Q: When a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Daemons uses the Daemon keyword, can it be used to affect any unit with the Daemon keyword, or only units with the Daemon Faction keyword?
A: These Stratagems can only affect units with the Daemon Faction keyword.

A lot of threads have been dedicated to this topic and it looks like Chaos Daemon Stratagems work differently to any other armies.

It's because Tzeentch would've benefited the most from these interactions (eg. Magnus) and Khorne could really care less (even with DS the Lord of Skulls wouldn't see tabletop time), and they can't have Tzeentch surpassing Khorne, or their new baby Nurgle.

Still can use it with greater chaos daemons.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Q: When a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Daemons uses the Daemon keyword, can it be used to affect any unit with the Daemon keyword, or only units with the Daemon Faction keyword?
A: These Stratagems can only affect units with the Daemon Faction keyword.

A lot of threads have been dedicated to this topic and it looks like Chaos Daemon Stratagems work differently to any other armies.

I don't think this is the proper board for this, is it? Or is there a question hidden somewhere?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Q: When a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Daemons uses the Daemon keyword, can it be used to affect any unit with the Daemon keyword, or only units with the Daemon Faction keyword?
A: These Stratagems can only affect units with the Daemon Faction keyword.

A lot of threads have been dedicated to this topic and it looks like Chaos Daemon Stratagems work differently to any other armies.

Isn't that the way all other factions work though?

My Ork stratagems don't work on my Eldar teammate's units?
His Craftworld stratagems don't work on another pal's Drukhari forces?
Tyranid stratagems don't work on Genestealer Cults' units etc etc etc

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Q: When a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Daemons uses the Daemon keyword, can it be used to affect any unit with the Daemon keyword, or only units with the Daemon Faction keyword?
A: These Stratagems can only affect units with the Daemon Faction keyword.

A lot of threads have been dedicated to this topic and it looks like Chaos Daemon Stratagems work differently to any other armies.

Isn't that the way all other factions work though?

My Ork stratagems don't work on my Eldar teammate's units?
His Craftworld stratagems don't work on another pal's Drukhari forces?
Tyranid stratagems don't work on Genestealer Cults' units etc etc etc

Death Guard FAQ

Q: Is it possible to use a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Space
Marines to target a unit from Codex: Death Guard? For
example, can I use the Tide of Traitors Stratagem on a unit of
Cultists from a Death Guard Detachment if I have an Alpha
Legion Detachment and a Death Guard Detachment in a single
Battle-forged army?
A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you
have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on
any permitted target: they do not need to be from
that Detachment. In your example, the Alpha Legion
Detachment gives access to the Chaos Space Marine
Stratagems, and Tide of Traitors can be used on any
Chaos Cultists – this would include any Chaos Cultists
from the Death Guard Detachment.

Suddenly Chaos Daemons disallow it. I can use Codex: Space Marines stratagem Orbital Bombardment if I have a SPACE WOLF warlord because the stratagem only looks for an ADEPTUS ASTARTES warlord. So if I have a Patrol of <CHAPTER> I can use the stratagem.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Suddenly Chaos Daemons disallow it. I can use Codex: Space Marines stratagem Orbital Bombardment if I have a SPACE WOLF warlord because the stratagem only looks for an ADEPTUS ASTARTES warlord. So if I have a Patrol of <CHAPTER> I can use the stratagem.

So, yeah, why not? That's apparently intended which they confirmed in the DG FAQs.

Keywords and Faction Keywords simply aren't the same. You don't get to fall back and shoot because you named your Chapter "FLY". You don't get to use Orbital Bombardment with an Astra Militarum Warlord of the Regiment "ADEPTUS ASTARTES".

Yes, they fethed up when they used the same keyword as both a faction and a regular keyword, and now they fixed it (mostly - they'll probably have another update up quite soon for the Horror thing).
But it's not a snowflake thing, it's in line with what they've previously said regarding keywords.

Wait what happened with horrors they need to update them?

nekooni wrote:

Keywords and Faction Keywords simply aren't the same. You don't get to fall back and shoot because you named your Chapter "FLY". You don't get to use Orbital Bombardment with an Astra Militarum Warlord of the Regiment "ADEPTUS ASTARTES".

Yes, they fethed up when they used the same keyword as both a faction and a regular keyword, and now they fixed it (mostly - they'll probably have another update up quite soon for the Horror thing).
But it's not a snowflake thing, it's in line with what they've previously said regarding keywords.

Indeed. They should have made the keywords different 'daemon' and 'daemonic' for example, or at least write the stratagem rule so that it explicitly specifies it requires faction keyword 'daemon.' But this FAQ is perfectly logical fix for the situation.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait what happened with horrors they need to update them?

They provided a new datasheet for them in the current errata. with fething faction keyword Daemons. You can't make that gak up.

nekooni wrote:
But it's not a snowflake thing, it's in line with what they've previously said regarding keywords.

Actually, the rulebook explicitly states that faction and other keywords act the exact same after the battle begins, faction keyword were previously only different for the purpose of army building.

SilverAlien wrote:

nekooni wrote:
But it's not a snowflake thing, it's in line with what they've previously said regarding keywords.

Actually, the rulebook explicitly states that faction and other keywords act the exact same after the battle begins, faction keyword were previously only different for the purpose of army building.

