Keywords seem to have a major issue, in that you can choose to use the same custom keyword across multiple army lists.
For clarity, let me say I have an army called "The WAAC warband". I use "The WAAC warband" in place of both <chapter> and <legion> keywords, effectively allowing me to mix both chaos and loyalist marines freely. In fact.... nothing really stops me from using "The WAAC warband" in place of any keyword that doesn't have a strict list, so mix in dark eldar and tau and maybe some orcs, etc. Not only can I mix units from any armies while remaining battleforged, the units will also benefiting from synergies, since a number of abilities only care about the custom keyword.
In fact, I don't see anything preventing me from saying my <legion> keyword is ultramarines or imperium, or my <chapter> is the black legion.
Obviously this wasn't intended and I'm certainly not arguing it should be allowed. I'm just trying to see if there is a rule preventing it I didn't notice, or if this is going to need an early faq.
Edit: Because some people keep bringing it up, no the <chapter> or <legion> place holder does not matter. The keyword replaces it, see example below.
if you were to include a chaos lord in your army, and you decided he was from the word bearers legion, his <legion> faction keyword is changed to Word Bearers and his Lord of Chaos ability would then read "You can re-roll hit rolls of one made for friendly Word Bearers units within 6" of this model"
if you were to include a captain in your army, and you decided he was from the blood ravens chapter, his <chapter> faction keyword is changed to Blood Ravens and his Rites of Battle ability would then read "You can re-roll hit rolls of one made for friendly Blood Ravens units within 6" of this model"
So your faction keyword isn't "word bearers legion" or "blood ravens chapter" it is explicitly called out as "Word bearers" and "Blood Ravens". It affects "Word Bearers" and "Blood Ravens", even if I decided some of my units are from the word bearers chapter... they still get the "Word Bearers" faction keyword.
Note also unique characters that have a preassigned faction merely have keywords like "ultramaine" not "ultramarine chapter" and they don't have a <chapter> tag to replace.
SilverAlien wrote: Keywords seem to have a major issue, in that you can choose to use the same custom keyword across multiple army lists.
For clarity, let me say I have an army called "The WAAC warband". I use "The WAAC warband" in place of both <chapter> and <legion> keywords, effectively allowing me to mix both chaos and loyalist marines freely. In fact.... nothing really stops me from using "The WAAC warband" in place of any keyword that doesn't have a strict list, so mix in dark eldar and tau and maybe some orcs, etc. Not only can I mix units from any armies while remaining battleforged, the units will also benefiting from synergies, since a number of abilities only care about the custom keyword.
In fact, I don't see anything preventing me from saying my <legion> keyword is ultramarines or imperium, or my <chapter> is the black legion.
Obviously this wasn't intended and I'm certainly not arguing it should be allowed. I'm just trying to see if there is a rule preventing it I didn't notice, or if this is going to need an early faq.
Pretty sure that's not how that works, since they go out of their way to say <Regiment> <Chapter> <Legion> and so on.
For example, I can have the "WAAC" Regiment and the "WAAC" Chapter, but that doesn't change the fact that the IG unit is still a <Regiment> and the Space Marine unit is still a <Chapter>.
SilverAlien wrote: Keywords seem to have a major issue, in that you can choose to use the same custom keyword across multiple army lists.
For clarity, let me say I have an army called "The WAAC warband". I use "The WAAC warband" in place of both <chapter> and <legion> keywords, effectively allowing me to mix both chaos and loyalist marines freely. In fact.... nothing really stops me from using "The WAAC warband" in place of any keyword that doesn't have a strict list, so mix in dark eldar and tau and maybe some orcs, etc. Not only can I mix units from any armies while remaining battleforged, the units will also benefiting from synergies, since a number of abilities only care about the custom keyword.
In fact, I don't see anything preventing me from saying my <legion> keyword is ultramarines or imperium, or my <chapter> is the black legion.
Obviously this wasn't intended and I'm certainly not arguing it should be allowed. I'm just trying to see if there is a rule preventing it I didn't notice, or if this is going to need an early faq.
Pretty sure that's not how that works, since they go out of their way to say <Regiment> <Chapter> <Legion> and so on.
For example, I can have the "WAAC" Regiment and the "WAAC" Chapter, but that doesn't change the fact that the IG unit is still a <Regiment> and the Space Marine unit is still a <Chapter>.
Pretty sure the "keyword of your own choosing" means "keyword of your own choosing from the available options." atleast for CSM. It seems it's worded differently for different armies?
For example, the Chaos Daemons Army List part seems to lack the keywords part completely, while Chaos Space Marines Army list has it.
On the other hand, the Craftworld version states you can make up a Craftworld of your own making. Chaos Space Marines equivalent doesn't include this; nowhere is it stated that you can make up a custom <Legion> of your own making.
SilverAlien wrote: Keywords seem to have a major issue, in that you can choose to use the same custom keyword across multiple army lists.
For clarity, let me say I have an army called "The WAAC warband". I use "The WAAC warband" in place of both <chapter> and <legion> keywords, effectively allowing me to mix both chaos and loyalist marines freely. In fact.... nothing really stops me from using "The WAAC warband" in place of any keyword that doesn't have a strict list, so mix in dark eldar and tau and maybe some orcs, etc. Not only can I mix units from any armies while remaining battleforged, the units will also benefiting from synergies, since a number of abilities only care about the custom keyword.
In fact, I don't see anything preventing me from saying my <legion> keyword is ultramarines or imperium, or my <chapter> is the black legion.
Obviously this wasn't intended and I'm certainly not arguing it should be allowed. I'm just trying to see if there is a rule preventing it I didn't notice, or if this is going to need an early faq.
Pretty sure that's not how that works, since they go out of their way to say <Regiment> <Chapter> <Legion> and so on.
For example, I can have the "WAAC" Regiment and the "WAAC" Chapter, but that doesn't change the fact that the IG unit is still a <Regiment> and the Space Marine unit is still a <Chapter>.
From the indexes
if you were to include a chaos lord in your army, and you decided he was from the word bearers legion, his <legion> faction keyword is changed to Word Bearers and his Lord of Chaos ability would then read "You can re-roll hit rolls of one made for friendly Word Bearers units within 6" of this model"
if you were to include a captain in your army, and you decided he was from the blood ravens chapter, his <chapter> faction keyword is changed to Blood Ravens and his Rites of Battle ability would then read "You can re-roll hit rolls of one made for friendly Blood Ravens units within 6" of this model"
So your faction keyword isn't "word bearers legion" or "blood ravens chapter" it is explicitly called out as "Word bearers" and "Blood Ravens". It affects "Word Bearers" and "Blood Ravens", even if I decided some of my units are from the word bearers chapter... they still get the "Word Bearers" faction.
The way the rules are written, <legion>, <chapter>, and <regiment> are all replaced totally, not added on to.
Runic wrote: Pretty sure the "keyword of your own choosing" means "keyword of your own choosing from the available options." atleast for CSM. It seems it's worded differently for different armies?
For example, the Chaos Daemons Army List part seems to lack the keywords part completely, while Chaos Space Marines Army list has it.
On the other hand, the Craftworld version states you can make up a Craftworld of your own making. Chaos Space Marines equivalent doesn't include this; nowhere is it stated that you can make up a custom <Legion> of your own making.
They specifically mention that the <legion> keyword can refer to renegade chapters as well actually, and that legion is used for simplicity's sake.
If someone tries to pull this stunt and ally marines and necrons or some other tomfoolery I will find the strength to not slap them and tell them to find someone else to play.
Seriously. It's crap like this going in that makes it so we can't have nice things.
They specifically mention that the <legion> keyword can refer to renegade chapters as well actually, and that legion is used for simplicity's sake.
They do. The part where you're allowed to devise one of your own making, however, does not exist on the page.
It does on the Craftworld version, however, for example.
.... it's literally called a keyword of your own choosing with only a few limits mentioned (can't be Fallen, the four cult legions are mentioned as having specific lists later on, which do limit what they can take). They never imply you can only chose your keyword from a certain list. Nor do they even provide a list of existing legions in full (Iron warriors, Alpha legion, and Night Lords aren't even mentioned so far as I saw). What renegade chapters could i chose from? Which count as canon and which don't?
I mean... props for trying but even if this did work it wouldn't fix the issue. I went ahead and looked to see which mentioned the "make your own up" line, it includes tau, craftworld eldar, tyrannids, imperial guard, sisters of battle, mechanicus, and imperial knights. And you can still nominate tyranids as being from "hive fleet ultramarine", giving them the ultramarine keyword, so you basically can mix the above with one other army of choice.
Red__Thirst wrote: If someone tries to pull this stunt and ally marines and necrons or some other tomfoolery I will find the strength to not slap them and tell them to find someone else to play.
Seriously. It's crap like this going in that makes it so we can't have nice things
To be fair, I ended up thinking about ways this could be used non abusively. Give some IG the ultramarines keyword, to illustrate they are the pdf ultramar and used to fighting alongside marines. Or giving alpha legion to both koyal and traitor marines, to represent those double agents and hypno indoctrinated sleepers.
honestly, if someone even tried this in a game against me I'd just tell them "ok you win" and walk away. it's a clear sign right from the get go they're the worst type of rules lawyer and not worth playing against. so by all means please do this, PLEASE make it clear and apparent right at game start what kind of player you are
Okay, then does anyone have a suggestion for fixing the wording of the rule to prevent this?
It occurs to me that forcing them to have at least one fixed keyword in common to be used in the same army would at least mitigate the issue. Would basically reduce it to imperium/eldar issues (and eldar have ynnari to do this with anyway).
Or say units from separate army lists cannot use the same custom keyword, but this leaves open hive fleet ultramarine. Maybe add "custom keywords cannot be existing keywords from s different army list", which I think should fix it without causing issues.
SilverAlien wrote: Okay, then does anyone have a suggestion for fixing the wording of the rule to prevent this?
It occurs to me that forcing them to have at least one fixed keyword in common to be used in the same army would at least mitigate the issue. Would basically reduce it to imperium/eldar issues (and eldar have ynnari to do this with anyway).
Or say units from separate army lists cannot use the same custom keyword, but this leaves open hive fleet ultramarine. Maybe add "custom keywords cannot be existing keywords from s different army list", which I think should fix it without causing issues.
Seems like it could be fixed by not overwriting the keyword itself, So craftworld (name), Chapter (name) and such. Hive Fleet Ultramarine and chapter Ultramarine are two separate things, would this be enough with the above rules ?
.... it's literally called a keyword of your own choosing
You are missing the point.
Read the Eldar and CSM pages again, and you'll see they are presented differently. One is spesifically told to make up a Craftworld of their own making if they so wish. There is no such thing for Legion. Both have the "keyword of your own choosing" -bit. This could easily mean "keyword of your own choosing [from the available options presented]." Chaos Space Marines aren't encouraged to create their own Legions in their page, like Eldar are encouraged to create their own Craftworld on their respective page. Period. I'm not talking about how it's supposed to be, or how it's supposed to work. I'm merely stating they are written differently for different factions, that is all. Arguing against that is pointless because it is obviously so and anyone can check it from the leaked images.
Here is a fix we're using in our tournament rules package:
"Custom keywords are always counted as having the original default keyword as a suffix. For example, if a player decides their Space Marines are from the <Chapter> Exploitators, the keyword is treated as <Exploitators Chapter>."
So a Tyranid Hivefleet Exploitators would automatically be called Exploitators Hivefleet, preventing abuse.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly, if someone even tried this in a game against me I'd just tell them "ok you win" and walk away. it's a clear sign right from the get go they're the worst type of rules lawyer and not worth playing against. so by all means please do this, PLEASE make it clear and apparent right at game start what kind of player you are
Absolutely this. It's more than abundantly clear exactly how this is intended to work, so it really doesn't need to be "fixed". The only people that would affect are total melts, who will no doubt find some other ridiculous way to try and get one up on people by deliberately misinterpreting things.
I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?
To me this wont be a problem. Because to me and everyone i play with its clear that a <chapter>keyword always is a <chapter>keyword and a <legion>keyword always is a <legion>keyword no matter what you chose to name it.
ShadowPug wrote: I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?
So, don't have thSM rules but this doesn't work with how SoB are worded. Basically it says you have to nominate what Order you are from and then you get the <order> keyword.
However, because the Black Legion is not an Order it isn't a legal choice for this. You could create and order Called 'Black Legion' but it wouldn't be the same keyword. It would just be an order that happened to be called black legion because the rules specifically spell out that it must be an ORDER that you choose.
ShadowPug wrote: I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?
It has all been leaked.
Ah, then surely theres a chance the leakers got it wrong? I would wait for the actual release before rule debating.
ShadowPug wrote: I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?
It has all been leaked.
Ah, then surely theres a chance the leakers got it wrong? I would wait for the actual release before rule debating.
It is photos of the pages from the books. Not someone typing what they saw.
Ahhh didn't know as I never heard of it, well I think tournaments will ban it and if anyone actually does it I don't think people will actually play, I sure as hell wont.
SilverAlien wrote: Okay, then does anyone have a suggestion for fixing the wording of the rule to prevent this?
Stop forcing the issue? You're literally making a fool out of yourself.
Except we are at least going to need a strict set of rules for tournaments, and I was brainstorming how they'd fix this without messing up intended army combinations.
Unless we are now saying tournaments organizers will release army restrictions like "don't try to exploit things", which would be hilarious to see admittedly.
ShadowPug wrote: I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?
There is a link on the main rumors/news page with the full rules available for download. Where ya been?
SilverAlien wrote: Okay, then does anyone have a suggestion for fixing the wording of the rule to prevent this?
Stop forcing the issue? You're literally making a fool out of yourself.
Except we are at least going to need a strict set of rules for tournaments, and I was brainstorming how they'd fix this without messing up intended army combinations.
Unless we are now saying tournaments organizers will release army restrictions like "don't try to exploit things", which would be hilarious to see admittedly.
No, you're overthinking something based on the most base of ruleslawyering that no sane human being would go and accept in a tournament. You don't need "restrictions" to use common sense, add two and two, and see that a chapter is not the same as a legion, regardless of them being named the same.
He is right that this is an issue, and all you dakkanauts know that there will be some random idiot that will argue this as intended, because (insert sarcastic voice) "clearly the rules writers would have said otherwise if they meant it".
