCA 09:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

lol seems accurate 73.79.235.147 09:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think the original bit of it having no end is fine enough, just say that it has no end, but if you expect your opponent to go along with that you should also expect them to kick you in the balls. It's the exact same case as with something like a Tau drone repairing a supremacy suit in the enemy's turn. Technically true, but poorly-worded bullshit. -- Triacom (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I added the new part, but feel free to change it a bit if you wish. I personally feel the new part is more '1d4' style, though. --2001:8003:3800:800:F079:1CF:3B4C:DCA 09:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Armouries on the various army pages.

This is mostly a repost of a question I had on the main tactics page, but I'll be posting it on all the most frequently updated tacticas because it applies to all of them and I'd like to hear any arguments against it.

I've been wondering this for a while now, but what do the armoury sections add that cannot be covered by unit entries? Everything in them is either stating info that is obvious and redundant to anyone holding the relevant book (which are the people using the tactica in the first place), or it's insight that is restated in the unit entry itself, where it's actually relevant. I get why we list relics since those are usually unique to the army and can be applies to a ton of different characters for different builds, same with Warlord Traits, and both of those are usually not covered in the various unit entries, instead that advice is usually covered in the relic and traits sections which makes sense. But for the regular armouries I'm not really seeing why we keep them around at all to be honest, since they take up so much space and it's annoying to scroll past that kind of bloat. How should we improve them, if possible (so that they're not just restating profiles) or should we just remove them? Personally I'm leaning more towards getting rid of them entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

On Tank Commanders

• • • Alternate Take: There are a few reasons why you might not want to just take Tank Commanders. First, 60 points (2x30) gets you pretty decently upgraded Infantry or Scion squad to hold objectives, among other things. Second, Leman Russes can only contest objectives like troops if they're in a Spearhead detachment, which means 1 Tank Commander max will benefit from it. Third, there are armies that get bonuses when attacking Characters as well as missions that give kill points for killing Characters, and guess what Tank Commanders are? Again, there's much more to the game than Mathhammer and unit efficiency (especially if you don't just play ITC, which really overemphasizes killing units). Think about what missions you're going to be playing. - Some anon

Low point games section

There's a section in the Leman Russ article about low point games. Perhaps this article could be expanded with info on playing the IG in low point games? --Agiletek (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Tempestus Regimental Doctrines

I know this isn’t how the rule is intended, and it will likely get FAQ’d away anyway, but with the new Psychic Awakening Tempestus Regiments, as it stands I can’t seem to find anything that actually says you can’t select a keyword for your troops and then select a different Regimental Doctrine to the keyword you picked. All it says on the matter is that your Detachment has to have the same <Tempestus Regiment> keyword, not that the doctrine has to correspond to it, unlike the Astra Militarum Codex where it specifically states the Detachment must gain the corresponding Doctrine to its keyword. It even says exactly that with regards to Warlord Traits on the next page, but not with the Doctrines! It also seems unlikely that the act of choosing that keyword immediately forces you into that doctrine, as it offers up the Storm Troopers Doctrine (which granted assuming it can’t be used in conjunction with others is useless given the Thetoid Eagles Doctrine) while also saying the keyword chosen MUST be replaced by one of the others they give. I may have missed something but based on wording in the past compared to now and the fact the Doctrines do not mention keywords within them, there doesn’t seem to be anything stopping you say from giving them the Kappic Eagles keyword and corresponding Warlord Trait/Relic/etc but instead of Mobilised Infantry giving them say the Thetoid Eagles’s Predatory Strike Doctrine. I have no idea what the tactical implications of this is, and it will almost certainly result in a heated debate about the rules if you ever try to use it, but nonetheless I think it could be worth thinking about. Am I correct in this? Ravagekitteh (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)