Where does it say that explicitly? I don't think I've seen that.

Just in the section with keywords, dunno the page in the official book don't have it in front of me atm, bu it's page 13 in the battle primer. Says faction keywords are used for army building but they are otherwise functionally identical.

The keyword system basically doesn't work. They've had to manually fill in the gaps and make so many exceptions. This is just the latest.

SilverAlien wrote:
Just in the section with keywords, dunno the page in the official book don't have it in front of me atm, bu it's page 13 in the battle primer. Says faction keywords are used for army building but they are otherwise functionally identical.

The keyword system basically doesn't work. They've had to manually fill in the gaps and make so many exceptions. This is just the latest.

Yeah, but that is the problem. If they had just changed a few of the problematic Daemon-stratagems such as Denizens of the Warp and Warp Surge with errata, literally changing the text of the stratagem and putting the unique exceptions into the text, it'd be no issue.

A FAQ implies no actual change in rules, simply a clarification. It thus implies it always worked like that and/or should work like that for all other Stratagems (and possibly aura abilities? spells? whatever?). Except there is also the rule that the type of keyword doesn't matter (of which the FAQ is no rules-exception, simply a rules-clarification that contradicts the BRB-rule).

This is exactly how it's been with *every* army.

Adeptus Astartes stratagems don't work for Blood Angels, Grey Knights, et al.

Tyranids stratagems don't work for GSC.

IG stratagems don't work for GSC /w Guard Allies.

This is literally par for the course. Anyone surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.

nekooni wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

nekooni wrote:
But it's not a snowflake thing, it's in line with what they've previously said regarding keywords.

Actually, the rulebook explicitly states that faction and other keywords act the exact same after the battle begins, faction keyword were previously only different for the purpose of army building.

Where does it say that explicitly? I don't think I've seen that.

Page 175 and also again in the Designer's commentary

Yes that is the difference between a Keyword and a Faction Keyword.

Grey Knights are Adeptus Astartes but not faction: Adeptus Astartes.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is exactly how it's been with *every* army.

Adeptus Astartes stratagems don't work for Blood Angels, Grey Knights, et al.

Tyranids stratagems don't work for GSC.

IG stratagems don't work for GSC /w Guard Allies.

This is literally par for the course. Anyone surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.

Not true (until today). And explicitly confirmed in the Death Guard FAQ. Alpha Legion stratagem works on Death Guard, if the Death Guard unit meets all the Keywords (e.g. Tide of Traitors for Chaos Cultists). Ultramarine Stratagems work for Space Wolves, if the Space Wolves unit meets all the Keywords (e.g. Hellfire Shells or Auspex Scan, etc.. ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes that is the difference between a Keyword and a Faction Keyword.

Grey Knights are Adeptus Astartes but not faction: Adeptus Astartes.

But there are no rules (until today) that Stratagems care whichever keyword you use. Quite the opposite, it explicitly says (said?) the two "types" of keywords are functionally the same outside building your army list.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is exactly how it's been with *every* army.

Adeptus Astartes stratagems don't work for Blood Angels, Grey Knights, et al.

Tyranids stratagems don't work for GSC.

IG stratagems don't work for GSC /w Guard Allies.

This is literally par for the course. Anyone surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.

Sorry, but the Death Guard FAQ says otherwise.

And there are Codex:SM stratagems that work on Blood Angels units just fine, so long as you unlock them with a Codex:SM Detachment.

This Daemons FAQ is a contradiction of the RaW and FAQ precedent, and just another example of GW rules writing incompetence.

FWIW, this is the one of three separate threads nitpicking the rules that the OP has started in the last two days.

I

It's BCB's thing, like Martel and his Blood Angels and Gamgee and his Tau.

In general, they do need to update their FAQ's to match each other though.

Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Sorry I don't have my books in front of me, but this effectively means no deep striking blood slaughterers, doesn't it?

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Not true. Daemons are the outlying data point. There is no restriction to, say, using "Honour the Chapter" to have a unit of Space Wolves Wulfen fight a second time if you unlocked Vanilla-Marine Stratagems with a Patrol Detachment or something. Ynnari pretty much run on Craftworld Stratagems these days. Etc...

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Not true. Daemons are the outlying data point. There is no restriction to, say, using "Honour the Chapter" to have a unit of Space Wolves Wulfen fight a second time if you unlocked Vanilla-Marine Stratagems with a Patrol Detachment or something. Ynnari pretty much run on Craftworld Stratagems these days. Etc...

Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

So my question is, does this revert the Death Guard FAQ saying you can use CSM stratagems on them, or not? That FAQ made it so you could use allied stratagems if it had the keywords; people were saying this retroactively clarified it, not *only* for Death Guard but for everyone (e.g. you could use any ADEPTUS ASTARTES stratagem on a Space Marine unit provided you had a regular SM detachment to unlock it, unless otherwise specified). This FAQ says daemons cannot Does it change the other one, or is this a specific exception to being able to do it by default?

Seems like this is an explicit denial, so only affects Daemons.

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

"It doesn't work, trust me on this!"

Nowhere in the marine codex does it say what you are saying.

