Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

I believe those are indeed different datasheets, so yes you could have 3 and 3

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

They are different datasheets, with different keywords, even though they share the same name, so you can have three of each.

Of course, keep in mind the Rules for Organised play are only suggestions, you need to ask your TO about any tournament specific rules.

In the interest of fairness, there is a camp that believes that datasheets with the same name are the same datasheet. There are a myriad of reasons why that doesn't work, which I won't get into here, but I felt that you should know.

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

Yes they are the same data sheet as they have the same title. The difference with the DP's datasheets is that they are called different things, and are therefore different units.

If you could differentiate data sheet based on keywords you could still take 9 storm ravens for example by applying different faction keywords to them.

Also there is the precedent of identically named psychic powers being considered the same (I. E. You can't cast both) even though the actual effects concern units with different keywords

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

Yes they are the same data sheet as they have the same title. The difference with the DP's datasheets is that they are called different things, and are therefore different units.

If you could differentiate data sheet based on keywords you could still take 9 storm ravens for example by applying different faction keywords to them.

Also there is the precedent of identically named psychic powers being considered the same (I. E. You can't cast both) even though the actual effects concern units with different keywords

Which is why Space Marines of all flavours have to use the Rhino found in the Space Wolf codex, because it's the most up to date version of the "Rhino" datasheet.

The fact is that GW are not clear enough with the term to determine what counts as the same datasheet. Best solution is to check with the TO.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

Yes they are the same data sheet as they have the same title. The difference with the DP's datasheets is that they are called different things, and are therefore different units.

If you could differentiate data sheet based on keywords you could still take 9 storm ravens for example by applying different faction keywords to them.

Also there is the precedent of identically named psychic powers being considered the same (I. E. You can't cast both) even though the actual effects concern units with different keywords

Psychic Powers and Stratagems aren't datasheets. Any "precedent" is irrelevant here.

By your logic, my Ultramarines are forced to use the Space Wolf version of the Rhino, and thus can never embark.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

Yes they are the same data sheet as they have the same title. The difference with the DP's datasheets is that they are called different things, and are therefore different units.

If you could differentiate data sheet based on keywords you could still take 9 storm ravens for example by applying different faction keywords to them.

Also there is the precedent of identically named psychic powers being considered the same (I. E. You can't cast both) even though the actual effects concern units with different keywords

Psychic Powers and Stratagems aren't datasheets. Any "precedent" is irrelevant here.

By your logic, my Ultramarines are forced to use the Space Wolf version of the Rhino, and thus can never embark.

That's a shame for you. I'd email GW if I were you and apprise them of your problem.

In one of those rare occasions where I’m in agreement with BCB, they are different datasheets from different books so it’s fine to have multiples of each in the same army.

Many previous threads on this situation, not least this long thread from April: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/755349.page

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

With out checking every example, if they have the same name, they would be treated as the same datasheet for the rule of three.

E.g csm chaos cultists and DG chaos cultists. (Of course these are troops )

Sorcerors I imagine are similar , although you there are quite a few different sorceror options to get around this. (E.g. steeds)

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

With out checking every example, if they have the same name, they would be treated as the same datasheet for the rule of three.

E.g csm chaos cultists and DG chaos cultists.

Sorcerors I imagine are similar , although you there are quite a few different sorceror options to get around this.

I don't have any of the books ATM, but I am pretty sure that a TS Sorcerer and a DG one do not, in fact share the same name. Per recent GW naming standards, they have weird unique names and therefore do not count as the same datasheet for the rule of 3.
That's why DPs aren't the same. The CSM DP is a "Daemon Prince" while a DG one is a "Daemon Prince of Nurgle". Pedantic, sure, but them's the rules

-

 Galef wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

With out checking every example, if they have the same name, they would be treated as the same datasheet for the rule of three.

E.g csm chaos cultists and DG chaos cultists.

Sorcerors I imagine are similar , although you there are quite a few different sorceror options to get around this.