However someone mentioned simply changing it to "Chapter: <CHAPTER>" instead of just "<CHAPTER>" and that's a pretty neat fix. The faction prefix at the beginning will make unique names functionally different in a strict reading, and that's pretty much how sane people are reading the rule as is right now.
I am personally against the very concept of "not playing" as a balancing factor. The rules should at least try to state what they mean to say.
And given the way that Games Workshop has been doing things lately (both the Allies rules and the Age of Sigmar melting pot armies) I can see how they might actually mean for you to be able to mix things together.
To be fair, I ended up thinking about ways this could be used non abusively. Give some IG the ultramarines keyword, to illustrate they are the pdf ultramar and used to fighting alongside marines. Or giving alpha legion to both koyal and traitor marines, to represent those double agents and hypno indoctrinated sleepers.
But given the scope of the 40k galaxy, there aren't a lot of things that you can't justify in the fluff. They wrote it that way on purpose.
The first example you had was mixing loyal and chaos space marines together. They've had that since 2nd ed- the Red Corsairs. And they made sure to let us know that the Red Corsairs are just an example of something that sometimes happens.
Astra Militarum are the classic 'mixes with everything faction. Humans can be Tau auxiliaries, Ork 'Umies, Chaos Cultists, Brood Brothers, slaves or what have you. You just have to pick a legion "Ork" and go from there, right?
Newer players will think that mixing anything with Tyranids doesn't make any sense, and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong with the current portrayal. However, back in the day, the 'Nids had mind slaver bugs that they'd insert into other species and employ them in service. So it just makes sense that you'd be able to mix 'nids with any other faction (although Necrons would be a stretch, and they didn't really exist back then, but I don't see how the faction keywords would allow this combination anyway).
Chaos Daemons mix with everyone because absolutely everyone could be corrupted by Chaos.
Genestealers likewise can ally with a lot of armies- 'stealer cults used to turn to chaos all the time (because the Partiarch or Magus like their autonomy from the hive mind) But you can also have non-human groups that get invaded by Genestealers- Ork Genestealer Hybrids used to be a thing, and there's no reason to think that Tau or Eldar would be immune. It would be particularly amazing if a 'particularly savvy patriarch was able to infect a Space Marine chapter.
I once knew a guy who made a tyranid army that had been experimented on by the Adeptus Mechanicus. He converted them each to have some mechanical bits attached to their heads (the mechanicus attachment blocked and replaced messages from the Hive Mind). He said he really loved the way that it justified fighting everyone (the Mechanicus sends them after the Imperium's Enemies, while the Imperial forces attack them because they're a xenos abomination).
If they do mean for this to be used (abused) in these ways, I'm not sure that I see it as being very different from the way that "allies" were made part of the game a few years back. I mean, once the official rules explicitly say that an Ork Waaagh can bring along a contingent of Space Wolves, I think we've passed the point where we have a leg to say "that's not fluffy enough, I'm going home."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum- I think it is worth noting that if GW have an interest in making this work with faction exclusivity, it would be the easiest thing in the world to include it in an FAQ.
Especially since this is how most people will read it to begin with.
odinsgrandson wrote: I am personally against the very concept of "not playing" as a balancing factor. The rules should at least try to state what they mean to say.
And given the way that Games Workshop has been doing things lately (both the Allies rules and the Age of Sigmar melting pot armies) I can see how they might actually mean for you to be able to mix things together.
To be fair, I ended up thinking about ways this could be used non abusively. Give some IG the ultramarines keyword, to illustrate they are the pdf ultramar and used to fighting alongside marines. Or giving alpha legion to both koyal and traitor marines, to represent those double agents and hypno indoctrinated sleepers.
But given the scope of the 40k galaxy, there aren't a lot of things that you can't justify in the fluff. They wrote it that way on purpose.
The first example you had was mixing loyal and chaos space marines together. They've had that since 2nd ed- the Red Corsairs. And they made sure to let us know that the Red Corsairs are just an example of something that sometimes happens.
Astra Militarum are the classic 'mixes with everything faction. Humans can be Tau auxiliaries, Ork 'Umies, Chaos Cultists, Brood Brothers, slaves or what have you. You just have to pick a legion "Ork" and go from there, right?
Newer players will think that mixing anything with Tyranids doesn't make any sense, and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong with the current portrayal. However, back in the day, the 'Nids had mind slaver bugs that they'd insert into other species and employ them in service. So it just makes sense that you'd be able to mix 'nids with any other faction (although Necrons would be a stretch, and they didn't really exist back then, but I don't see how the faction keywords would allow this combination anyway).
Chaos Daemons mix with everyone because absolutely everyone could be corrupted by Chaos.
Genestealers likewise can ally with a lot of armies- 'stealer cults used to turn to chaos all the time (because the Partiarch or Magus like their autonomy from the hive mind) But you can also have non-human groups that get invaded by Genestealers- Ork Genestealer Hybrids used to be a thing, and there's no reason to think that Tau or Eldar would be immune. It would be particularly amazing if a 'particularly savvy patriarch was able to infect a Space Marine chapter.
I once knew a guy who made a tyranid army that had been experimented on by the Adeptus Mechanicus. He converted them each to have some mechanical bits attached to their heads (the mechanicus attachment blocked and replaced messages from the Hive Mind). He said he really loved the way that it justified fighting everyone (the Mechanicus sends them after the Imperium's Enemies, while the Imperial forces attack them because they're a xenos abomination).
If they do mean for this to be used (abused) in these ways, I'm not sure that I see it as being very different from the way that "allies" were made part of the game a few years back. I mean, once the official rules explicitly say that an Ork Waaagh can bring along a contingent of Space Wolves, I think we've passed the point where we have a leg to say "that's not fluffy enough, I'm going home."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum- I think it is worth noting that if GW have an interest in making this work with faction exclusivity, it would be the easiest thing in the world to include it in an FAQ.
Especially since this is how most people will read it to begin with.
"Army Faction
All units in a matched play army, with the exception of those that are UNALIGNE, must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. Imperium or Chaos), even though they may be in different Detachments"
Advanced Rules, Battle-Forged Armies, Factions
"A unit's Faction is important when building a Battle-Forged army because some Detachments require all units included in it to be from the same Faction"
You will ONLY see a mixing of Factions in an Open or Narrative play where things like Detachments and Advanced rules can be ignored
"Army Faction
All units in a matched play army, with the exception of those that are UNALIGNE, must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. Imperium or Chaos), even though they may be in different Detachments"
Advanced Rules, Battle-Forged Armies, Factions
"A unit's Faction is important when building a Battle-Forged army because some Detachments require all units included in it to be from the same Faction"
You will ONLY see a mixing of Factions in an Open or Narrative play where things like Detachments and Advanced rules can be ignored
This isn't the point here, and those sections from the rulebook don't help the issue being discussed. The issue is that you are allowed to make up your own keyword. The rest you can probably deduct.
I already posted an easy fix to it however. Just keep the original default keyword as a suffix until it gets FAQ'd, if ever. For example, Tyranids from a custom Hivefleet called "Pointytooths" would count as <Pointytooths Hivefleet> - effectively blocking a player from adding Space Marines from the <Pointytooths Chapter> into the same army.
The intent of how it is supposed to work is blatantly clear. The whole "same keyword" sentence/rule would be pointless if it was inteded you can just make up your own to circumvent it, and it would therefore have no need of existing in the rulebook to beginwith.
Could I use this to give one unit from every possible faction a shared faction keyword to create a goofy army of "Dogs of War" style units? Going by RAW, yeah. It sure looks like it.
Would I ever play against someone who did it? No. Are realistically no tournament is going to allow it either.
It would be nice if GW put out an errata to clean the wording up and close this loophole. And currently GW certainly does seem active in releasing FAQs and errata for their games now (see Shadow War). However, if you're a reasonable person and you play with reasonable people, it's not going to be a problem.
For everyone saying "tournaments won't allow it", you do get the point this is a rather difficult issue to fix in a consistent manner?
The best solution is changing it to chapter: <chapter>, but you'd also have to deal with unique characters then no longer having the same keyword, which is still fixable but is more a GW errata thing at that point. Other restrictions (must have two keywords in common, can't use an existing keyword unless specifically stated, or can't use the same custom keyword to draw from two different army lists) I think work, but still might have loopholes.
Also, that's assuming tournaments actually care to close the loophole. I'm pretty sure the ally rules led to some very odd builds in the past, this isn't all that different.
But allies were balanced by giving pretty big restrictions, yes I think it was still a bit too good but there was atleast some balance.
This would just break the game, races are made to have weakness for example tau is dreadful at melee, if we can just get some great melee guys that would really ruin everything imo.
Regimental Standard: All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6" of any <Regiment> Veteran with a Regimental Standard.
There is no need the to errata anything, the rules is as clear as day. Even if you remap both a <Regiment> and a <Chapter> to be the same keyword (say WAAC for example), it is quite clear that any rules text that mentions the origin text of <Regiment>. You would need to be incredibly daft to even argue against this. <Regiment> is essential value 'y' and <Chapter> is value 'x', the only thing you are change is the visual display, but the input/output characteristics remains unchanged. Consider for example I take the 4x 'T' keys from 4 different keyboards and replace a fifth keyboards WASD keys with a 'T's. Visually they are not dissimilar, but when pressed it is quite clear they hold different values. Thinking this is an issue or asking for an errata simply shows a clear lack of any logistical skills.
takonite wrote: Regimental Standard: All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6" of any <Regiment> Veteran with a Regimental Standard.
There is no need the to errata anything, the rules is as clear as day. Even if you remap both a <Regiment> and a <Chapter> to be the same keyword (say WAAC for example), it is quite clear that any rules text that mentions the origin text of <Regiment>. You would need to be incredibly daft to even argue against this. <Regiment> is essential value 'y' and <Chapter> is value 'x', the only thing you are change is the visual display, but the input/output characteristics remains unchanged. Consider for example I take the 4x 'T' keys from 4 different keyboards and replace a fifth keyboards WASD keys with a 'T's. Visually they are not dissimilar, but when pressed it is quite clear they hold different values. Thinking this is an issue or asking for an errata simply shows a clear lack of any logistical skills.
I've already addressed this but "chapter" and "regiment" get totally replaced by the keyword, the rules explicitly mention totally replacing <chapter> with "keyword", and that abilities which apply only look to see if "keyword" is present. The rules don't care what "keyword" replaced. They probably should, but they don't. So when you make your Captain a blood raven, his ability isn't looking for <chapter>, it in fact doesn't care if <chapter> is present, it is looking exclusively for "blood raven".
Note that this aspect isn't the problem, and either breaks some units or leaves room to exploit still. Keywords don't look for the origin because unique characters don't have an origin. So if the input matters, unique characters wouldn't be able to buff normal marines, as ultramarines on a unique character would have no input variable, as it didn't replace <chapter>. So either they couldn't buff normal ultramarines, because the unique character had no mention of <chapter>, or they could ignore input as they don't have one and buff members of hive fleet ultramarine, as they'd have the "ultramarine" keyword.
If you are going to be insulting, double check that you interpretation of the rules actually fixes the problem and doesn't end up having obvious issues of its own.
Rippy wrote: I am pretty sure this same thing came up when AoS was launched?
No..it didnt ...
These are permissive rulesets,no were in either ruleset does it give permission to "create" a keyword...there are several instances were keywords can be "chosen" though.
Are you talking about both 8th and AoS? Because a few armies in 8th explicitly give the choice to make your own craftworld, regiment, etc. Plus their is no list to draw from for the others (unless it's somewhere in the core rulebook's fluff section, which is possible).
Purifier wrote: I'm all for clarifying where there is even the smallest chance that it could be another way... but this is clearly just insane.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea badly written rules are fine because we should all understand the intent.
Me neither. This is bloody mental though. This is as far as it can be taken. This is the extreme and it deserves to be ridiculed.
The problem is the rules don't even hint this shouldn't be allowed. The closest I've seen was explicitly disallowing the usage of "fallen" as a CSM legion keyword... but not for loyalist chapters etc. It is written like there is a rule in place disallowing certain keywords from moving across army lists, without evidence of any such rule existing.
That's like forgetting to include the rule that only infantry can be embarked in transports. Yes we know anyone trying to argue you can embark a chimera in a different chimera is just causing trouble, but what if someone tries embarking idk chaos spawn in the rhino? Or the wolves that follow around the SW? You wouldn't have as nearly clear a consensus.
Odinsgrandson gave a good rundown above, but there is a lot of stuff you can justify. I mean, imperial guard given a tau sept or legion keyword is one that is really hard to say shouldn't be allowed, as the lore explicitly mentions such forces existing.
The first thing I thought when I read how the keywords work was a <craftworld> Ultramarine, but I wouldn't actually try to use an army designed with a loophole like that.
I think it's obvious enough that a <craftworld> and a <chapter> are different, even if they happen to have the same letters written in the same order in their keywords. The hint that this isn't allowed in that the different custom keyword slots have different names.
If a group of Orks thought "Imperium" was a cool name for their clan, they wouldn't suddenly have Vindicare assassins and Imperial Knights joining the Waaagh.
It's a pretty massive oversight that they didn't write it "<chapter> means you can call your guys 'Blood Angels Chapter' " etc.
I don't think anyone would play that way, but as soon as you start getting into not playing "as intended," you get into some pretty shaky territory with GW.
Rhinos cannot carry models with the Terminator Keyword. Taking a Wolf Guard in your Grey Hunters and giving him Terminator Armor does not add the Terminator keyword. Enjoy.
Rhinos cannot carry models with the Terminator Keyword. Taking a Wolf Guard in your Grey Hunters and giving him Terminator Armor does not add the Terminator keyword. Enjoy.
7
*Guys, I can't fit in!*
*BROTHER ENFJORD PUSH! YOU ARE NOT MAKING US LEG IT!*
*YOU fething RASCALS IF I SEE YOU SCRATCH MY DAYSY'S PAINTJOB-!"
SilverAlien wrote: Are you talking about both 8th and AoS? Because a few armies in 8th explicitly give the choice to make your own craftworld, regiment, etc. Plus their is no list to draw from for the others (unless it's somewhere in the core rulebook's fluff section, which is possible).
Purifier wrote: I'm all for clarifying where there is even the smallest chance that it could be another way... but this is clearly just insane.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea badly written rules are fine because we should all understand the intent.
Me neither. This is bloody mental though. This is as far as it can be taken. This is the extreme and it deserves to be ridiculed.