Also from the Designers Commentary:

Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are used when building an army; when Battle-forging an army, for instance, you will often only be able to include units in the same detachment if they share the same Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units in your entire army (with the exception of those that are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is no functional difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword.

This Chaos Daemons FAQ ignores the RaW and the Designers Commentary FAQ.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

GW admittedly has a nasty habit of treating FAQ's as errata, so some of the casual nature of their answer is a bit grating. But really, this isn't exactly a puzzling case. Morty or Magnus deep striking would have been overly nasty, and they wanted to stop it.

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

Nothing there. The point is that there is no rule anywhere that says "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" would be different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes" AND there is no rule that says Stratagems would require the former. There is, however, a rule AND a designer's commentary that explicitly says the two are, quote, "functionally identical" (with the exception of forming battleforged detachment during list/army-building).

I might even agree with you that it would be "better" if things were at least handled clearer. As of yesterday at the very least, I can "Honour the Chapter" a unit of Space Wolves all day long as long as I have access to the Stratagem through a Vanilla-Marine Detachment.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

"It doesn't work, trust me on this!"

Nowhere in the marine codex does it say what you are saying.

Page 194 of mine, in the Space Marines Unit section. Actually mentions Wolves specifically.

 Polonius wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

GW admittedly has a nasty habit of treating FAQ's as errata, so some of the casual nature of their answer is a bit grating. But really, this isn't exactly a puzzling case. Morty or Magnus deep striking would have been overly nasty, and they wanted to stop it.

And while I don't like that they do it, I can accept it. But to be this inconsistent is unacceptable.

It's either all ok or none of it is. There cannot be a mix and match.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

GW admittedly has a nasty habit of treating FAQ's as errata, so some of the casual nature of their answer is a bit grating. But really, this isn't exactly a puzzling case. Morty or Magnus deep striking would have been overly nasty, and they wanted to stop it.

And while I don't like that they do it, I can accept it. But to be this inconsistent is unacceptable.

It's either all ok or none of it is. There cannot be a mix and match.

Why not? I mean, seriously, why not? What is the harm in saying that death guard (clearly a subfaction of CSM) can use CSM stratagems, but CSM or DG/TS cannot use Daemons (an allied, but distinct faction)?

What you are saying is that you don't like consistency, and that GW is putting balance ahead of consistency, which are fine opinions, but not objective truths.

The keywords in general was a good idea but they turned it into a huge clusterfeth. Too many, too many interactions, too many inconsistencies.

meleti wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

"It doesn't work, trust me on this!"

Nowhere in the marine codex does it say what you are saying.

Page 194 of mine, in the Space Marines Unit section. Actually mentions Wolves specifically.

Thanks. I don't have my codex in front of me but the rules are incredibly clear in this regard.

 Polonius wrote:
Why not? I mean, seriously, why not? What is the harm in saying that death guard (clearly a subfaction of CSM) can use CSM stratagems, but CSM or DG/TS cannot use Daemons (an allied, but distinct faction)?

What you are saying is that you don't like consistency, and that GW is putting balance ahead of consistency, which are fine opinions, but not objective truths.

Because they have stated that Faction keywords are not special in the context of playing the game itself, only list building.

They should have split daemon into DAEMON and DAEMONIC if they wanted to be consistent. It just grinds my gears that it's patchwork as to what two identical rules can and cannot do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stratagems are not rules. The Death Guard FAQ is clear we can use Stratagems on units not from the same book.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

GW admittedly has a nasty habit of treating FAQ's as errata, so some of the casual nature of their answer is a bit grating. But really, this isn't exactly a puzzling case. Morty or Magnus deep striking would have been overly nasty, and they wanted to stop it.

And while I don't like that they do it, I can accept it. But to be this inconsistent is unacceptable.

It's either all ok or none of it is. There cannot be a mix and match.

So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

They should have split daemon into DAEMON and DAEMONIC if they wanted to be consistent. It just grinds my gears that it's patchwork as to what two identical rules can and cannot do.

Yeah, it is pretty inelegant I will grant you that. But at the same time, you are going out of your way to find errors in GW's pretty error-filled rules, and then you are complaining loudly that they are releasing fixes, and releasing lots of them?

Wayniac wrote:
The keywords in general was a good idea but they turned it into a huge clusterfeth. Too many, too many interactions, too many inconsistencies.

Daemon being both a faction and a keyword is bad enough, but if you look at the CSM and DG faqs they actually swapped many units like Possessed and Obliterators between the two Daemon types. It's a total shitshow.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

"It doesn't work, trust me on this!"

Nowhere in the marine codex does it say what you are saying.

Also from the Designers Commentary:

Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are used when building an army; when Battle-forging an army, for instance, you will often only be able to include units in the same detachment if they share the same Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units in your entire army (with the exception of those that are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is no functional difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword.

This Chaos Daemons FAQ ignores the RaW and the Designers Commentary FAQ.

Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it from a fluff perspective. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

 andysonic1 wrote:
So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

To have a discussion on GW's incompetence? What is the "point" of any thread if not to discuss a topic?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

To have a discussion on GW's incompetence?

In other words, to have a complainfest in overdrive with no constructive outcome?

nekooni wrote:
Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

Being a game doesn't excuse sloppy writing. If MTG can write proper rules, so can Warhammer.

 andysonic1 wrote:
So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

Pretty sure someone's bummed out they can't deep strike CSM units with the Daemon keyword.