I don't have any of the books ATM, but I am pretty sure that a TS Sorcerer and a DG one do not, in fact share the same name. Per recent GW naming standards, they have weird unique names and therefore do not count as the same datasheet for the rule of 3.
That's why DPs aren't the same. The CSM DP is a "Daemon Prince" while a DG one is a "Daemon Prince of Nurgle". Pedantic, sure, but them's the rules

-

Sorcerers in the CSM DG and TS books are all just "Sorcerer" unlike the DP situation

The pages look different and have different inherent Keywords. Unless we’re told two different things are the same, they’re different.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The pages look different and have different inherent Keywords. Unless we’re told two different things are the same, they’re different.

I think this is also as important as the name on the sheet. The datasheet itself must be the same to, well, be the same.
Check out the powers and options listed on each sheet.
If the Tsons Sorcerer and the DG sorcerer have the same powers and options lists, you might wanna return your Codex as defective/misprinted as they most certainly do not have acces to the same powers and options. Thus there are not the exact same datasheet

-

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

With out checking every example, if they have the same name, they would be treated as the same datasheet for the rule of three.

E.g csm chaos cultists and DG chaos cultists. (Of course these are troops )

Sorcerors I imagine are similar , although you there are quite a few different sorceror options to get around this. (E.g. steeds)

Why would they be treated as the same datasheet when they aren't the same datasheet?

Am I forced to use Space Wolf Rhinos for my Blood Angels, thus may never embark?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Do sorcerers from different factions count as the same datasheet? i.e could I have 3 Tson sorcerers and a deathguard sorcerer in a matched play list.

With out checking every example, if they have the same name, they would be treated as the same datasheet for the rule of three.

E.g csm chaos cultists and DG chaos cultists. (Of course these are troops )

Sorcerors I imagine are similar , although you there are quite a few different sorceror options to get around this. (E.g. steeds)

Why would they be treated as the same datasheet when they aren't the same datasheet?

Am I forced to use Space Wolf Rhinos for my Blood Angels, thus may never embark?

Logical fallacies, repeated constantly , remain logical fallacies.

Precedent for match play restrictions is that same name is same. No reason to assume it doesn't apply for datasheets. If advice was given otherwise , so be it, but we only have confirmation that datasheets with similar but different names are different. We can under that datasheets with Exactly the same name ate treated the same.
Or don't, the rules are optional for tournaments anyway.

Your rhino example shows you don't know how the rules for codices work. Pity.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Precedent for match play restrictions is that same name is same.

And this is where you fall into your own logical fallacy. Just because Stratagems and Psychic Powers work off the name does not mean Datasheets do. That logic is like saying re-roll hit auras work on to wound rolls because they are both rolls.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Precedent for match play restrictions is that same name is same.

And this is where you fall into your own logical fallacy. Just because Stratagems and Psychic Powers work off the name does not mean Datasheets do. That logic is like saying re-roll hit auras work on to wound rolls because they are both rolls.

Ah the classic 'because I say so' argument.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Precedent for match play restrictions is that same name is same.

And this is where you fall into your own logical fallacy. Just because Stratagems and Psychic Powers work off the name does not mean Datasheets do. That logic is like saying re-roll hit auras work on to wound rolls because they are both rolls.

Ah the classic 'because I say so' argument.

Actually his argument is not like that at all. Your argument is more like the classic'because I say so' argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Logical fallacies, repeated constantly , remain logical fallacies.

Precedent for match play restrictions is that same name is same. No reason to assume it doesn't apply for datasheets.

Actually there's no reason to assume that it does apply for datasheets. The old Rules As I Assume trick, a.k.a. HIWPI.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
To follow up on this, the Organized Events rules say they limit you on the number of times you can take the same datasheet. It does not specify that this criteria is based exclusively on the name on the datasheet. So, if you have two different datasheets that have different properties - different keywords, for example, they are different datasheets even if they are titled the same because of the obvious fact that they aren't the same if there are things that differ between the two sheets.

Making an assumption that two datasheets are the same if the names are the same, even if there are differences in the datasheets themselves is clearly not following the rules they have set up.