The problem is the rules don't even hint this shouldn't be allowed. The closest I've seen was explicitly disallowing the usage of "fallen" as a CSM legion keyword... but not for loyalist chapters etc. It is written like there is a rule in place disallowing certain keywords from moving across army lists, without evidence of any such rule existing.
That's like forgetting to include the rule that only infantry can be embarked in transports. Yes we know anyone trying to argue you can embark a chimera in a different chimera is just causing trouble, but what if someone tries embarking idk chaos spawn in the rhino? Or the wolves that follow around the SW? You wouldn't have as nearly clear a consensus.
Odinsgrandson gave a good rundown above, but there is a lot of stuff you can justify. I mean, imperial guard given a tau sept or legion keyword is one that is really hard to say shouldn't be allowed, as the lore explicitly mentions such forces existing.
No, it's not a good rundown. All of them mention creating different things. Legions, Craftworlds, Chapters. The RAI is beyond clear. You're arguing in the same manner that hacking software is done. You try to find logical inconsistencies that are clearly not intended.
I have always been on the "this RAI isn't 100% clear and everything should be clarified"-side, but this is just silly. I can see where the argument comes from in a binary logical way, but it's absolutely crazy. But you know what? I don't care. I don't know anyone that is crazy enough to try this, and if I did meet anyone that tried it, I'd walk away. It's just too stupid.
is there any counter argument to this? I pointed it out to a guy at my shop, and I forgot what he mentioned as counter evidence, but he seemed to have people supporting him. It doesn't bother me as I probably won't be playing 8th ed, but I am just curious.
gummyofallbears wrote: is there any counter argument to this? I pointed it out to a guy at my shop, and I forgot what he mentioned as counter evidence, but he seemed to have people supporting him. It doesn't bother me as I probably won't be playing 8th ed, but I am just curious.
Yes. To start with, there is clearly meant to be a different between <dynasty>, <chapter> and so on, and the fact that you can fill it in does that change that difference, as its clearly "chapter / whatever known as this"
To try to put it in computer speech, the rule will call "dynasty". One can define "dynasty" as another term, but the rule does not care what you, a human called it, its still "dynasty"
Even if "chapter" has been called the same thing, it does not work because the rule doesn't care about "chapter", it cares about dynasty.
Its like...assigning a value to a cell in excel, to try to put it simply. Cell A1 has a value of 10, and cell B1 has a value of 10. However, if the calculation uses cell A1, it will only use cell A1, even though it has the same value.
There is a second, even simpler reason : don't be a dick, and try to create a very flimsy loophole based on a forced misinterpretation of a rule that has a clear intent
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yes. To start with, there is clearly meant to be a different between <dynasty>, <chapter> and so on, and the fact that you can fill it in does that change that difference, as its clearly "chapter / whatever known as this"
To try to put it in computer speech, the rule will call "dynasty". One can define "dynasty" as another term, but the rule does not care what you, a human called it, its still "dynasty"
Even if "chapter" has been called the same thing, it does not work because the rule doesn't care about "chapter", it cares about dynasty.
Its like...assigning a value to a cell in excel, to try to put it simply. Cell A1 has a value of 10, and cell B1 has a value of 10. However, if the calculation uses cell A1, it will only use cell A1, even though it has the same value.
I've already addressed this twice now, it is still wrong, could people read the thread? Or the rules in question?
They explicitly say "keyword" totally replaces any mention of <chapter> or <legion> etc. All rules are explicitly stated to only look for keyword. Read any of the opening sections which talk about the keywords.
The moment <chapter> has a keyword assigned, it stops being <chapter> and is simply "keyword". Nothing even implies that <chapter> still matters. In fact, I've pointed out multiple times that all the unique characters only work if the abilities ignore <chapter>, as all of them have pre assigned "keyword" and only look for "keyword". The rules are very clear on this.
To use an awful middle school programming comparison, keywords is an array, <chapter> is a an initial placeholder for one of the array's values, your specific "keyword" is the new value which overwrites <chapter>, and abilities look to see if any value in the array matches "keyword". That's how this is actually working.
Seriously, if you have an actual, non debunked reason, then comment. If not, the thread can die.
Someone mentioned this to me last night while I was looking through the stores copies of the Indices reading the part under Asta Militarum it gives an example of regiment name and goes even further using the name Tempestus Scions. Now if I remember correctly, had a few to many drinks afterwards so memory is kinda fuzzy about it, it goes on to state the AM units do not gain any benefit from separate Scion detachment rules and the Scion detachment gains nothing from AM rules.
I read this as a specific variable. So the keywords <Legion> and <Chapter> could have the same name, say "Blood Ravens" , but they would be two separate keywords. So a unit with the keyword <Legion> that is using "Blood Ravens" would only be effected by other units of the same keyword, <Legion> . If a Chapter is also named " Blood Ravens" it would not be effected by units with the <Legion> keyword because it is a specific keyword that only targets Legions.
I can't beleive people are stressing over this. It almost makes me think they want to be told "Sure, whatever, do what you want" so they can rock their riptides with their scat packs and farseers again.
No tournament is going to allow this. No store is going to allow this. A club might if the runner is an donkey-cave, but why would you want to go there in that case?
Actually, I think that every last one of you would allow this, depending on the circumstances.
If your opponent has a masterfully converted force that clearly addresses the alliance he's using with fluff, then I think all of us would allow it. Especially if he didn't include units in his force that were allowed by the rules but don't fit with his fluff.
That's the case with the Tau Auxiliary Imperial Guardsmen, for example. If your opponent actually did all of the conversions it would require (every imperial guardsman was wearing tau armor) and the force looked beautiful painted up in the Tau khaki colors, I don't see any one of you actually refusing to play.
I'm really wondering how much it could go the other way. What if a renegade Ord Xenos inquisitor were using various alien species in his personal force?
Tournaments might be another matter- but they'll likely make their ruling clear beforehand. They might even have to have a list printed as to which keywords are "Chapters" and which keywords are "Clans" etc.
Genesaika wrote: I read this as a specific variable. So the keywords <Legion> and <Chapter> could have the same name, say "Blood Ravens" , but they would be two separate keywords. So a unit with the keyword <Legion> that is using "Blood Ravens" would only be effected by other units of the same keyword, <Legion> . If a Chapter is also named " Blood Ravens" it would not be effected by units with the <Legion> keyword because it is a specific keyword that only targets Legions.
If that were the case none of the unique characters would work, because none of the unique characters ever specify legion, chapter, etc. It also more or less calls out it doesn't work like that.
Now, it probably should work like this, but the rules currently do not have it work like this.
We are literally only left to your common sense to know that Ahriman's Thousand Sons keyword is a <Legion> keyword and not a <Clan> or <Chapter> or <Craftworld> or other such nonsense.
Do the rules work for Successor Chapters? Is i possible to play the Angels Encarmine and still have a Death Company? To me, it seems a bigger oversight if that's not allowed.
Rippy wrote: I am pretty sure this same thing came up when AoS was launched?
No..it didnt ...
These are permissive rulesets,no were in either ruleset does it give permission to "create" a keyword...there are several instances were keywords can be "chosen" though.
Yeah- the AOS core rules just didn't have any rules for Faction at all. You could unambiguously mix and match whatever minis you owned.
Players may explicitly invent a Craftworld Keyword, and the fact that we're "choosing" keywords without an existing list of available keyewords at least implies that we're supposed to make them up. But if we're using common sense to dictate game mechanics (always risky business), then the fact that in every edition of the game, and hundreds of articles in White Dwarf openly admonish us to create our own Chapters/Clans/Legions/etc. is a fairly strong advocacy towards making them up ourselves.
odinsgrandson wrote: Actually, I think that every last one of you would allow this, depending on the circumstances.
If your opponent has a masterfully converted force that clearly addresses the alliance he's using with fluff, then I think all of us would allow it.
That's the case with the Tau Auxiliary Imperial Guardsmen, for example. If your opponent actually did all of the conversions it would require (every imperial guardsman was wearing tau armor) and the force looked beautiful painted up in the Tau khaki colors, I don't see any one of you actually refusing to play.
Tournaments might be another matter- but they'll likely make their ruling clear beforehand.
I would allow that, but he wouldn't get any bonuses from that faction keyword matching other then the fact is army is allowed on the table top.
fictious example because I don't know the actual rules:
My tau commander gives everyone that shares his sept keyword a +1 to BS that wouldn't translate to your Lemann russ battle tank also getting it.
Also there is a difference between RaW allowing creative unintended loopholes and straight up exploiting/cheating using an error. The line is in a very unclear place and shouldn't exist but hell this is way over it in the exploit category.
Sonic Keyboard wrote: What if my Legion is called Fly?
Can they shoot after falling back?
Winner of the thread
Exactly what I was planning to say.
(It doesn't work though, because <Legion> is a faction keyword and not a model keyword. But I love it nonetheless .)
Sonic Keyboard wrote: What if my Legion is called Fly?
Can they shoot after falling back?
Winner of the thread
Exactly what I was planning to say.
(It doesn't work though, because <Legion> is a faction keyword and not a model keyword. But I love it nonetheless .)
Side note for this, Fly as an ability keyword gives the extra benefit. Fly as a faction keyword does not however it would allow weapons and other abilities that get a bonus for targeting the Fly keyword to get their bonuses.
odinsgrandson wrote: Actually, I think that every last one of you would allow this, depending on the circumstances.
If your opponent has a masterfully converted force that clearly addresses the alliance he's using with fluff, then I think all of us would allow it. Especially if he didn't include units in his force that were allowed by the rules but don't fit with his fluff.
That's the case with the Tau Auxiliary Imperial Guardsmen, for example. If your opponent actually did all of the conversions it would require (every imperial guardsman was wearing tau armor) and the force looked beautiful painted up in the Tau khaki colors, I don't see any one of you actually refusing to play.
I'm really wondering how much it could go the other way. What if a renegade Ord Xenos inquisitor were using various alien species in his personal force?
Tournaments might be another matter- but they'll likely make their ruling clear beforehand. They might even have to have a list printed as to which keywords are "Chapters" and which keywords are "Clans" etc.
I don't understand what this is supposed to prove. Yes, I'll let someone bend the rules in a friendly game if they're obviously not doing so for advantage but because they're wanting to do something neat. If someone's converted a wholly-illegal model and come up with rules for it that they really want to use, most people are going to let them as long as it doesn't look abusive. That doesn't make them hypocrites when they nevertheless insist that this is in general against the rules and when they reserve the right to refuse to play someone who's trying to be abusive.
That said, yeah, I haven't seen a plausible RAW argument against this. And it's obviously totally unintended and it's totally reasonable to refuse to play with someone who's insisting on using this loophole. It doesn't seem like a big deal. It's a mildly amusing oversight in how the rules were written, and it is probably good for TOs to be aware of it just so they can make things 100% clear, but the average player's response should really just be "huh."
I don't understand what this is supposed to prove. Yes, I'll let someone bend the rules in a friendly game if they're obviously not doing so for advantage but because they're wanting to do something neat. If someone's converted a wholly-illegal model and come up with rules for it that they really want to use, most people are going to let them as long as it doesn't look abusive. That doesn't make them hypocrites when they nevertheless insist that this is in general against the rules and when they reserve the right to refuse to play someone who's trying to be abusive.
That said, yeah, I haven't seen a plausible RAW argument against this. And it's obviously totally unintended and it's totally reasonable to refuse to play with someone who's insisting on using this loophole. It doesn't seem like a big deal. It's a mildly amusing oversight in how the rules were written, and it is probably good for TOs to be aware of it just so they can make things 100% clear, but the average player's response should really just be "huh."
+1
In a friendly environment, there's a ton of rules bending, from "I'll give you that quarter inch rather than arguing about it" to "yeah, that's a pretty good approximation of an older army list" to "eh, yeah, a homebrew unit/scenario would mix it up." That isn't an argument about rules validity, and I sure as hell wouldn't be convinced to allow someone to field someone due to a stupid loophole-- in fact, their use would probably make me reject it when I might have otherwise said "sure, that's fluffy and as long as you're not abusing my laxity with something stupid", because I wouldn't want to encourage them to argue other bad GW rules to the letter.
And yeah, intent is obvious; RAW is also so far obvious, and different.
This is the most absurd and nonsensical case of straw-grasping mental gymnastics I've ever seen to try and justify something that's completely out of the question wrong. Seriously, if anyone tries this insanity they need to be kicked out of the game store and banned.
This is the most absurd and nonsensical case of straw-grasping mental gymnastics I've ever seen to try and justify something that's completely out of the question wrong. Seriously, if anyone tries this insanity they need to be kicked out of the game store and banned.
Agreed. Thread is a total Facepalm.
Hey guys! I just found an amazing loophole! The 8th rule book says you have to roll d6... but it doesn't specifically say how many TIMES it needs to roll. What you can do is place the dice on any side except the 1 and roll it once step in any direction. You will always get a six!
If anyone can show me explicitly where it says you can't do this then close the thread. Otherwise I think we need to add a new ruling that bla bla bla bla
Shockingly, they did bother to include rules about how die rolls work and how many die to roll. Because that's the point of having a ruleset, to explain how things work. If they had an attack characteristic but never explained what it was, we'd all probably know, but it'd still be an absurdly idiotic oversight.
This is the most absurd and nonsensical case of straw-grasping mental gymnastics I've ever seen to try and justify something that's completely out of the question wrong. Seriously, if anyone tries this insanity they need to be kicked out of the game store and banned.
Yes, I am pointing at a real and massive loophole in the game.
Also, what's interesting to me is that I've seen many cases where rules were a lot less clear and people didn't get this emotional about it. Yet in this case there is really no argument as to how the rule ends up working... and people almost take it personally. Certainly been flinging a lot of insults at me for pointing out how the rules work.
Is it because this is a particularly big exploit, because people actually expected 8e's minimal ruleset to not have major exploits (this is just the most obvious one I'm sure), or because this one clearly doesn't work as intended and there isn't any way to even interpret them in such a way as to work properly?
How are you putting Chaos and Imperium keyword units in the same battleforged army to begin with? After reading the OP, yes, you can do whatever with custom keywords and call your Legion Ultramarines, but that doesn't let you take Ultramarine units.
I fail to see the loophole. I see the post on this page from OP saying <keyword> is replaced entirely, which is true. But "Imperium" or "Chaos" is not. So unless you're doing this in a house-ruled environment (which if you are, you're creating the loophole), it doesn't make sense.