I'm just guessing though.

There's still plenty of cross-buffing shenanigans to go around. My lists were almost completely unaffected by the errata, but I was planning that the deep strike shenanigans was going away, so I planned accordingly.

What happened with Tyranids and GSC should have made it clear what the intention was for Chaos Daemons and CSM. Clearly GW wants to severely limit stratagem use across codices, but allow them to function within clearly derivative army sub-types, Space Marines Chapters/Chaos Space Marine Legions for example.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

Being a game doesn't excuse sloppy writing. If MTG can write proper rules, so can Warhammer.

*Glances at Humility*

meleti wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

Being a game doesn't excuse sloppy writing. If MTG can write proper rules, so can Warhammer.

*Glances at Humility*

*Throws Opalescence back at you.*

Still, the fact is the rules do account for all the nonsense Humility does in a controlled and consistent manner. GW wouldn't even try and just special snowflake FAQ it instead.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

To have a discussion on GW's incompetence? What is the "point" of any thread if not to discuss a topic?

I think that's a topic with limited value. I'm not saying don't talk about it, but I think GW struggling to write tight rules is both commonly known and commonly accepted as the cost of doing business.

More to the point, once you start gaining a reputation for only having one real topic of conversation, and you keep endlessly make the same point, I think you're going to find that people are going to stop listening to you. You become one of "those guys," and if that's something you're comfortable with, go on with your bad self. But personally, I'd advise that you maybe keep starting new threads complaining about GW's poor rules to a dull roar. If other people want to talk about it, there will be a threat on it, I can assure you.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

Being a game doesn't excuse sloppy writing. If MTG can write proper rules, so can Warhammer.

Yeah, it is sloppy at times, but you'll find that all of the issues you hold so dear are non-issues at almost any actual table. I've never had any of the issues you proudly parade around in your signature come up at a table except for the re-rolling thing, and that's a case of me simply disagreeing with GWs way of doing re-rolls. The rule itself is clear and concise and was confirmed to be what they wanted.

And MTG had a gak-ton of broken cards and combos. They're just banning them from the tournaments is all.

So I guess the solution is to just ban any faction: Daemon unit thats not in the CD codex, right? Because that's what Magic does, so we can just ignore that these are different games and apply the same strategy here.

nekooni wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait what happened with horrors they need to update them?

They provided a new datasheet for them in the current errata. with fething faction keyword Daemons. You can't make that gak up.

I am of the potato, is the csm updated sheet different from the current daemon ones?

Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think that's true a lot of the time, but that's what players do. And don't confuse the actual tournament players with the people trying to break the game. Most of the fun loopholes are discovered by armchair theorists, not the guys winning GTs.

That said... there are demons outside of the demon codex. Deepstriking Morty isn't a tiny or obscured loophole, that's a pretty big oversight.

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think you got that backwards my dude, the majority or people playing this game are matched and competitive.

Also, we are not talking about things like the brimstone spam and taking one blue horror to cast so you can't loose a brim, that's blatent loophole stuff. What's more concerning is the incredibly obvious possibilities that GW somehow missed.

2 examples
Alpha legion + changling and oblits. Not sure how that slipped through.

Deep striking lords or war. That's really obvious, in fact as soon as I read that I thought. Huh, guess we were deep striking primarchs. GW makes these strats out of rule of cool but then forgets that keywords are a thing.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think you got that backwards my dude, the majority or people playing this game are matched and competitive.

Also, we are not talking about things like the brimstone spam and taking one blue horror to cast so you can't loose a brim, that's blatent loophole stuff. What's more concerning is the incredibly obvious possibilities that GW somehow missed.

2 examples
Alpha legion + changling and oblits. Not sure how that slipped through.

Deep striking lords or war. That's really obvious, in fact as soon as I read that I thought. Huh, guess we were deep striking primarchs. GW makes these strats out of rule of cool but then forgets that keywords are a thing.

Matched play? Sure. But competitive? I don't think so. Not the majority.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think you got that backwards my dude, the majority or people playing this game are matched and competitive.

Based on what? Seeing forum users are tiny minority that's hard claim. Then factor in most games are home games makes it even harder. You would need to go to people playing at home asking what they play. Here's funny note. Tournaments and leagues represent only tiny faction of games. How you know how people play outside those which covers majority of games? Idea of asking forum users is even worse proposition.

pismakron wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

They should have split daemon into DAEMON and DAEMONIC if they wanted to be consistent. It just grinds my gears that it's patchwork as to what two identical rules can and cannot do.

Yeah, it is pretty inelegant I will grant you that. But at the same time, you are going out of your way to find errors in GW's pretty error-filled rules, and then you are complaining loudly that they are releasing fixes, and releasing lots of them?

Because this feels less like a proper fix then it does just wall papering over them.

They haven't fixed anything about the broken keyword system, instead they simply keep saying you can't do X or Y despite the rules 100% letting you do X or Y, and without changing any of the actual rules.

If they at least acknowledged they were adding wholly new rules and using errata properly to indicate that, it'd be one thing. But they keep addressing these issues in a FAQ, making t seem like these are clarifications rather than the introduction of entirely new rules that simply do not exist in any form before hand. It may sound petty, but it bothers me. Because it reeks of failing to acknowledge what an awful job they did writing the keyword and faction rules.