Isn't DG sorcerer called "Malignant Plaguecaster"?

 skchsan wrote:
Isn't DG sorcerer called "Malignant Plaguecaster"?

They also have the regular Sorcerer too.

 Stux wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Isn't DG sorcerer called "Malignant Plaguecaster"?

They also have the regular Sorcerer too.

And Tsons have "Exalted Sorcerers" in addition to regular ones.
But as there isn't an FAQ stating same name = same datasheet like Stratagems, we have to go by same datasheet = same datasheet.
Tsons Sorcerers are pretty different from DG ones, ergo, not the same datasheet.

-

same
/sām/Submit
adjective
1.identical; not different.

Because the dictionary says so.

Lacking a specific definition, the convention is that a word assumes its ordinary dictionary meaning.

Ergo, 'same' means 'identical; not different'.

Ergo, a datasheet that says Death Guard on it and a datasheet that says Thousand Sons on it are not the same. They are not identical; they are different.

You can take twelve CSM Sorcerors if you want to, so long as you give no more than three of them the same Mark or leave more than three unmarked, because the Mark modifies what the datasheet says from 'Mark of Chaos' to 'Mark of X'.

Then add three each of the DG and TS named Sorcerors, then another three vanilla Sorcerors from each book and you have 24 Sorcerors not offending the badly-written, ill-conceived and unfit for purpose rule of three.

There are three ways to look at this (as near as I can tell):

1. If it has the same name then it is the same datasheet.

Problem with this means that Space Marines, Blood Angels and Dark Angels are all forced to then use the Rhino found in the Space Wolves Codex (most recent datasheet for the Rhino) since every codex has a datasheet called "Rhino".

2. If it has the same name AND the same Keywords (including Faction Keywords) it is the same Datasheet.

Problem: Most datasheets include a <Faction>, whether it is <Chapter>, <Craftworld>, <Regiment>, etc. This means when you change the <Faction> it is a different datasheet, and one could include 3x ULTRAMARINE Librarians, and 3x WHITE SCARS Librarians.

3. Only datasheets from the same codex is the same.
Problem: If you can somehow pull the same unit for the same army from multiple sources, they are considered to be different datasheets.

In regards to the problem with number 3, however, I believe that is only an issue if you consider Forgeworld to be a separate "codex" or supplemental datasheets.

 Happyjew wrote:
There are three ways to look at this (as near as I can tell):

1. If it has the same name then it is the same datasheet.

Problem with this means that Space Marines, Blood Angels and Dark Angels are all forced to then use the Rhino found in the Space Wolves Codex (most recent datasheet for the Rhino) since every codex has a datasheet called "Rhino".

2. If it has the same name AND the same Keywords (including Faction Keywords) it is the same Datasheet.

Problem: Most datasheets include a <Faction>, whether it is <Chapter>, <Craftworld>, <Regiment>, etc. This means when you change the <Faction> it is a different datasheet, and one could include 3x ULTRAMARINE Librarians, and 3x WHITE SCARS Librarians.

3. Only datasheets from the same codex is the same.
Problem: If you can somehow pull the same unit for the same army from multiple sources, they are considered to be different datasheets.

In regards to the problem with number 3, however, I believe that is only an issue if you consider Forgeworld to be a separate "codex" or supplemental datasheets.

I like your reasoning here. There is also option 4:
Datasheets that are identical are the same, regardless of source. This means EVERYTHING on the datasheet must be the same. Factions, whether "pre-set" or variable, options, wargear, etc.

So in the case of Rhinos, a BA, DA and SW Rhino are all different as they have a different pre-set Faction. The SM Rhino is also different as it has <Chapter Tactic> on its sheet.
However an ULTRAMARINES and WHITE SCARS Rhino would indeed be the same as both have <Chapter Tacits> on the datasheet, regardless of it being replaced.
It also doesn't matter for Rhinos as DTs are not limted by the ruel of 3.