Edit: Oh, I see. You're also arguing that Imperium units that use different keywords could also take advantage of it by saying <Regiment> of Ultramarines and <Chapter> of Ultramarines. Except the rules call out the origin word when you utilize an ability. I see what you're saying now that I've looked at the <Chapter> rule text again but this is still ridiculous.
It's because people mistake “Hey look there is this unintended loophole” with “I want to use this loophole and force you to accept my army as legal”.
Which is completely wrong. Thanks SilverAlien for pointing that ridiculous and hilarious loophole it was really fun to discover .
Jacksmiles wrote: How are you putting Chaos and Imperium keyword units in the same battleforged army to begin with? After reading the OP, yes, you can do whatever with custom keywords and call your Legion Ultramarines, but that doesn't let you take Ultramarine units.
I fail to see the loophole. I see the post on this page from OP saying <keyword> is replaced entirely, which is true. But "Imperium" or "Chaos" is not. So unless you're doing this in a house-ruled environment (which if you are, you're creating the loophole), it doesn't make sense.
Chaos and Imperium units can be used in the same army if they share a keyword, the army only needs to have one keyword shared between all units. For example, the Fallen and Cypher have both the Imperium and Chaos keywords from the start.
WrentheFaceless wrote: It doesnt matter if they all have the same name, they're still subject to what the sub faction in the <insert here> is.
Naming them all <Cheese> doesnt make your forge world a craft world or marine chapter.
This is the worst kindof rules lawyering and deliberately misreading i've ever seen.
This has been addressed 4 times in the thread. Once on the front page. Honestly I guess it's my fault for not editing it into my opening post at this point. See, look.
if you were to include a chaos lord in your army, and you decided he was from the word bearers legion, his <legion> faction keyword is changed to Word Bearers and his Lord of Chaos ability would then read "You can re-roll hit rolls of one made for friendly Word Bearers units within 6" of this model"
if you were to include a captain in your army, and you decided he was from the blood ravens chapter, his <chapter> faction keyword is changed to Blood Ravens and his Rites of Battle ability would then read "You can re-roll hit rolls of one made for friendly Blood Ravens units within 6" of this model"
So your faction keyword isn't "word bearers legion" or "blood ravens chapter" it is explicitly called out as "Word bearers" and "Blood Ravens". It affects "Word Bearers" and "Blood Ravens", even if I decided some of my units are from the word bearers chapter... they still get the "Word Bearers" faction.
That doesnt matter if they're the same name, the keyword being replaced isnt similar
To see why your exploit doesnt work you dont even have to name them anything, if whatever word is inside the <> before you rename it doesnt match, they cant be in the same army for matched play.
You're hung up on the renaming, where the default keyword inside of the <> is already denying what you're trying to do
But by all means try it, but dont be surprised when no one wants to play a game against you
Actually if you read the <faction> keyword section, it explicitly states that the <faction> is from a chapter / forgeworld / clan whatever. So its pretty obvious that its not a complete replacement, and that rules that refer to <faction> does actually call the original world.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually if you read the <faction> keyword section, it explicitly states that the <faction> is from a chapter / forgeworld / clan whatever.
So its pretty obvious that its not a complete replacement, and that rules that refer to <faction> does actually call the original world.
WrentheFaceless wrote: That doesnt matter if they're the same name, the keyword being replaced isnt similar
To see why your exploit doesnt work you dont even have to name them anything, if whatever word is inside the <> before you rename it doesnt match, they cant be in the same army for matched play.
You're hung up on the renaming, where the default keyword inside of the <> is already denying what you're trying to do
But by all means try it, but dont be surprised when no one wants to play a game against you
Except what is in the <> doesn't matter. The rules never ever in any way indicate that they matter. In fact, as I've made clear multiple times, the rules don't function properly if <chapter> matters. Why? Because unique characters have their factions preassigned RG and Calgar are both "Ultramarines" and their ability effects "Ultramarines". The ability doesn't look for <chapter>. Neither character (nor any unique character but i'm using these as a specific example) mentions <chapter> anywhere on their sheet.
That's why, for unique characters to work, the <> keyword place holder has to be totally replaced. So the rules are still broken if we use your interpretation (even though the passage I quoted explicitly states that the ability only looks for the keyword such as "word bearers" or "blood ravens" and doesn't even once say it matters where the keyword originated).
Yes, what you are saying is how the rules should work and were likely intended to work. But they don't work like that. As soon as you declare you <chapter> or <legion>, you only have the new keyword, the origin does not matter, because <chapter> and <legion> is replaced totally. It no longer exists on the sheet, in the keywords. No unit you field will ever have <chapter> on it, it is merely a placeholder.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually if you read the <faction> keyword section, it explicitly states that the <faction> is from a chapter / forgeworld / clan whatever.
So its pretty obvious that its not a complete replacement, and that rules that refer to <faction> does actually call the original world.
WrentheFaceless wrote: That doesnt matter if they're the same name, the keyword being replaced isnt similar
To see why your exploit doesnt work you dont even have to name them anything, if whatever word is inside the <> before you rename it doesnt match, they cant be in the same army for matched play.
You're hung up on the renaming, where the default keyword inside of the <> is already denying what you're trying to do
But by all means try it, but dont be surprised when no one wants to play a game against you
Except what is in the <> doesn't matter. The rules never ever in any way indicate that they matter. In fact, as I've made clear multiple times, the rules don't function properly if <chapter> matters. Why? Because unique characters have their factions preassigned RG and Calgar are both "Ultramarines" and their ability effects "Ultramarines". The ability doesn't look for <chapter>. Neither character (nor any unique character but i'm using these as a specific example) mentions <chapter> anywhere on their sheet.
That's why, for unique characters to work, the <> keyword place holder has to be totally replaced. So the rules are still broken if we use your interpretation (even though the passage I quoted explicitly states that the ability only looks for the keyword such as "word bearers" or "blood ravens" and doesn't even once say it matters where the keyword originated).
Yes, what you are saying is how the rules should work and were likely intended to work. But they don't work like that. As soon as you declare you <chapter> or <legion>, you only have the new keyword, the origin does not matter, because <chapter> and <legion> is replaced totally. It no longer exists on the sheet, in the keywords. No unit you field will ever have <chapter> on it, it is merely a placeholder.
Except it does because Ultramarines is quite clearly a chapter. Its a faction listed in the space marine section, where it was already stated that there are <chapters>,and lore wise Ultramarine is a chapter. Its really obvious how it works if you pay attention to context.
I can totally see how very few people are OK with this interpretation of RAW, but I think the butthurt in this thread is way more off the charts than it should be.
From a RAW position this totally works. 40k doesn't send its rules through a compiler before you get the final result. What you see is what you get.
The various chapters/legions/craftworlds etc are not chosen from a list. You put in whatever you want. The name of the temporary legion doesn't matter. It even says so: " These [bracketed keywords] are shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below." Except it never gives you a list to choose from, so necessarily you can put in whatever you want. You can even go further and use their example as proof if you want to be that guy. "Abaddon has the Black Legion keyword and so is from the black legion" as opposed to Abaddon is from the black legion and so has the black legion keyword, aka keyword defines legion and not the other way round. Only when you choose to use that unit in your army do you define what the keyword actually is. They are shorthand, not real keywords. So you can absolutely replace <Legion> with Blood Angels. Lore has no implications whatsoever on the rules, never has. Just ask a deathguard player lol.
On the one hand it's pretty obviously not intended from a RAI perspective, but on the other hand, it's perfect for fluffy lists.
Renegade guard, tau auxiliaries, fallen angels (as opposed to one whole unit ^_-), traitorous primaris which supposedly are already a thing, chaos touched orks, hell even gsc work better like that than with their own rule.
Those are all nice things, that we could have with that RAW interpretation. So even if lore did matter, this would be a case FOR intent , not against.
Ideally they would have made exceptions like the gsc rule for astra militarum for other armies as well.
Something like for every 2 detachments you may take a detachment of astra militarum and change the imperium keyword to tau or chaos or whatever. something along those lines.
But given the super duper stopgap nature of these index lists, I seriously don't see much of an issue if somebody "exploits" this to make a fluffy list.
I don't get the vast amount of hate that idea is getting here. Quite a few people aren't even bothering to get the indices because of how lame they are.
So what's the big deal in sprucing things up a bit? It would be a houserule, sure, but the indices are the codex equivalent of playing with unpainted paper cutouts so meh.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, he whole legion keyword thing is pretty badly thought out. Even just within the chaos dex we get things like world eaters noise marines, which is RAW and non-exploit no matter how you cut the cookie....
*I can't actually see the page number so that might not actually be a thing but that's really not my point lol.*
I see what's being said, and I'm actually okay with this in friendly games. Not competitive play. My armies jump across codexes and time periods like a cricket on coke, but I'd never randomly show to a game with an army drawn from Skitarii, Space Wolves and Genestealer Cults unless I was absolutely certain my opponent was cool with playing against it
If you're creating a keyword to break the game, you're just being a tool.
Roknar wrote: I can totally see how very few people are OK with this interpretation of RAW, but I think the butthurt in this thread is way more off the charts than it should be.
From a RAW position this totally works. 40k doesn't send its rules through a compiler before you get the final result. What you see is what you get.
The various chapters/legions/craftworlds etc are not chosen from a list. You put in whatever you want. The name of the temporary legion doesn't matter. It even says so: " These [bracketed keywords] are shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below." Except it never gives you a list to choose from, so necessarily you can put in whatever you want. You can even go further and use their example as proof if you want to be that guy. "Abaddon has the Black Legion keyword and so is from the black legion" as opposed to Abaddon is from the black legion and so has the black legion keyword, aka keyword defines legion and not the other way round. Only when you choose to use that unit in your army do you define what the keyword actually is. They are shorthand, not real keywords. So you can absolutely replace <Legion> with Blood Angels. Lore has no implications whatsoever on the rules, never has. Just ask a deathguard player lol.
On the one hand it's pretty obviously not intended from a RAI perspective, but on the other hand, it's perfect for fluffy lists.
Renegade guard, tau auxiliaries, fallen angels (as opposed to one whole unit ^_-), traitorous primaris which supposedly are already a thing, chaos touched orks, hell even gsc work better like that than with their own rule.
Those are all nice things, that we could have with that RAW interpretation. So even if lore did matter, this would be a case FOR intent , not against.
Ideally they would have made exceptions like the gsc rule for astra militarum for other armies as well.
Something like for every 2 detachments you may take a detachment of astra militarum and change the imperium keyword to tau or chaos or whatever. something along those lines.
But given the super duper stopgap nature of these index lists, I seriously don't see much of an issue if somebody "exploits" this to make a fluffy list.
I don't get the vast amount of hate that idea is getting here. Quite a few people aren't even bothering to get the indices because of how lame they are.
So what's the big deal in sprucing things up a bit? It would be a houserule, sure, but the indices are the codex equivalent of playing with unpainted paper cutouts so meh.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, he whole legion keyword thing is pretty badly thought out. Even just within the chaos dex we get things like world eaters noise marines, which is RAW and non-exploit no matter how you cut the cookie....
*I can't actually see the page number so that might not actually be a thing but that's really not my point lol.*
Alright, you do that and I'm playing my entire Skitarii army with the Forgeworld "Fly." Aerial assault Kataphrons, coming at you!
The only reason "exploiting" this would ever be ok with anyone, are such fluffy reasons that the same people would allow you to play it even if this didn't exist. The whole thing is a non-problem. You're never gonna be allowed to so blatantly misuse it in any situation where you don't have a mate that's totally cool with it, and since 40k is a board game, you and your friend can play it however you want. I can also play chess with my friend and we can agree that all the pawns move like bishops. It's not in any way breaking the game for anyone else, but it's clearly not really chess.
SilverAlien wrote: This has been addressed 4 times in the thread. Once on the front page. Honestly I guess it's my fault for not editing it into my opening post at this point. See, look...
It doesn't matter how many times you 'addressed' the issue if you're still blatantly wrong and making up straw-grasping nonsense that anyone with any common sense would immediately recognize as absolute BS.
SilverAlien wrote: This has been addressed 4 times in the thread. Once on the front page. Honestly I guess it's my fault for not editing it into my opening post at this point. See, look...
It doesn't matter how many times you 'addressed' the issue if you're still blatantly wrong and making up straw-grasping nonsense that anyone with any common sense would immediately recognize as absolute BS.
I've shown passages from the book where the rules work exactly as I've explained. I've explained how the characters don't work properly if the alternative version (which takes <legion> or <chapter> into account) is used. I've gotten zero evidence taken from the rules in response, just people mentioning fluff, and zero explanation for how the character issue would be addressed. I've yet to see any evidence that <chapter> or <legion> are considered after they are replaced, zero people responding to how they effect a model when they are quite literally not considered to be on the datasheet for any unit once you assign the chapter/legion by RAW.
You can't just say 'You are wrong" one of you would actually have to refute it using the rules. If someone can do it, please do. That was why I originally made thee thread. I'm going to be happy if someone can close this loophole using the rules as written. But no one has.
If anyone actually tries pulling this nonsense, they get laughed at, then kicked out of the shop. They get no opponents, they're banned from tournaments, and their entire involvement with the hobby forever barred from continuing.
It doesn't matter how much bending and twisting and reaching you do with semantics and rules lawyering. If you try to put a Carnifex in an Ultramarines army and say it gets the benefits from the Captain, you're deliberately breaking the game and no one is going to play with you.
So there isn't a 'loophole' and nothing needs to be 'fixed', because the answer is obvious to anyone with any common sense. If dingbats decide to try and finagle the wording to justify nonsense like this, it's time to find the nearest oldschool full-metal chaos dreadnought and chuck it at their head.
If anyone actually tries pulling this nonsense, they get laughed at, then kicked out of the shop. They get no opponents, they're banned from tournaments, and their entire involvement with the hobby forever barred from continuing.
It doesn't matter how much bending and twisting and reaching you do with semantics and rules lawyering. If you try to put a Carnifex in an Ultramarines army and say it gets the benefits from the Captain, you're deliberately breaking the game and no one is going to play with you.
So there isn't a 'loophole' and nothing needs to be 'fixed', because the answer is obvious to anyone with any common sense. If dingbats decide to try and finagle the wording to justify nonsense like this, it's time to find the nearest oldschool full-metal chaos dreadnought and chuck it at their head.