Imagine if they fixed the Magnus problem by adding a FAQ that his old invulnerable save reroll aura didn't effect himself, without actually adding an errata to change the wording of his aura, and without changing the way auras as a whole worked so that every other aura still effected the unit with it. That's what annoys me, it clearly contradicts the way the rules work in other cases without their being an actual rule reason given for it, or even change to the wording of the rules/abilities in question to indicate it operates differently. It is so sloppy.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Q: When a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Daemons uses the Daemon keyword, can it be used to affect any unit with the Daemon keyword, or only units with the Daemon Faction keyword?
A: These Stratagems can only affect units with the Daemon Faction keyword.

A lot of threads have been dedicated to this topic and it looks like Chaos Daemon Stratagems work differently to any other armies.

Isn't that the way all other factions work though?

My Ork stratagems don't work on my Eldar teammate's units?
His Craftworld stratagems don't work on another pal's Drukhari forces?
Tyranid stratagems don't work on Genestealer Cults' units etc etc etc

Death Guard FAQ

Q: Is it possible to use a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Space
Marines to target a unit from Codex: Death Guard? For
example, can I use the Tide of Traitors Stratagem on a unit of
Cultists from a Death Guard Detachment if I have an Alpha
Legion Detachment and a Death Guard Detachment in a single
Battle-forged army?
A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you
have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on
any permitted target: they do not need to be from
that Detachment. In your example, the Alpha Legion
Detachment gives access to the Chaos Space Marine
Stratagems, and Tide of Traitors can be used on any
Chaos Cultists – this would include any Chaos Cultists
from the Death Guard Detachment.

Suddenly Chaos Daemons disallow it. I can use Codex: Space Marines stratagem Orbital Bombardment if I have a SPACE WOLF warlord because the stratagem only looks for an ADEPTUS ASTARTES warlord. So if I have a Patrol of <CHAPTER> I can use the stratagem.

Death Guard are the same faction keyword as CSM.....

People seem to want to forget that faction keywords are different than keywords....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think you got that backwards my dude, the majority or people playing this game are matched and competitive.

Also, we are not talking about things like the brimstone spam and taking one blue horror to cast so you can't loose a brim, that's blatent loophole stuff. What's more concerning is the incredibly obvious possibilities that GW somehow missed.

2 examples
Alpha legion + changling and oblits. Not sure how that slipped through.

Deep striking lords or war. That's really obvious, in fact as soon as I read that I thought. Huh, guess we were deep striking primarchs. GW makes these strats out of rule of cool but then forgets that keywords are a thing.

They didn't forget, they are blatantly different faction keywords and everyone is raging for no reason.

You keep saying different faction keywords, but that doesn't matter in any other example. If you had the proper keyword you were good to go, so yes if it said heretic astartes it worked for any flavor, just like if it said demon it worked for any demon.

They changed that in this single case, while leaving everything else working the same.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is exactly how it's been with *every* army.

Adeptus Astartes stratagems don't work for Blood Angels, Grey Knights, et al.

Tyranids stratagems don't work for GSC.

IG stratagems don't work for GSC /w Guard Allies.

This is literally par for the course. Anyone surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.

Sorry, but the Death Guard FAQ says otherwise.

And there are Codex:SM stratagems that work on Blood Angels units just fine, so long as you unlock them with a Codex:SM Detachment.

This Daemons FAQ is a contradiction of the RaW and FAQ precedent, and just another example of GW rules writing incompetence.

"The FAQs directly contradict themselves!"

"Let's rolloff."

"I spend a Command Point to reroll the rolloff."

"You can't do that."

"Show me the RAW that says that..."

"...fine. We will rolloff to see if we can use Command Points to rolloff, and I will use a Command Point to reroll to see if we can use Command Points to rolloff."

And thus 40k falls apart in a RAW paradox.

This kind of interactions never worked for any faction except DG, so this last FAQ is in line with the rest of rules. Nothing to see here.

Spoletta wrote:
This kind of interactions never worked for any faction except DG, so this last FAQ is in line with the rest of rules. Nothing to see here.

That is a total lie. It worked for SM and all the other Flavours of Marine too.

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

Sadly it feels like a more fundamental failing to me. This is not an issue which should need playtesting to pick up. If the codex writers and whoever signs it off don't realise the implications of deepstriking Morty or a Brass Scorpion well....
It feels as though there is no coherent plan, no deep vision behind the game. I do hope GW moves towards valuing excellence in rules writing as they go through this "transition" and feel it could pay them off in the bottom line in the long term, barriers to entry to this market have fallen away dramatically.

The only problem here is that GW decided to go with an FAQ answer rather than a proper Errata like they did for Tyranid Units. A simple paragraph stating something to the effect that "any Daemon Stratagems that affects a Daemon unit affect units with the Daemon Faction Keyword only."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
This kind of interactions never worked for any faction except DG, so this last FAQ is in line with the rest of rules. Nothing to see here.

That is a total lie. It worked for SM and all the other Flavours of Marine too.

Complaining about things we are ignorant about is really immature, you know?