For the OPs specific example, Tsons and DG Sorcerers may have many superficial similarities, but as they have different wargear and Psychic Power Options, not to mention different "pre-set" Factions, they are NOT the same datasheet.

-

 Galef wrote:

However an ULTRAMARINES and WHITE SCARS Rhino would indeed be the same as both have <Chapter Tacits> on the datasheet, regardless of it being replaced.
It also doesn't matter for Rhinos as DTs are not limted by the ruel of 3.

But Terminators, for example, would be.

In any case, I disagree because the rules for <CHAPTER> and the other <KEYWORDS> say to replace the <KEYWORD> on the datasheet with the keyword of your choice. Otherwise you'd not be able to affect a <CHAPTER> unit with Calgar because he only affects ULTRAMARINES, not <CHAPTER>.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:

However an ULTRAMARINES and WHITE SCARS Rhino would indeed be the same as both have <Chapter Tacits> on the datasheet, regardless of it being replaced.
It also doesn't matter for Rhinos as DTs are not limted by the ruel of 3.

But Terminators, for example, would be.

In any case, I disagree because the rules for <CHAPTER> and the other <KEYWORDS> say to replace the <KEYWORD> on the datasheet with the keyword of your choice. Otherwise you'd not be able to affect a <CHAPTER> unit with Calgar because he only affects ULTRAMARINES, not <CHAPTER>.

Yet you insist on keeping CHAPTER as well as the keyword you choose or ALLEGIANCE as well as the keyword you choose wnen trying to say KHORNE is not KHORNE.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:

However an ULTRAMARINES and WHITE SCARS Rhino would indeed be the same as both have <Chapter Tacits> on the datasheet, regardless of it being replaced.
It also doesn't matter for Rhinos as DTs are not limted by the ruel of 3.

But Terminators, for example, would be.

In any case, I disagree because the rules for <CHAPTER> and the other <KEYWORDS> say to replace the <KEYWORD> on the datasheet with the keyword of your choice. Otherwise you'd not be able to affect a <CHAPTER> unit with Calgar because he only affects ULTRAMARINES, not <CHAPTER>.

Yet you insist on keeping CHAPTER as well as the keyword you choose or ALLEGIANCE as well as the keyword you choose wnen trying to say KHORNE is not KHORNE.

Because a Special Snowflake FAQ is in play regarding the ALLEGIANCE vs MARK OF CHAOS argument. But you know that of course, you're just trying to play "gotcha". That FAQ doesn't apply here because it is not attempting to "circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment" (affected by Special Snowflake FAQ), but rather the restrictions on how many of a unit you may take in your army as a whole, regardless of Detachment (not affected by Special Snowflake FAQ).

I won't rehash that argument here, but the situations are totally unrelated.

Well. The TS sorcerors are better. They can spam smite at 24" range. Just take sorceror in term armor/exualted/regular sorceror + Ahriman and 3 DP.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:

However an ULTRAMARINES and WHITE SCARS Rhino would indeed be the same as both have <Chapter Tacits> on the datasheet, regardless of it being replaced.
It also doesn't matter for Rhinos as DTs are not limted by the ruel of 3.

But Terminators, for example, would be.

In any case, I disagree because the rules for <CHAPTER> and the other <KEYWORDS> say to replace the <KEYWORD> on the datasheet with the keyword of your choice. Otherwise you'd not be able to affect a <CHAPTER> unit with Calgar because he only affects ULTRAMARINES, not <CHAPTER>.

If this were the case, the rule of 3 would be utterly pointless.
If I wanted 6 Fire Prims, then I could just take 3 Alaitoc and 3 Iyanden. Thankfully this isn't the case as both START with the same datasheet. Replacing Keyword during list building does not change that.
But units with pre-set Keywords would be different from each other, as they started as different from the moment they were printed in their respective books.

-

 Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:

However an ULTRAMARINES and WHITE SCARS Rhino would indeed be the same as both have <Chapter Tacits> on the datasheet, regardless of it being replaced.
It also doesn't matter for Rhinos as DTs are not limted by the ruel of 3.