Yes, clearly this is a non issue that doesn't need to be addressed given that people are literally threatening to physically assault people for trying to use it. It is almost like something like that prompts that sort of reaction probably should be addressed to avoid such issues. I've heard people make the same argument for units that were far too effective for cost, annoying tactics like death stars, etc. It is really odd how people seem to treat rules issues as some non issue while getting extremely angry about the possibility of anyone ever abusing said issue.
If your argument is "it won't matter because I just won't play with anyone who uses it" then you don't have an argument. You've admitted the rule in question is absolutely broken and needs to be fixed, one of the main reasons I made the thread.
Good god you all have some major anger issues you need serious help with. /tg/ is more civil than alot of you.
To be honest I was raring to go to jump into this arguement and all, but instead of me doing that, first let's take a peek at what the actual Rules Writers mention about those Keywords (jump to 5:40 where they start talking about keywords):
So those keywords were to allow people to put a label on their collection and to ensure that "the correct models are interecting with the correct units". Which would mean that it,s not so you can CSM and Dark Angels together in a single detachment.
HOWEVER, I do want to note that there are no ally restrictions which means any army can pair up with any other through the use of multiple detachments. So Genestealer Cult Marine Chapters could be a thing if you so wish.
I don't think anyone is arguing intent. We all know what they intended of course. They just didn't do a good job translating that intent into written rules it seems.
Also matched play does require the entire army to share a keyword.
Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.
This isn't a case of 'oh no this is an awful exploit that is super broken and bad', this is a case of 'whoever thought this was even allowed is fooling themselves because it's outright cheating and not a viable exploit at all to begin with.'
Putting Mephiston, Dante, and every other named Blood Angels character into a single Death Company Deathstar unit of ultimate unbeatable power was an awful exploit that was super broken and bad. That was a legal thing that the rules allowed that was an unfathomable abomination. This? This is just nonsense, and makes about as much sense as back when dingbats would deliberately misinterpret the rules for wound allocation and give 50 Ork Boyz a 2+ save with Ghazgul at the front, then Look Out Sir! all the wounds after the armor saves already failed. It's just plain wrong.
SilverAlien wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing intent. We all know what they intended of course. They just didn't do a good job translating that intent into written rules it seems.
Also matched play does require the entire army to share a keyword.
We have the answer right out of their mouths which is as good as having a FAQ to fix it. They said what it,s supposed to be used for, which kills any counter arguement that because the rules don't say you can't do someting that it's legal. The rules don't say I can't field an army of empty based and call them stealth suits, but we all know that doesn't fly. Likewise, this arguement doesn't fly due to the social contract that is drawn from between players.
Now if you invent a house rule that overrules the intent of the game, that's different, but the designers have spoken in video on what it,s for, and that is basically the highest authority you can get on this topic.
Karoline Dianne wrote: Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal. It's just plain wrong.
It's legal by the rules, until someone can show me anything that disproves my points I'll keep insisting on that. It is abusive, clearly not intended, and I don't expect most people would try to abuse it. You don't have to play with anyone who does and can get as angry about it as you like. None of those change the fact that's how the rules work and it needs to be fixed.
ClockworkZion wrote: We have the answer right out of their mouths which is as good as having a FAQ to fix it. They said what it,s supposed to be used for, which kills any counter arguement that because the rules don't say you can't do someting that it's legal. The rules don't say I can't field an army of empty based and call them stealth suits, but we all know that doesn't fly. Likewise, this arguement doesn't fly due to the social contract that is drawn from between players.
Now if you invent a house rule that overrules the intent of the game, that's different, but the designers have spoken in video on what it,s for, and that is basically the highest authority you can get on this topic.
I don't think you understand what a rule is. A vague description of the intent of keywords is not a rule, because people can and will make the case that their units "should" be able to interact. Again, this is back to things like imperial guard used as tau militia.
So no, this isn't a FAQ, it doesn't actually fix the problem.
I swear to god some of you are driving me up the wall trying to illustrate why a clearly broken rule is somehow a non issue. It's a broken rule. It needs an actual official binding FAQ/errata. I doubt it'll be the only thing, just the first and most obvious. Let it go,
Karoline Dianne wrote: Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal. It's just plain wrong.
It's legal by the rules, until someone can show me anything that disproves my points I'll keep insisting on that. It is abusive, clearly not intended, and I don't expect most people would try to abuse it. You don't have to play with anyone who does and can get as angry about it as you like. None of those change the fact that's how the rules work and it needs to be fixed.
Here's the thing, if you,re pushing for a FAQ, that is just the designers explaining their intent, which we already have.
If you,re pushing for a rule to magically appear then I don't what you want. When replacing the bracketted keywords they still have an origin. If I replace <Chapter> with Black Legion, even if it's allowed, the rules that refer to <Chapter> will continue to refer to <Chapter> and not Black Legion. Which means the keyword is still going to be <Chapter> you just get permission to read it as <Black Legion> for the purpose of making units work together correctly. Twisting the designer's explict intent because it wasn't written down in black and white isn't a sign of cleverness. It's being a knob. And only a knob would throw out a designer's statement on how something works just because they want to stick to the false arguement of "the rules don't say I can't so that means I can".
40k is a permissive ruleset, if they rules don't say you can treat different subfactions as the same faction by giving them the same name, then you don't have permission to do so and thus can't.
So how about instead of us showing you where it says you can't you show us where it says that subfactions given the same name act as the same subfaction regardless of origin.
Karoline Dianne wrote: Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal. It's just plain wrong.
It's legal by the rules, until someone can show me anything that disproves my points I'll keep insisting on that. It is abusive, clearly not intended, and I don't expect most people would try to abuse it. You don't have to play with anyone who does and can get as angry about it as you like. None of those change the fact that's how the rules work and it needs to be fixed.
ClockworkZion wrote: We have the answer right out of their mouths which is as good as having a FAQ to fix it. They said what it,s supposed to be used for, which kills any counter arguement that because the rules don't say you can't do someting that it's legal. The rules don't say I can't field an army of empty based and call them stealth suits, but we all know that doesn't fly. Likewise, this arguement doesn't fly due to the social contract that is drawn from between players.
Now if you invent a house rule that overrules the intent of the game, that's different, but the designers have spoken in video on what it,s for, and that is basically the highest authority you can get on this topic.
I don't think you understand what a rule is. A vague description of the intent of keywords is not a rule, because people can and will make the case that their units "should" be able to interact. Again, this is back to things like imperial guard used as tau militia.
So no, this isn't a FAQ, it doesn't actually fix the problem.
I swear to god some of you are driving me up the wall trying to illustrate why a clearly broken rule is somehow a non issue. It's a broken rule. It needs an actual official binding FAQ/errata. I doubt it'll be the only thing, just the first and most obvious. Let it go,
If you were any more obtuse you'd be a sphere.
Here's the deal: 40k,s rules work by giving you permission to do things, they describe how stuff works and what interacts with what. No where in the rules does it say that two bracketed keywords can confer to each other if they're both given the same replacement word (example: Replacing both <Legion> and <Chapter> with "Dark Angels"). Since there is no rule that says they can confer this way, it means you don,t have permission. Snce you don't have permission you can't do it, therefore it's a broken rule, but a borken understanding about how the rules work that is the problem.
Karoline Dianne wrote: Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.
This isn't a case of 'oh no this is an awful exploit that is super broken and bad', this is a case of 'whoever thought this was even allowed is fooling themselves because it's outright cheating and not a viable exploit at all to begin with.'
Putting Mephiston, Dante, and every other named Blood Angels character into a single Death Company Deathstar unit of ultimate unbeatable power was an awful exploit that was super broken and bad. That was a legal thing that the rules allowed that was an unfathomable abomination. This? This is just nonsense, and makes about as much sense as back when dingbats would deliberately misinterpret the rules for wound allocation and give 50 Ork Boyz a 2+ save with Ghazgul at the front, then Look Out Sir! all the wounds after the armor saves already failed. It's just plain wrong.
While I do agree with you that it's not the intention, and only someone intent on not having anyone to play with would abuse the system in such a way... That doesn't make him wrong. The rules are actually quite clear on this, as far as I can tell. You replace whatever is in the <> completely. It's not a matter of bending or breaking the rules, it's a matter of the rules being poorly written. But changing as little as a few words they could have made it very clear that it retains what is in the <> by making it so that instead of having, for example, Salamanders, Vulkan has Chapter:Salamanders. There, problem solved. Instead they went with what they did, and left a giant, gaping hole in the rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: So how about instead of us showing you where it says you can't you show us where it says that subfactions given the same name act as the same subfaction regardless of origin.
ClockworkZion wrote: Here's the deal: 40k,s rules work by giving you permission to do things, they describe how stuff works and what interacts with what. No where in the rules does it say that two bracketed keywords can confer to each other if they're both given the same replacement word (example: Replacing both <Legion> and <Chapter> with "Dark Angels"). Since there is no rule that says they can confer this way, it means you don,t have permission. Snce you don't have permission you can't do it, therefore it's a broken rule, but a borken understanding about how the rules work that is the problem.
Okay, I want you to actually show me the point this confuses you.
1. I am allowed to fill any word in for <legion> or <hive fleet>, by the rules. They tell you to use whatever you want.
2. That unit then has the keyword I chose. I chose Ultramarines. Again, I am given permission to use my own keyword, the only specified limitation being I am not allowed to use "fallen" in <legion>
3. That unit now has <legion> or <hivefleet> replaced by ultramarines. It no longer has <legion> or <hivefleet> on its datasheet, merely ultramarines.
4. RG gives a buff to any unit with the "ultramarines" keyword in range. His datasheet has no mention of <chapter>, not even one that has been replaced.
5. The rules as written also specify that abilities only look to see if the keyword is present. It specifically tells you have permission to use the ability on any unit with the matching keyword. I do not then need special permission for it if the origin of the keywords is different, because the rule gave blanket permission for that case when it gave permission for any case where the keywords matched. So <legion> and <hive fleet> given the same keyword confer abilities on each other, because they fall under the blanket permission.
I was given permission to use whatever keyword I chose. Restrictions can be replaced on the original permission (the fallen example), but I have permission now for anything not explicitly prohibited. That's how a permissive rule set actually works. I was never explicitly given permission to use red corsairs, and they are an existing faction. Can I not use red corsairs, making huron rather pointless? What you are saying makes no logical sense and is arguably a far more broken interpretation of the rules, as a number of things simply cease to function.
Having shown where I am given permission to use my own keyword, and having shown I have permission to use abilities so long as the keywords match, you'd need a rule restricting the usage of keywords if the origin doesn't match to prevent this. Otherwise, the rule that I can use keywords so long as they match takes precedent, as that is giving me global permission to do it in every situation.
Karoline Dianne wrote: Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.
This isn't a case of 'oh no this is an awful exploit that is super broken and bad', this is a case of 'whoever thought this was even allowed is fooling themselves because it's outright cheating and not a viable exploit at all to begin with.'
Putting Mephiston, Dante, and every other named Blood Angels character into a single Death Company Deathstar unit of ultimate unbeatable power was an awful exploit that was super broken and bad. That was a legal thing that the rules allowed that was an unfathomable abomination. This? This is just nonsense, and makes about as much sense as back when dingbats would deliberately misinterpret the rules for wound allocation and give 50 Ork Boyz a 2+ save with Ghazgul at the front, then Look Out Sir! all the wounds after the armor saves already failed. It's just plain wrong.
Honestly I think it is crazy that people think, ostracizing and harassing players is far less a issue than taking a potentuly flawed rule at face value.
The only thing that should be done is to ask GW to fix a loophole, You even suggested a violent threat over it.
Its Childish and kinda sad how some of the community reacts at such things, only shows how much a failure GW has been over there rules in the passed.
Get it right now so the future additions have something firm to stand on is better for everyone.
Here's the thing. If you draw the logic of each step to its extreme, then yes. It allows you to make your entire army flyers by adding the Fly keyword. I can see why this is considered broken. But it's when you say "it needs fixing" that I take offense. It's too silly to need fixing. It's like if you just leaned over the table and spit your opponent in the face, claiming that the rules allow it in some reading. While I'm wiping your spit off my face, I don't give a single flying duck about your explanation on why it's allowed.
Trying to use this is so insulting to everyone that no one in their right mind would try it. So it doesn't need fixing.
Purifier wrote: Here's the thing. If you draw the logic of each step to its extreme, then yes. It allows you to make your entire army flyers by adding the Fly keyword. I can see why this is considered broken. But it's when you say "it needs fixing" that I take offense. It's too silly to need fixing. It's like if you just leaned over the table and spit your opponent in the face, claiming that the rules allow it in some reading. While I'm wiping your spit off my face, I don't give a single flying duck about your explanation on why it's allowed.
Trying to use this is so insulting to everyone that no one in their right mind would try it. So it doesn't need fixing.
Why not fix it ? Why not go in and fix an exploit. trying to make people the bad guy for using something in the rules is Insulting, and shows this community has no respect at all.
Its not particularly silly really, Rules are rules. Trying to justify Some of the BS some people are saying is actually kinda funny, and some of it is nasty stuff.
I do not think this will apply that often, It wont for me. But Rules will be built on these rules, Its best that they start off on the best basis they can be, Or we will just end up with 7th again.
The devs are not perfect, but why just brush away exploits, and how far do we just ignore issues in the rules. I do not want to See the Raw vs Rai Debates again, i want a decent game to play.
Purifier wrote: Here's the thing. If you draw the logic of each step to its extreme, then yes. It allows you to make your entire army flyers by adding the Fly keyword. I can see why this is considered broken. But it's when you say "it needs fixing" that I take offense. It's too silly to need fixing. It's like if you just leaned over the table and spit your opponent in the face, claiming that the rules allow it in some reading. While I'm wiping your spit off my face, I don't give a single flying duck about your explanation on why it's allowed.
Trying to use this is so insulting to everyone that no one in their right mind would try it. So it doesn't need fixing.
Why not fix it ? Why not go in and fix an exploit. trying to make people the bad guy for using something in the rules is Insulting, and shows this community has no respect at all.
Its not particularly silly really, Rules are rules. Trying to justify Some of the BS some people are saying is actually kinda funny, and some of it is nasty stuff.
I do not think this will apply that often, It wont for me. But Rules will be built on these rules, Its best that they start off on the best basis they can be, Or we will just end up with 7th again.
The devs are not perfect, but why just brush away exploits, and how far do we just ignore issues in the rules. I do not want to See the Raw vs Rai Debates again, i want a decent game to play.