This line has always been here, and is the FIRST thing written about SM stratagems, relics and traits:

SPACE MARINE UNITS

In the rules described in this section we often
refer to ‘Space Marines units’. This is shorthand
for any ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit that
has one of the following Faction keywords:
<CHAPTER>, ULTRAMARINES, IMPERIAL
FISTS, SALAMANDERS, WHITE SCARS,
RAVEN GUARD, IRON HANDS, CRIMSON
FISTS or BLACK TEMPLARS. A SpaceMarines
Detachment is therefore one which only
includes units with one of these keywords.
Note that other Space Marine Chapters, such
as the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves,
deviate significantly in terms of organisation
and fighting styles. TheseChapters therefore
cannot make use of any of the rules or abilities
listed in this section, and instead have their
own rules.


Let's end this futile discussion now, before someone else starts getting the wrong idea.

Why are you quoting something that has NOTHING to do with the discussion right now?

If you take a Space Marines Detachment, you unlock their stratagems. Some stratagems can be used on non-Space Marines detachment units, like Orbital Bombardment.

If I have a Space Marines Detachment, and a Blood Angels detachment, any SM stratagems that are legal to use on BA can be used, and vice versa. Same for Death Guard and CSM. The simple fact is that the Daemon FAQ is a blatant ignoring of RaW and FAQ precedent, in order to stop people using them on daemon primarchs when all it would have taken is an errata to prevent the problem stratagems being used on LoW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why are you quoting something that has NOTHING to do with the discussion right now?

If you take a Space Marines Detachment, you unlock their stratagems. Some stratagems can be used on non-Space Marines detachment units, like Orbital Bombardment.

If I have a Space Marines Detachment, and a Blood Angels detachment, any SM stratagems that are legal to use on BA can be used, and vice versa. Same for Death Guard and CSM. The simple fact is that the Daemon FAQ is a blatant ignoring of RaW and FAQ precedent, in order to stop people using them on daemon primarchs when all it would have taken is an errata to prevent the problem stratagems being used on LoW.

No, it is not legal, exactly for that text i pasted.

If you have an SM detachment and a BA detachment, you can use SM stratagems on codex compliant SM and BA stratagems on BA. Stop.

It is explained in clear "Blood Angels cannot use any of the rules in this section". What do you want more than that? A video tape with the declaration from GW designer that you can't do that attached to every codex?

You cannot use the "Chapter Master" stratagem with a Blood Angels model.

Spoletta wrote:
It is explained in clear "Blood Angels cannot use any of the rules in this section". What do you want more than that? A video tape with the declaration from GW designer that you can't do that attached to every codex?

The stratagems are unlocked by the SM detachment. The Death Guard FAQ says "A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on any permitted target: they do not need to be from that Detachment. "

That is not Death Guard specific. It is generalised and applies to everything.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is explained in clear "Blood Angels cannot use any of the rules in this section". What do you want more than that? A video tape with the declaration from GW designer that you can't do that attached to every codex?

The stratagems are unlocked by the SM detachment. The Death Guard FAQ says "A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on any permitted target: they do not need to be from that Detachment. "

That is not Death Guard specific. It is generalised and applies to everything.

That means a completely different thing.

What that FAQ says is that in the following situation:

Detachment A - Imperium

SM Captain
Guardsmen
Guardsmen

Detachment B - Space Marines

SM Librarian
SM Scouts
SM Scouts

The detachment B unlocks the SM stratagems, and since the SM captain from detachment A is a valid target for it, he can become a chapter master, even if he is not in the same detachment that is generating the stratagems.
If the Detachment A was instead like this:

Detachment A - Imperium

Dark Angel Master
Guardsmen
Guardsmen

Then that DA Master would not be able to do the same, because he is not a valid target.



That FAQ does not say anything about the definition of "Valid Target" because that one is covered in the codex.

THE FAQ LITERALLY GIVES AN EXAMPLE OF USING DG STRATAGEM ON ALPHA LEGION.

 sfshilo wrote:

People seem to want to forget that faction keywords are different than keywords....

As per rules only pre-game. In game as per rules they are functionally identical. EXCEPT for chaos daemon ones but that is only for chaos daemon ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
The only problem here is that GW decided to go with an FAQ answer rather than a proper Errata like they did for Tyranid Units. A simple paragraph stating something to the effect that "any Daemon Stratagems that affects a Daemon unit affect units with the Daemon Faction Keyword only."

Which still leaves it silly that it only affects chaos daemon strategies but not others. Why single out chaos daemons?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
THE FAQ LITERALLY GIVES AN EXAMPLE OF USING DG STRATAGEM ON ALPHA LEGION.

Now i finally understand the source of confusion, indeed that FAQ is misleading as @#$&.

This is from the CSM codex:

CHAOS SPACE MARINE UNITS
In the rules described in this section we often
refer to ‘Chaos Space Marine units’. This is
shorthand for any unit that has one of the
following Faction keywords: <LEGION>,
BLACK LEGION, WORD BEARERS, IRON
WARRIORS, ALPHA LEGION, NIGHT
LORDS, WORLD EATERS, EMPEROR’S
CHILDREN, FALLEN or RED CORSAIRS. A
Chaos Space Marine Detachment is therefore
one which only includes units with one of
these keywords.
Note that the Death Guard and Thousand
Sons Legions deviate significantly in terms of
organisation and therefore cannot make use
of any of the rules or abilities listed in this
section; instead they have bespoke rules and
abilities detailed in their own codexes.