There's no debate here. The reading, while it can be lawyered as "legal" is so up the walls crazy that you have to break every social contract to enforce it. Anyone that would try this is clearly not an enjoyable person to play, and I would simply not play them. You can debate your face blue, I would never play you again, and neither would most people. The RAI isn't in question here at all. Even the most adamant of people that think this is a problem are still painfully aware of the RAI. When the RAI is even slightly in question, I understand these debates. This whole argument is just an insult to everyone's intelligence. It is throwing human logic under the bus to rely only on binary logic. Have at it though. If anyone will play you with this blatant rules bending, have fun with each other.
Most people won't need a fix, because we already understand the rule.
Purifier wrote: Here's the thing. If you draw the logic of each step to its extreme, then yes. It allows you to make your entire army flyers by adding the Fly keyword. I can see why this is considered broken. But it's when you say "it needs fixing" that I take offense. It's too silly to need fixing. It's like if you just leaned over the table and spit your opponent in the face, claiming that the rules allow it in some reading. While I'm wiping your spit off my face, I don't give a single flying duck about your explanation on why it's allowed.
Trying to use this is so insulting to everyone that no one in their right mind would try it. So it doesn't need fixing.
Why not fix it ? Why not go in and fix an exploit. trying to make people the bad guy for using something in the rules is Insulting, and shows this community has no respect at all.
Its not particularly silly really, Rules are rules. Trying to justify Some of the BS some people are saying is actually kinda funny, and some of it is nasty stuff.
I do not think this will apply that often, It wont for me. But Rules will be built on these rules, Its best that they start off on the best basis they can be, Or we will just end up with 7th again.
The devs are not perfect, but why just brush away exploits, and how far do we just ignore issues in the rules. I do not want to See the Raw vs Rai Debates again, i want a decent game to play.
There's no debate here. The reading, while it can be lawyered as "legal" is so up the walls crazy that you have to break every social contract to enforce it. Anyone that would try this is clearly not an enjoyable person to play, and I would simply not play them. You can debate your face blue, I would never play you again, and neither would most people. The RAI isn't in question here at all. Even the most adamant of people that think this is a problem are still painfully aware of the RAI. When the RAI is even slightly in question, I understand these debates. This whole argument is just an insult to everyone's intelligence. It is throwing human logic under the bus to rely only on binary logic. Have at it though. If anyone will play you with this blatant rules bending, have fun with each other.
Most people won't need a fix, because we already understand the rule.
No one cares what RAI is outside of 40k so much You are doing a lot to belittle the argument, and others who disagree with you.
I even said i do not care about it, and it wont effect me at all. But that does not mean its not important, the Rules should be written well and there is no real reason not to have them written so other rules can be layered on top without as much issue.
Its easy enough for GW to FIx it, But the constant oh, this is what they mean just lets them get away with all the junk we got last time.
This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.
This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.
They're not junk rules just because you've found some really niche idiotic way to break them. If they're ambiguous then yes, they're junk. These aren't ambiguous, it's clearly an unintended feature that's been found by meticulously dissecting wording. Even the title says it's an "EXPLOIT." Everyone knows it's not intended. Of course this can be fixed, and easily so. But it honestly shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous thing to complain about, as if changing it to <Airborne> would have anyone say "oh, well it's allowed by the rules, so I guess you now have a fully flying army of Skitarii"
This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.
They're not junk rules just because you've found some really niche idiotic way to break them. If they're ambiguous then yes, they're junk. These aren't ambiguous, it's clearly an unintended feature that's been found by meticulously dissecting wording. Even the title says it's an "EXPLOIT." Everyone knows it's not intended. Of course this can be fixed, and easily so. But it honestly shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous thing to complain about, as if changing it to <Airborne> would have anyone say "oh, well it's allowed by the rules, so I guess you now have a fully flying army of Skitarii"
That does not mean that it should not be fixed, Other than Devs to lazy.
I do think 7th edition was mostly junk and worth as much as that entails But i do have hope that 8th will be good, But i just think that its rather funny how this seem to pin more on the players than the Company selling it.
Any time a game needs to fall back they should be looked at and fixed, Not entirely for the rule in question. But it should be fixed to minamize as much possibility for future rule disputes.
We shouldn't have to allow in RAI just to shoulder some rules that could be fixed with a quick thought from the dev, So that it ends up worse with other rules. The Devs intention should be laid out in the rules.
This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.
They're not junk rules just because you've found some really niche idiotic way to break them. If they're ambiguous then yes, they're junk. These aren't ambiguous, it's clearly an unintended feature that's been found by meticulously dissecting wording. Even the title says it's an "EXPLOIT." Everyone knows it's not intended. Of course this can be fixed, and easily so. But it honestly shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous thing to complain about, as if changing it to <Airborne> would have anyone say "oh, well it's allowed by the rules, so I guess you now have a fully flying army of Skitarii"
That does not mean that it should not be fixed, Other than Devs to lazy.
I do think 7th edition was mostly junk and worth as much as that entails But i do have hope that 8th will be good, But i just think that its rather funny how this seem to pin more on the players than the Company selling it.
Any time a game needs to fall back they should be looked at and fixed, Not entirely for the rule in question. But it should be fixed to minamize as much possibility for future rule disputes.
We shouldn't have to allow in RAI just to shoulder some rules that could be fixed with a quick thought from the dev, So that it ends up worse with other rules. The Devs intention should be laid out in the rules.
Yes, rules should be good. But at some point this isn't about rules, but about respecting your fellow gamers. This is, like I've said, not the issue of a poorly written rule. It's the blatant and disgusting disrespect shown by anyone that tries to use this exploit. This is supposed to be a fun hobby that we all enjoy. Not a way for you to screw over other people.
This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.
They're not junk rules just because you've found some really niche idiotic way to break them. If they're ambiguous then yes, they're junk. These aren't ambiguous, it's clearly an unintended feature that's been found by meticulously dissecting wording. Even the title says it's an "EXPLOIT." Everyone knows it's not intended. Of course this can be fixed, and easily so. But it honestly shouldn't have to. It's a ridiculous thing to complain about, as if changing it to <Airborne> would have anyone say "oh, well it's allowed by the rules, so I guess you now have a fully flying army of Skitarii"
That does not mean that it should not be fixed, Other than Devs to lazy.
I do think 7th edition was mostly junk and worth as much as that entails But i do have hope that 8th will be good, But i just think that its rather funny how this seem to pin more on the players than the Company selling it.
Any time a game needs to fall back they should be looked at and fixed, Not entirely for the rule in question. But it should be fixed to minamize as much possibility for future rule disputes.
We shouldn't have to allow in RAI just to shoulder some rules that could be fixed with a quick thought from the dev, So that it ends up worse with other rules. The Devs intention should be laid out in the rules.
Yes, rules should be good. But at some point this isn't about rules, but about respecting your fellow gamers. This is, like I've said, not the issue of a poorly written rule. It's the blatant and disgusting disrespect shown by anyone that tries to use this exploit. This is supposed to be a fun hobby that we all enjoy. Not a way for you to screw over other people.
But it has been well shown in this thread there is no respect from the people who do not like it, So Respect i think went out real fast.
Following the rules is not screwing people over, Its laughable to think its disrespect. Its an exploit found, and it should be fixed. That is it, Be trying to label it as disrespect you are showing a lack of respect int he first place.
GW should just be told and they should be pushed to fix it, it shouldn't be let to pass just because some people get super emotional and start throwing stuff around.
We all share this hobby, and some people may go into it differently. But the rules should always be the default , and exploits and issues should be fixed.
Respect "went out" the second someone suggested exploiting was fair game. I'm not disrespecting by calling out disrespect. What kind of nonsense is that?
They may not want to fix it in their same way some folks want it fixed. From a fluff point of view mix hammer fits well with many army's. Now Orks can loot anything! Choas can subvert anything! If point costs are truly individualy balanced by unit it doesn't matter what units you bash together. People wanted freedom, people wanted balance, here it is. If everyone adopts the same perfect keyword list at least everyone's army will look different.
Purifier wrote: Respect "went out" the second someone suggested exploiting was fair game. I'm not disrespecting by calling out disrespect. What kind of nonsense is that?
Not really, Rules that are loose are just that. It may be cheating in some places, but if it isnt shown then its little more than a misunderstanding.
But its ok, i do not think abuse will be rampant and i think most places that are worth themselves will simply fix it.
AT which point, why would it not be worth to just have GW fix it correctly and bring it inline with there intended system.
You yourself said that for players this is a hobby, players may notice and see this or other inconstancy and use them in there hobby.
So i come back to the original point, why not just have it fixed like normal.
Insurgency Walker wrote: They may not want to fix it in their same way some folks want it fixed. From a fluff point of view mix hammer fits well with many army's. Now Orks can loot anything! Choas can subvert anything! If point costs are truly individualy balanced by unit it doesn't matter what units you bash together. People wanted freedom, people wanted balance, here it is. If everyone adopts the same perfect keyword list at least everyone's army will look different.
Are you missing the part where the same exploit allows you to make every Deff Rolla, Trukk and Land Raider flying?
Insurgency Walker wrote: They may not want to fix it in their same way some folks want it fixed. From a fluff point of view mix hammer fits well with many army's. Now Orks can loot anything! Choas can subvert anything! If point costs are truly individualy balanced by unit it doesn't matter what units you bash together. People wanted freedom, people wanted balance, here it is. If everyone adopts the same perfect keyword list at least everyone's army will look different.
Are you missing the part where the same exploit allows you to make every Deff Rolla, Trukk and Land Raider flying?
It solves the "Issue" of transport vehicles getting surrounded and being unable to fall back lol.
Again, Faction keywords don't confer any abilities no matter what they are. Being from the FLY faction does nothing but allow other abilities to target that keyword, usually to your detriment. Only keywords in the abilities column confer rules. This part is clear. I don't understand why it is so controversial to want rule loopholes fixed when they are found. This isn't an attack on fluff or a demand to win through rules exploits it is simply pointing out an oversight that leads to an unintended consequence.
Edit: On further review, there is not any clarification about keyword placement. The rule for FLY just says it can do X if a model can fly. Ahh, GW. I can always count on you for shoddy rules writing. Keep on being you.
Karoline Dianne wrote: Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.
You are a killjoy and have no sense of humor, really. No-one is asking you to play against those stupid army, we are just enjoying the funny fact that by RAW they are allowed to exist. Why do you hate the idea we take fun in this so much? In what way does it harm you?
This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".
The rules team has already literally stated what the rule is for, and yet people are acting like that isn,t enough. Does the Emperor need to come down off his throne carried and present a gilded parchment that says what it's meant for?
If you feel this is such a big rule issue, tweet Foley about it. He heads the rules team for this edition. Posting on Dakka doesn,t "fix" anything, it just lets a certain group fluff their ego about ow right they are.
Actually if you go strictly RAW then substituting the keyword would mean that no abilities take effect; as written, the ability affects units with <faction>. If you replace <faction> with something else, then that ability ceases to work as it can only, by RAW, affect units with the <faction> keyword.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".
The rules team has already literally stated what the rule is for, and yet people are acting like that isn,t enough. Does the Emperor need to come down off his throne carried and present a gilded parchment that says what it's meant for?
If you feel this is such a big rule issue, tweet Foley about it. He heads the rules team for this edition. Posting on Dakka doesn,t "fix" anything, it just lets a certain group fluff their ego about ow right they are.
This is kind of reminding me of that time in 5th (think, or was it 6th?) when units with no eyes can't draw LoS, and as such aren't allowed to fire.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
This is kind of reminding me of that time in 5th (think, or was it 6th?) when units with no eyes can't draw LoS, and as such aren't allowed to fire.
It's on that level, yes. Those poor, blind Wraithguard...
Karoline Dianne wrote: Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.
You are a killjoy and have no sense of humor, really. No-one is asking you to play against those stupid army, we are just enjoying the funny fact that by RAW they are allowed to exist. Why do you hate the idea we take fun in this so much? In what way does it harm you?
To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it. That is the problem with the RAW at all costs crowd, and part of the reason GW has always had issues with their rules. They at some point assume common sense when perhaps they shouldn't. IT is common sense that it is not intended to be able to have Hive Fleet Ultramarines, allowing for Rowboat to run around with swarmlord.
I do hope this gets fixed, and have no issue pointing it out to GW, but it should also be stated that unless GW rules in favor or this stupidity, we should all agree that it is not intended and should not be allowed.
Again, the hostility in this thread is too high.
This is a simple case of RAW being no where near RAI. And both are pretty clear.
That kind of issue pops up in YMDC all the time and I bet it would have gotten barely any attention there.
It doesn't even matter what the rules says, RAW should ideally always match RAI, which is not the case here.
It's the usually shoddy GW rules writing and they should rightfully get a slap on the wrist for it. Everybody would be better of if they wrote tighter rules.
They had a whole new edition to remedy that but one glance at YMDC and you can clearly see that they didn't learn a thing in that respect.
All OP really did is point out that RAW is different from RAI. Since when does that spark such an outrage?
Also, using RAW in this case to make fluffy lists is totally fine by me.
Exploiting to get away with some broken combo is obviously not, but somebody showing up with a converted army of tau auxiliaries on the other hand is technically supported by RAW and pretty cool in my books.
It's also so far from being an issue as I'm not likely to EVER meet such a person given how rare those kinds of armies are.
As mentioned, yes, this is a pretty straightforward matter. I have not seen anyone on this thread argue that we actually should allow people to, for example, give all their Guardsmen Fly by putting in the regiment wildcard. This isn't a matter of "RAW at all costs", it's a matter of "While the RAI can be strongly inferred, the RAW should do a better job of communicating it."
It would also be trivially easy to make that correction, such as stating that the wildcard will be appended to the chosen keyword in order to distinguish it from other keywords (ie instead of "Cadian" it would be "Regiment: Cadian" or "Cadian Regiment"). Therefore, there's no reason for GW to not take such a common-sense measure.
This wouldn't even break things like TauGuard lists, because keyword sharing only applies within a single detachment. You can take one detachment of Tau, and a second detachment of Guard, and that's entirely legal despite the fact that they don't share a single faction keyword. It merely means that the Guard officer can't give a Crisis Suit re-rolls to hit/wound.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually if you go strictly RAW then substituting the keyword would mean that no abilities take effect; as written, the ability affects units with <faction>. If you replace <faction> with something else, then that ability ceases to work as it can only, by RAW, affect units with the <faction>
Except it replaces every mention of <faction>, including the abilities. See the quotes from the index. <faction> is never going to appear on the datasheet of any unit you field, because every instance of it must be replaced before the game.