It is in straight opposition to it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm making a YMDC.

I have to say, Mr. BaconCat, it seems that you were right and I was wrong. GW made a total mess of this, and their fixes made it worse.

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Suddenly Chaos Daemons disallow it. I can use Codex: Space Marines stratagem Orbital Bombardment if I have a SPACE WOLF warlord because the stratagem only looks for an ADEPTUS ASTARTES warlord. So if I have a Patrol of <CHAPTER> I can use the stratagem.

So, yeah, why not? That's apparently intended which they confirmed in the DG FAQs.

Keywords and Faction Keywords simply aren't the same. You don't get to fall back and shoot because you named your Chapter "FLY". You don't get to use Orbital Bombardment with an Astra Militarum Warlord of the Regiment "ADEPTUS ASTARTES".

Yes, they fethed up when they used the same keyword as both a faction and a regular keyword, and now they fixed it (mostly - they'll probably have another update up quite soon for the Horror thing).
But it's not a snowflake thing, it's in line with what they've previously said regarding keywords.

I love Dakka.

GW produce an FAQ to fix a potentially very big problem (i.e. a Keyword functioning as a Faction keyword, hence the need to differentiate) and people cry that GW are actually fixing problems.

The same people who cried that GW weren't fixing things during 6th and 7th.

Never change BCB. Never change.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

GW produce an FAQ to fix a potentially very big problem (i.e. a Keyword functioning as a Faction keyword, hence the need to differentiate) and people cry that GW are actually fixing problems.

The same people who cried that GW weren't fixing things during 6th and 7th.

Never change BCB. Never change.

You realize all they did was made snowflake ruling against rules for ONE faction? They make yet another strategem like this and it has same issue AGAIN. Rulebook actually makes it very clear keywords in game are IDENTICAL to faction keywords. That's not mistake but deliberate choice. They just backpedalled on it for this ONE case. But this isn't even change in how the rule works generally. Only for this one case.

All other strategems that works on keywords still work across codexes. No change. Only chaos daemon ones don't.

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

GW produce an FAQ to fix a potentially very big problem (i.e. a Keyword functioning as a Faction keyword, hence the need to differentiate) and people cry that GW are actually fixing problems.

The same people who cried that GW weren't fixing things during 6th and 7th.

Never change BCB. Never change.

You realize all they did was made snowflake ruling against rules for ONE faction? They make yet another strategem like this and it has same issue AGAIN. Rulebook actually makes it very clear keywords in game are IDENTICAL to faction keywords. That's not mistake but deliberate choice. They just backpedalled on it for this ONE case. But this isn't even change in how the rule works generally. Only for this one case.

All other strategems that works on keywords still work across codexes. No change. Only chaos daemon ones don't.

What they're doing is making the rules work like they had originally intended them to work. That's literally it. Call it "snowflake ruling", call it "backpedalling", call it whatever the feth you want. But they're fixing their mistakes, and I'm glad about that. Sure, I'd prefer if they didn't have to do it by getting it right the first time, but I'd rather have them fix stuff that wasn't intended to happen instead of them going "well, you got us on that one, haha! I guess you're allowed to use and exploit the mistake / error / typo we made until we bring out a new edition!".

If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Skulltaker, Skarbrand, the Masque, Epidemius, the Changeling and Fateweaver would disapprove.

Maybe if they replaced the Daemon keyword with Empyrean, and added it to all Codex Daemon units, we wouldn't have to deal with "when is a Daemon a Daemon?"

 Crazyterran wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Skulltaker, Skarbrand, the Masque, Epidemius, the Changeling and Fateweaver would disapprove.

Just like my sorceror of tzeench on disc isn't very happy his herald friend cant allow him to re roll to cast anymore (due to gw being stupid and removing the spell familiar as a war gear option)..

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Or why not just say Magnus and Morty can't use the stratagem?

pismakron wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Or why not just say Magnus and Morty can't use the stratagem?

Guess that Brass Scorpion is A-OK!

 MagicJuggler wrote:

pismakron wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Or why not just say Magnus and Morty can't use the stratagem?

Guess that Brass Scorpion is A-OK!

Well if GW had had a brain cells between all of them and thought "hey maybe if we made mono god csm anf undivided armies strong enough to stand on their own people wont have to abuse demon allies".

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Maybe if they replaced the Daemon keyword with Empyrean, and added it to all Codex Daemon units, we wouldn't have to deal with "when is a Daemon a Daemon?"

that'd be too good a solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

pismakron wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Or why not just say Magnus and Morty can't use the stratagem?

Guess that Brass Scorpion is A-OK!

Well if GW had had a brain cells between all of them and thought "hey maybe if we made mono god csm anf undivided armies strong enough to stand on their own people wont have to abuse demon allies".

Because people would never abuse a loophole if only their army was powerful enough in the first place. That's how life in general works, isn't it? Once you have reached a certain amount of power or money you'd never use another loophole to evade taxes or anything like that.

So sad that Morty and Maggie can't deepstrike.

So sad.

I guess I'll just have to make do with their 36" move in a single turn instead...