As for why I posted about it here, I wanted to insure I wasn't missing something before I sent something in (and I'm still waiting for official release because contacting GW about rules I shouldn't have access to didn't seem super great to me).
ClockworkZion wrote: This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".
Way funnier though!
Breng77 wrote: To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it.
Breng77 wrote: To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it.
True, but the problem is that jerk, not OP!
It is both IMO, when the OP presents this as a real tactic and not just a stupid exploit, it gives the jerk a foothold when people are arguing that this is how the rules work. Then the jerk starts a rule argument they may not have even considered. I don't think most people looking at the system would go, "Hey you know what I can make Hive fleet ultramarines" and break the system. So putting it out there in public view makes the chances of a jerk finding it out much higher. If the desire was just to fix it just email GW and mention the problem.
Breng77 wrote: To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it.
True, but the problem is that jerk, not OP!
It is both IMO, when the OP presents this as a real tactic and not just a stupid exploit, it gives the jerk a foothold when people are arguing that this is how the rules work. Then the jerk starts a rule argument they may not have even considered. I don't think most people looking at the system would go, "Hey you know what I can make Hive fleet ultramarines" and break the system. So putting it out there in public view makes the chances of a jerk finding it out much higher. If the desire was just to fix it just email GW and mention the problem.
*Looks at name of thread*
*looks at opening post*
Pretty sure I said it was an exploit people shouldn't use. I mentioned some people might try to justify it for certain fluffy lists, which wasn't that abusive compared to totally legal things we all got used to last edition, but even that was me trying to put it into perspective.
Also, I noticed this in three days while looking to see if there was any way to make a lost and damned style list, do you really think WAAC players weren't going to pick up on the same loophole? C'mon now, it's not even hidden well.
Breng77 wrote: To be fair, some jerk somewhere will read this and think, cool, I can make this broken combo that I know is totally not intended, but the rules don't prevent it.
True, but the problem is that jerk, not OP!
It is both IMO, when the OP presents this as a real tactic and not just a stupid exploit, it gives the jerk a foothold when people are arguing that this is how the rules work. Then the jerk starts a rule argument they may not have even considered. I don't think most people looking at the system would go, "Hey you know what I can make Hive fleet ultramarines" and break the system. So putting it out there in public view makes the chances of a jerk finding it out much higher. If the desire was just to fix it just email GW and mention the problem.
*Looks at name of thread*
*looks at opening post*
Pretty sure I said it was an exploit people shouldn't use. I mentioned some people might try to justify it for certain fluffy lists, which wasn't that abusive compared to totally legal things we all got used to last edition, but even that was me trying to put it into perspective.
Also, I noticed this in three days while looking to see if there was any way to make a lost and damned style list, do you really think WAAC players weren't going to pick up on the same loophole? C'mon now, it's not even hidden well.
I actually don't think many would have found it. The playtesters apparently did not, and they are extremely competitive. I'm sure some would but most would not.
Breng77 wrote: I actually don't think many would have found it. The playtesters apparently did not, and they are extremely competitive. I'm sure some would but most would not.
It is entirely possible the rules they were given didn't have this exploit or that particular portion wasn't given out for playtesting. In those cases they would logically interpret the rules as were probably intended. Likely the bit specfically explaining how to chose your keyword was a late entry, possibly something the playtesters didn't see. That or the playtesters weren't trying very hard to break the game, which is a playtester's job.
Breng77 wrote: I actually don't think many would have found it. The playtesters apparently did not, and they are extremely competitive. I'm sure some would but most would not.
It is entirely possible the rules they were given didn't have this exploit or that particular portion wasn't given out for playtesting. In those cases they would logically interpret the rules as were probably intended. Likely the bit specfically explaining how to chose your keyword was a late entry, possibly something the playtesters didn't see. That or the playtesters weren't trying very hard to break the game, which is a playtester's job.
It's also entirely possible that the playtesters realized misinterpreting this rule would require the same very specific reading you are using to even call it a potential exploit. The Space Marine HQ aura on an Ultramarine Captain does not affect all models with the keyword Ultramarine. It affect all models wherein the keyword <Chapter> has been replaced with the keyword Ultramarine. <Chapter>, <Craftworld>, <Sept>, etc. are keywords in themselves that have a specific rule that allow that keyword to be replaced with a custom keyword by the player during army selection, but the model still has to have that initial keyword in order to be affected by abilities that affect that keyword.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually if you go strictly RAW then substituting the keyword would mean that no abilities take effect; as written, the ability affects units with <faction>. If you replace <faction> with something else, then that ability ceases to work as it can only, by RAW, affect units with the <faction> keyword.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".
The rules team has already literally stated what the rule is for, and yet people are acting like that isn,t enough. Does the Emperor need to come down off his throne carried and present a gilded parchment that says what it's meant for?
If you feel this is such a big rule issue, tweet Foley about it. He heads the rules team for this edition. Posting on Dakka doesn,t "fix" anything, it just lets a certain group fluff their ego about ow right they are.
This is kind of reminding me of that time in 5th (think, or was it 6th?) when units with no eyes can't draw LoS, and as such aren't allowed to fire.
My personal favorite thing about 5e was that Go to Ground involved turning your models on their side. I once asked in YDMC how this would interact with TLOS, especially when ruins/etc were involved. (Advance next to a low wall, using Incoming to hide from enemy guns)
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually if you go strictly RAW then substituting the keyword would mean that no abilities take effect; as written, the ability affects units with <faction>. If you replace <faction> with something else, then that ability ceases to work as it can only, by RAW, affect units with the <faction> keyword.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".
The rules team has already literally stated what the rule is for, and yet people are acting like that isn,t enough. Does the Emperor need to come down off his throne carried and present a gilded parchment that says what it's meant for?
If you feel this is such a big rule issue, tweet Foley about it. He heads the rules team for this edition. Posting on Dakka doesn,t "fix" anything, it just lets a certain group fluff their ego about ow right they are.
This is kind of reminding me of that time in 5th (think, or was it 6th?) when units with no eyes can't draw LoS, and as such aren't allowed to fire.
My personal favorite thing about 5e was that Go to Ground involved turning your models on their side. I once asked in YDMC how this would interact with TLOS, especially when ruins/etc were involved. (Advance next to a low wall, using Incoming to hide from enemy guns)
Does it matter though? Is an army with Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines fighting together as "Ultramarines" really going to be significantly more powerful than just playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines?
If someone turned up with an army like that I'd shrug my shoulders and play them. 8th has normalized power levels to the point where I can't see any advantage being derived from it.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Does it matter though? Is an army with Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines fighting together as "Ultramarines" really going to be significantly more powerful than just playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines?
If someone turned up with an army like that I'd shrug my shoulders and play them. 8th has normalized power levels to the point where I can't see any advantage being derived from it.
It matters because if you argue that you can do this, then you can give the units keyword Fly and now your grots can melee the Vendetta flying over the field.
It's a silly argument that has to ignore previous steps and simply read the new keyword letter by letter, rather than respecting the fact that it is a CHAPTER keyword.
In some cases it seems like a general way to get allies like traitor guard <Wu Tang Clan> and legion <Wu Tang Clan>. I would be okay if that is what my opponent was doing. If they where abusing it, I would probably have a problem.
ryanme12 wrote: In some cases it seems like a general way to get allies like traitor guard <Wu Tang Clan> and legion <Wu Tang Clan>. I would be okay if that is what my opponent was doing. If they where abusing it, I would probably have a problem.
Exploits aside, I'm not sure I'd be willing to go up against that army. <Wu Tang Clan> ain't nothin' to feth with.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Does it matter though? Is an army with Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines fighting together as "Ultramarines" really going to be significantly more powerful than just playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines?
If someone turned up with an army like that I'd shrug my shoulders and play them. 8th has normalized power levels to the point where I can't see any advantage being derived from it.
I think the real worry is less about someone taking the best individual things from a bunch of factions (though this is a concern) and more being able to take advantage of synergies and special rules that depend on keywords.
For example, Hive Fleet Aeldari units can be taken in an Ynarri army, where they receive the Strength from Death rule.
Clan Ultramarines' shooting is famous because Guilliman increases their accuracy by 67%.
Sept Drukhari's Breacher teams and Vespids had a hard time getting in range to use their AP-2 guns and surviving until they started mounting up in open-topped Raiders.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Does it matter though? Is an army with Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines fighting together as "Ultramarines" really going to be significantly more powerful than just playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines?
If someone turned up with an army like that I'd shrug my shoulders and play them. 8th has normalized power levels to the point where I can't see any advantage being derived from it.
I think the real worry is less about someone taking the best individual things from a bunch of factions (though this is a concern) and more being able to take advantage of synergies and special rules that depend on keywords.
For example, Hive Fleet Aeldari units can be taken in an Ynarri army, where they receive the Strength from Death rule.
Clan Ultramarines' shooting is famous because Guilliman increases their accuracy by 67%.
Sept Drukhari's Breacher teams and Vespids had a hard time getting in range to use their AP-2 guns and surviving until they started mounting up in open-topped Raiders.
Hive Fleet Character can never be shot at anything except what is closest to you.
Astra Militarum wrote:<Regiment> If an Astra Militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will typically 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 that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen regiment.
Adeptus Ministorum wrote:<Order> All members of the Adepta Sororitas belong to an order and have the <Order> keyword. When you include such a unit your your army, you must nominate which Order that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Order> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen Order. You can use any of the Orders that you have read about, or make up your own.
So you can definitely make up the WAAC <Regiment> and the WAAC <Order> but each of them remain a custom Regiment and Order as explained by the underlined sections of the quotes above. Just like if you name your <daughter> “Celestine Smith” and your <boat> “Celestine Smith” they do not become the same class of entity.
Looking at the Regimental Standard for an Imperial Guard Command squad we get this:
Regimental Standard wrote:All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6” of any <Regiment> Veteran with a regimental standard.
A Sister from the WAAC <Order> is not from a friendly <Regiment>, she’s from a friendly <Order>, even if those two happen to share the same string of identifying characters. When she gained the WAAC keyword it was her “chosen Order”, while WAAC keyword that the Veteran has is her “chosen Regiment”.
Astra Militarum wrote:<Regiment> If an Astra Militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will typically 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 that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen regiment.
Adeptus Ministorum wrote:<Order> All members of the Adepta Sororitas belong to an order and have the <Order> keyword. When you include such a unit your your army, you must nominate which Order that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Order> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen Order. You can use any of the Orders that you have read about, or make up your own.
So you can definitely make up the WAAC <Regiment> and the WAAC <Order> but each of them remain a custom Regiment and Order as explained by the underlined sections of the quotes above. Just like if you name your <daughter> “Celestine Smith” and your <boat> “Celestine Smith” they do not become the same class of entity.
Looking at the Regimental Standard for an Imperial Guard Command squad we get this:
Regimental Standard wrote:All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6” of any <Regiment> Veteran with a regimental standard.
A Sister from the WAAC <Order> is not from a friendly <Regiment>, she’s from a friendly <Order>, even if those two happen to share the same string of identifying characters. When she gained the WAAC keyword it was her “chosen Order”, while WAAC keyword that the Veteran has is her “chosen Regiment”.
Yes yes, this is known and has already been discussed to death in this thread. However, the other side holds that this doesn't matter, as the keyword, once it is made, doesn't hold that distinction. It is just a keyword. You're not gonna convince them just as they're not gonna convince you. I think both arguments have a point, but one is so dumb it doesn't deserve to be considered.
It for sure does deserve to be considered. When you take snikrot (ork special character) it gives a bonus to blood axe, kommando's.
It for sure is then intended when you replace <clan> with blood axe, you get to have the bonus he provides, instead of it being a totally useless rule.
The wording shoud've been 'Clan "<clan name>"' / 'Legion "<legion name>"'
I think the rule was intended to work as written (a true replacement of all instances of < > ), it's just the (rather big) side effect that was not intended.
ThePauliPrinciple wrote: It for sure does deserve to be considered. When you take snikrot (ork special character) it gives a bonus to blood axe, kommando's.
It for sure is then intended when you replace <clan> with blood axe, you get to have the bonus he provides, instead of it being a totally useless rule.
The wording shoud've been 'Clan "<clan name>"' / 'Legion "<legion name>"'
I think the rule was intended to work as written (a true replacement of all instances of < > ), it's just the (rather big) side effect that was not intended.
What are you on about. Of course it's made so that you can give an Ork a clan. It's the reading that allows an Ork to join a Chapter that isn't even worth considering.
Astra Militarum wrote:<Regiment> If an Astra Militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will typically 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 that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen regiment.
Adeptus Ministorum wrote:<Order> All members of the Adepta Sororitas belong to an order and have the <Order> keyword. When you include such a unit your your army, you must nominate which Order that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Order> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen Order. You can use any of the Orders that you have read about, or make up your own.
So you can definitely make up the WAAC <Regiment> and the WAAC <Order> but each of them remain a custom Regiment and Order as explained by the underlined sections of the quotes above. Just like if you name your <daughter> “Celestine Smith” and your <boat> “Celestine Smith” they do not become the same class of entity.
Looking at the Regimental Standard for an Imperial Guard Command squad we get this:
Regimental Standard wrote:All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6” of any <Regiment> Veteran with a regimental standard.
A Sister from the WAAC <Order> is not from a friendly <Regiment>, she’s from a friendly <Order>, even if those two happen to share the same string of identifying characters. When she gained the WAAC keyword it was her “chosen Order”, while WAAC keyword that the Veteran has is her “chosen Regiment”.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that the WAAC Order and the WAAC Regiment are the same entity, but the rules don't care about this at all.
The rules -- the ones you just quoted -- are extremely clear. You misquote them later when you say that the Sister's WAAC keyword was her "chosen Order". That's not what the rules say. You underlined this the first time. She gains the name of her Chosen Order as a keyword. This is explicitly referring to "the string of identifying characters". The keyword is not an Order; it is a name. Two very different things can have the same name. This happens frequently in life and I'm sure you've encountered it before. And all the rules seem to care about is whether the Order and the Regiment have the same name.