Please remember the first and only tenant of general chat.

Got chased off YMDC again huh? This really has no need to be here. You're willfully twisting the rules so that you can try to pull some obvious BS and screaming about how ther's no such thing as RAI. Again. Go away. Shoo.

On a separate note anyone else notice that people who shoehorn "snowflake" into every criticism are a joy to converse with?

How is this discussion still going on?! GW have corrected a clear mistake. Like it or lump it the job is done, move on with your lives.

It is irrelevant what other codexes say for their units. Chaos soup is one of the strongest tournament lists pre Daemon codex and some of you have the gall to whine because you can't deep strike Morty or Magnus, but can a fething Bloodthirster or GUO?! Cry me a river.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How is this discussion still going on?! GW have corrected a clear mistake. Like it or lump it the job is done, move on with your lives.

It is irrelevant what other codexes say for their units. Chaos soup is one of the strongest tournament lists pre Daemon codex and some of you have the gall to whine because you can't deep strike Morty or Magnus, but can a fething Bloodthirster or GUO?! Cry me a river.

"BECAUSE IT WAS RAAAAAAAAW! I FOUND THIS LOOPHOLE! IT'S MINE!"

You can also still deep strike greater daemons from forge world

I had a thought. Are we misinterpreting this FAQ Answer for Codex: Death Guard?

Q: Is it possible to use a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Space Marines to target a unit from Codex: Death Guard? For example, can I use the Tide of Traitors Stratagem on a unit of Cultists from a Death Guard Detachment if I have an Alpha Legion Detachment and a Death Guard Detachment in a single Battle-forged army?
A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on any permitted target: they do not need to be from that Detachment. In your example, the Alpha Legion Detachment gives access to the Chaos Space Marine Stratagems, and Tide of Traitors can be used on any Chaos Cultists – this would include any Chaos Cultists from the Death Guard Detachment.

This specifically states that a Stratagem that targets a specific unit (Tide of Traitors targets Chaos Cultist) may be used regardless of the <<Legion>> of the Chaos Cultist. Could this be because it does not mention any faction keyword unlike most Stratagems and this FAQ answer is not intended to allow Chaos Space Marine Stratagem units prohibited <<Legion>> models if they target Heretic Astartes? This would allow both FAQ answers to exist in harmony, although it would make the DG one really badly written.

It would be so easy to fix, just add a rule in the BRB for stratagems that states "Whenever a stratagem refers to a keyword, it is referring to Faction Keywords." But that would be an elegant and complete solution, something GW rules writers are allergic to.

 alextroy wrote:
I had a thought. Are we misinterpreting this FAQ Answer for Codex: Death Guard?

Q: Is it possible to use a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Space Marines to target a unit from Codex: Death Guard? For example, can I use the Tide of Traitors Stratagem on a unit of Cultists from a Death Guard Detachment if I have an Alpha Legion Detachment and a Death Guard Detachment in a single Battle-forged army?
A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on any permitted target: they do not need to be from that Detachment. In your example, the Alpha Legion Detachment gives access to the Chaos Space Marine Stratagems, and Tide of Traitors can be used on any Chaos Cultists – this would include any Chaos Cultists from the Death Guard Detachment.

This specifically states that a Stratagem that targets a specific unit (Tide of Traitors targets Chaos Cultist) may be used regardless of the <<Legion>> of the Chaos Cultist. Could this be because it does not mention any faction keyword unlike most Stratagems and this FAQ answer is not intended to allow Chaos Space Marine Stratagem units prohibited <<Legion>> models if they target Heretic Astartes? This would allow both FAQ answers to exist in harmony, although it would make the DG one really badly written.

That's most likely what was intended, but intention doesn't fly with some of us here because they must feel they must follow the "letter of the law" even if it creates less than palatable results.

Basically for those not paying attention.

People would cry if Games Workshop did not fix this.

People would cry if Games Workshop fixed this potential OP B.S.

Pick a side, carry on.

ArmchairArbiter wrote:
Basically for those not paying attention.

People would cry if Games Workshop did not fix this.

People would cry if Games Workshop fixed this potential OP B.S.

Pick a side, carry on.

Literally no-one would cry if they fixed it. The problem is they WAY they have fixed it. The way they have done this simply ignores the rules and precedent. That is why people are upset.

nekooni wrote:
What they're doing is making the rules work like they had originally intended them to work. That's literally it. Call it "snowflake ruling", call it "backpedalling", call it whatever the feth you want. But they're fixing their mistakes, and I'm glad about that. Sure, I'd prefer if they didn't have to do it by getting it right the first time, but I'd rather have them fix stuff that wasn't intended to happen instead of them going "well, you got us on that one, haha! I guess you're allowed to use and exploit the mistake / error / typo we made until we bring out a new edition!".

So how come only DAEMONS were supposed to work like this when every other faction doesn't work like this? What makes daemons so special?

This doesn't actually change any rule except for this one specific intance. It would be better if they actually changed how rules work but as it is same issue is up on other factions.

They didn't change rules and ruling goes against still existant rules. It's not errata. It's just special snowflake ruling for one instance so other factions that work rulewise same still work like that. So now we have 2 rules that as per rules work same way but one faction is somehow said it doesnt' work that despite rules actually being unchanged.