I mean, the gameplay implications of this are ridiculous and no one should be trying to make use of this obviously-unintended loophole. But I don't really understand why people feel the need to pretend that the rules don't contain this loophole when they're actually very clear. Why bother trying to make this weird argument about how the keywords somehow, despite there being no indication that this is the case in the text and seemingly contradicted by the keywords given to special characters, preserve knowledge of the kinds of names that they could have taken on instead? Just say: "Yeah, that's some sloppy rules writing and a kinda amusing loophole, now let's play the way we know it's supposed to work". Surely this isn't, like, threatening to anyone's faith in GW as far too careful with their rules writing to let something like this slip in, right?
The thing is, that the parts you underlined are also what allows you to pick anything.
It limits the keywords to orders, legions, etc. The problem is that, without providing a list of orders, it's solely limited by fluff, which by extension is purely limited by your imagination.
That makes it so an army of half heretic and half loyal ultramarines is totally legit as you could argue that (now more than ever) they are both a legion and a chapter. An IG regiment that goes rogue and joins a sept is still a regiment but now also part of a sept.
Keep the wording, but provide a list and suddenly the limitations are crystal clear. Somebody that is new to 40k might not even know about the various orders etc.
Some exotic combinations that would be fluffy or sub chapters might not works as well with this, but it keeps things clean and those few exceptions can always bend the rules if need be considering how rare they are.
They should just have provided a list and say that if you want to take a sub chapter you can replace the keywords with their chapter but to treat it as one of the listed choices for all intents and purposes.
Which is also what some people here are saying. RAW should be better written and doing somehting like "Chapter: X" or providing a list would be example of a tighter ruleset.
As it is, it's just one of many examples that GW hasn't improved one bit in terms of writing rules. I don't have the rulebook yet, but it's feeling almost like it's the most ambiguous version of 40k yet.
Dionysodorus wrote: I don't think that anyone is arguing that the WAAC Order and the WAAC Regiment are the same entity, but the rules don't care about this at all.
The rules -- the ones you just quoted -- are extremely clear. You misquote them later when you say that the Sister's WAAC keyword was her "chosen Order". That's not what the rules say. You underlined this the first time. She gains the name of her Chosen Order as a keyword. This is explicitly referring to "the string of identifying characters". The keyword is not an Order; it is a name. Two very different things can have the same name. This happens frequently in life and I'm sure you've encountered it before. And all the rules seem to care about is whether the Order and the Regiment have the same name.
I mean, the gameplay implications of this are ridiculous and no one should be trying to make use of this obviously-unintended loophole. But I don't really understand why people feel the need to pretend that the rules don't contain this loophole when they're actually very clear. Why bother trying to make this weird argument about how the keywords somehow, despite there being no indication that this is the case in the text and seemingly contradicted by the keywords given to special characters, preserve knowledge of the kinds of names that they could have taken on instead? Just say: "Yeah, that's some sloppy rules writing and a kinda amusing loophole, now let's play the way we know it's supposed to work". Surely this isn't, like, threatening to anyone's faith in GW as far too careful with their rules writing to let something like this slip in, right?
Ah, I see - so you guys are ignoring the rules as written - where it clearly and unequivocally says that AM belong to Regiments, Sisters belong to Orders etc in favour of some unwritten theory of "the transmutative properties of keywords" that transform regiments, orders, chapters, etc into the same thing.
The rules as written, however, clearly state that the <Regiment> keyword describes which regiment a model belongs to, while an <Order> keyword describes which Order a model belongs to. An order and a regiment are not the same things - as written - and nowhere is it written that they are. Whereever there are powers that apply to an applicable keyword it uses the <Regiment> or <Order> formulation, which has to describe a regiment or order respectively or it is in violation of the rules as written. The word, whichever one you make up or choose to use, has to describe a type of regiment, order, or what-have-you - as called out explicitly in each entry - or else it is not a valid substitution.
You can call your Imperial Guard regiment the Ultramarines within the rules as written, absolutely. But the moment that stops describing a regiment - which it no longer does if you apply rule that describes a chapter, which any Space Marine or <Chapter> based Ultramarines keyword does - you are disregarding the rules as written and are cheating.
Ah, I see - so you guys are ignoring the rules as written - where it clearly and unequivocally says that AM belong to Regiments, Sisters belong to Orders etc in favour of some unwritten theory of "the transmutative properties of keywords" that transform regiments, orders, chapters, etc into the same thing.
The rules as written, however, clearly state that the <Regiment> keyword describes which regiment a model belongs to, while an <Order> keyword describes which Order a model belongs to. An order and a regiment are not the same things - as written - and nowhere is it written that they are. Whereever there are powers that apply to an applicable keyword it uses the <Regiment> or <Order> formulation, which has to describe a regiment or order respectively or it is in violation of the rules as written. The word, whichever one you make up or choose to use, has to describe a type of regiment, order, or what-have-you - as called out explicitly in each entry - or else it is not a valid substitution.
I don't think you've understood the argument. You may want to re-read my post, but I'll try to clarify below.
A Guard unit's keyword <Regiment> is the name of the regiment that it belongs to. This is explicit in the rules. You quoted the part that says this even though you seemed to forget about the use of "name" later. Now you're using "describe", and I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that. If by that you just mean that it tells you the name of the regiment, then, yeah, like I said in my previous post I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Now, obviously there's nothing inherent in the keyword that tells you that it's the name of a regiment specifically. This is easily seen by simply inspecting the "Sergeant Harker" entry, which has the keyword "Catachan". Is this the name of Harker's regiment? You can't tell without consulting other text, though you can deduce that "Catachan" is the name of his regiment from the fact that he also has the "AM" keyword and every AM unit has a regiment.
I would disagree that the keyword "describes" the unit's regiment in any deeper sense. It tells me nothing about it. It doesn't even tell me by itself that it is a regiment. You keep using the word "describe" and I can't tell if you're trying to sneak in a much stronger sort of idea or if you were just sloppy.
But yes, the faction keyword that you use for a Guard unit has to name a regiment. I have no idea why you'd think this was a point of contention. I said this explicitly.
You can call your Imperial Guard regiment the Ultramarines within the rules as written, absolutely. But the moment that stops describing a regiment - which it no longer does if you apply rule that describes a chapter, which any Space Marine or <Chapter> based Ultramarines keyword does - you are disregarding the rules as written and are cheating.
I am unaware of any rule that refers specifically to "Chapter Ultramarines". You seem confused, and you're again using "describe" in an inappropriate way. I'm looking at Guilliman's entry right now and it just says "Ultramarines" with no indication of whether this should be understood as only applied to Space Marines from Chapter Ultramarines. If they had intended it this way they could have easily said that he gives a bonus to "Adeptus Astartes Ultramarines" instead. Now, I do think that was intended, and that the loophole is accidental, but while what you're suggesting would seem to get that right you end up getting absurd results from a lot of other rules. Guilliman has another rule that gives a bonus to "Imperium" units. Do you expect me to believe that this only applies to Space Marines from Chapter Imperium? On what basis are you distinguishing between these?
It gets even worse than this. The Craftworld Eldar have a special rule that looks for the "Slaanesh" keyword. I guess you'd argue that obviously this is referring to Eldar from Craftworld Slaanesh -- I mean, this is coming immediately after the rules discuss the <Craftworld> keyword -- but I would suggest that you're wrong. I think this was actually intended to apply to Chaos units, who either take "Slaanesh" as their <Mark of Chaos> keyword or which "owe allegiance" to Slaanesh and gain a generic keyword that way. If I were to play Eldar against your Slaanesh army I would be pretty annoyed if you tried to make this kind of argument about how you can somehow discern from the use of the keyword in the Eldar rules that it must refer to Eldar units from Craftworld Slaanesh. Likewise the Chaos Marines have a special rule that looks for "Imperium" units, but you're being ridiculous if you think that this refers to Chaos Marines from the Imperium Legion.
I really have a hard time understanding what's going on here. It is hard to see why people are so committed to this loophole not being RAW. Like, what's motivating the motivated reasoning here?
Dionysodorus wrote: I don't think that anyone is arguing that the WAAC Order and the WAAC Regiment are the same entity, but the rules don't care about this at all.
The rules -- the ones you just quoted -- are extremely clear. You misquote them later when you say that the Sister's WAAC keyword was her "chosen Order". That's not what the rules say. You underlined this the first time. She gains the name of her Chosen Order as a keyword. This is explicitly referring to "the string of identifying characters". The keyword is not an Order; it is a name. Two very different things can have the same name. This happens frequently in life and I'm sure you've encountered it before. And all the rules seem to care about is whether the Order and the Regiment have the same name.
I mean, the gameplay implications of this are ridiculous and no one should be trying to make use of this obviously-unintended loophole. But I don't really understand why people feel the need to pretend that the rules don't contain this loophole when they're actually very clear. Why bother trying to make this weird argument about how the keywords somehow, despite there being no indication that this is the case in the text and seemingly contradicted by the keywords given to special characters, preserve knowledge of the kinds of names that they could have taken on instead? Just say: "Yeah, that's some sloppy rules writing and a kinda amusing loophole, now let's play the way we know it's supposed to work". Surely this isn't, like, threatening to anyone's faith in GW as far too careful with their rules writing to let something like this slip in, right?
Ah, I see - so you guys are ignoring the rules as written - where it clearly and unequivocally says that AM belong to Regiments, Sisters belong to Orders etc in favour of some unwritten theory of "the transmutative properties of keywords" that transform regiments, orders, chapters, etc into the same thing.
The rules as written, however, clearly state that the <Regiment> keyword describes which regiment a model belongs to, while an <Order> keyword describes which Order a model belongs to. An order and a regiment are not the same things - as written - and nowhere is it written that they are. Whereever there are powers that apply to an applicable keyword it uses the <Regiment> or <Order> formulation, which has to describe a regiment or order respectively or it is in violation of the rules as written. The word, whichever one you make up or choose to use, has to describe a type of regiment, order, or what-have-you - as called out explicitly in each entry - or else it is not a valid substitution.
You can call your Imperial Guard regiment the Ultramarines within the rules as written, absolutely. But the moment that stops describing a regiment - which it no longer does if you apply rule that describes a chapter, which any Space Marine or <Chapter> based Ultramarines keyword does - you are disregarding the rules as written and are cheating.
Except <chapter> is replaced and the wording looks for the keyword. That's what replace does, totally ignores the origin. Look at unique characters: RG or Calgar give buffs to units with the "ultramarines" keyword. They don't have chapter listed anywhere on their datasheet. That's what every unit looks like after it ahs been assigned it's keyword, the origin ceases to matter, just as it never mattered for unique characters. The rules explictly mention that abilities effect anyone with the proper keyword, never mentioning anything about origin.
So, again, what you are describing is not how the books describe keywords working, and it doesn't make sense given many units don't have an origin for keywords.
I don't know how to make this more clear, origin not only doesn't matter to the rules as written, origin can't matter to the rules as written without rendering unique characters totally pointless.
This is not a new exploit, as long as there have been names and official rules there have been people that have tried gak like legally changing their names to 'player in possession' or 'batter at plate' or 'presiding judge' or 'the contest winner' or whatever, and you've always been able to name your models whatever you want in every edition so you could have always said 'well my space marine commander is named 'Eldar' so this ability that only effects 'eldar' applies to him mertmertmertmertmert' and it has never worked.
ClockworkZion wrote: This already has a YMDC thread and is basically a rules issue so this thread should probably be left to die at this point.
I would suggest to move this to YMDC instead. This thread is more informative than the stub that you linked.
As for:
Aesthete wrote:Ah, I see - so you guys are ignoring the rules as written - where it clearly and unequivocally says that AM belong to Regiments, Sisters belong to Orders etc in favour of some unwritten theory of "the transmutative properties of keywords" that transform regiments, orders, chapters, etc into the same thing.
Purifier has a good point in that both sides have made their arguments and are unlikely to convince each other at this point.
That said, it's not nearly as clearly and unequivocally as you say. The rules say that you replace the bracketed keywords with an order/whatever of your choice.
This creates a problem. What is the definition of an order/chapter/etc?
Take csm for example, are you only allowed to pick on of the nine traitor legions? Or do renegade warbands also count? what about renegade primaris? Those never belonged to any legion at all. And the loyalists were also legions and could have been shot through time.
Without a formal definition, you can insert literally anything you want as the only limits are those of your head canon.
So even if you say that the rules limit you to a chapter, you run into issues as to what exactly your acceptable choices are.
Sure, it's mostly an academic issue and has very little impact on actual games, but would it have killed GW to give you a list of available choices?
Or add "Chapter:" in front so even if you made an Ultramarine Digga Nobz Klan it still wouldn't be affected by Roboute while still allowing you to insert whatever floats your boat.
Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’? A: No.
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.
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units? A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.
n0t_u wrote: I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.
I think that some people like breaking down the rules as an intellectual exercise, whilst others really want to break the game for their own advantage. As we communicate via text, you can't pick up on the tone of the discussion and people assume things about other's intent that are incorrect.
n0t_u wrote: I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.
I think that some people like breaking down the rules as an intellectual exercise, whilst others really want to break the game for their own advantage. As we communicate via text, you can't pick up on the tone of the discussion and people assume things about other's intent that are incorrect.
and others like to do it so they can smugly proclaim they are superior to the game writers because the writers "Didn't anticipate this level of stupidity!"
n0t_u wrote: I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.
I think that some people like breaking down the rules as an intellectual exercise, whilst others really want to break the game for their own advantage. As we communicate via text, you can't pick up on the tone of the discussion and people assume things about other's intent that are incorrect.
and others like to do it so they can smugly proclaim they are superior to the game writers because the writers "Didn't anticipate this level of stupidity!"
To be honest, we had world wars because of "rule writers could not anticipate this level of stupidity!".
It makes the whole concept far more terrifying than a bunch of dumbasses running amok in the wargaming community, doesn't it?
n0t_u wrote: I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.
I think that some people like breaking down the rules as an intellectual exercise, whilst others really want to break the game for their own advantage. As we communicate via text, you can't pick up on the tone of the discussion and people assume things about other's intent that are incorrect.
and others like to do it so they can smugly proclaim they are superior to the game writers because the writers "Didn't anticipate this level of stupidity!"
To be honest, we had world wars because of "rule writers could not anticipate this level of stupidity!".
It makes the whole concept far more terrifying than a bunch of dumbasses running amok in the wargaming community, doesn't it?
... look rules lawyers are horriable people but let's not go blaming WW2 on them
.
I stand corrected on that point. Teach me to be too busy thinkingnaout narrative play I guess.