But Terminators, for example, would be.

In any case, I disagree because the rules for <CHAPTER> and the other <KEYWORDS> say to replace the <KEYWORD> on the datasheet with the keyword of your choice. Otherwise you'd not be able to affect a <CHAPTER> unit with Calgar because he only affects ULTRAMARINES, not <CHAPTER>.

If this were the case, the rule of 3 would be utterly pointless.
If I wanted 6 Fire Prims, then I could just take 3 Alaitoc and 3 Iyanden. Thankfully this isn't the case as both START with the same datasheet. Replacing Keyword during list building does not change that.
But units with pre-set Keywords would be different from each other, as they started as different from the moment they were printed in their respective books.

-

It's not pointless. It stops you taking SIX -1 to hit Fire Prisms instead of three.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:

However an ULTRAMARINES and WHITE SCARS Rhino would indeed be the same as both have <Chapter Tacits> on the datasheet, regardless of it being replaced.
It also doesn't matter for Rhinos as DTs are not limted by the ruel of 3.

But Terminators, for example, would be.

In any case, I disagree because the rules for <CHAPTER> and the other <KEYWORDS> say to replace the <KEYWORD> on the datasheet with the keyword of your choice. Otherwise you'd not be able to affect a <CHAPTER> unit with Calgar because he only affects ULTRAMARINES, not <CHAPTER>.

If this were the case, the rule of 3 would be utterly pointless.
If I wanted 6 Fire Prims, then I could just take 3 Alaitoc and 3 Iyanden. Thankfully this isn't the case as both START with the same datasheet. Replacing Keyword during list building does not change that.
But units with pre-set Keywords would be different from each other, as they started as different from the moment they were printed in their respective books.

-

It's not pointless. It stops you taking SIX -1 to hit Fire Prisms instead of three.

Lucky, then, that from a ‘what the rules actually say’ POV, when using the ‘Rule Of Three’ you can have three Prisms total.

The rule of three is almost completely pointless.

It is ill-conceived, badly written and doesn't address the mischief it is purportedly aimed at.

Again, 24 Sorcerors of various stripes are fine. Four Hellflayers are not.

Can't you just take three Fire Prisms from one Craftworld and three from another? I don't have that book.

EDIT - Yes, you can. You can field three Fire Prisms from each of the five Craftworlds, so you're 'limited' to fifteen of them by the rule of three.

Phew.

 Galef wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
There are three ways to look at this (as near as I can tell):

1. If it has the same name then it is the same datasheet.

Problem with this means that Space Marines, Blood Angels and Dark Angels are all forced to then use the Rhino found in the Space Wolves Codex (most recent datasheet for the Rhino) since every codex has a datasheet called "Rhino".

2. If it has the same name AND the same Keywords (including Faction Keywords) it is the same Datasheet.

Problem: Most datasheets include a <Faction>, whether it is <Chapter>, <Craftworld>, <Regiment>, etc. This means when you change the <Faction> it is a different datasheet, and one could include 3x ULTRAMARINE Librarians, and 3x WHITE SCARS Librarians.

3. Only datasheets from the same codex is the same.
Problem: If you can somehow pull the same unit for the same army from multiple sources, they are considered to be different datasheets.

In regards to the problem with number 3, however, I believe that is only an issue if you consider Forgeworld to be a separate "codex" or supplemental datasheets.

I like your reasoning here. There is also option 4:
Datasheets that are identical are the same, regardless of source. This means EVERYTHING on the datasheet must be the same. Factions, whether "pre-set" or variable, options, wargear, etc.

So in the case of Rhinos, a BA, DA and SW Rhino are all different as they have a different pre-set Faction. The SM Rhino is also different as it has <Chapter Tactic> on its sheet.
However an ULTRAMARINES and WHITE SCARS Rhino would indeed be the same as both have <Chapter Tacits> on the datasheet, regardless of it being replaced.
It also doesn't matter for Rhinos as DTs are not limted by the ruel of 3.

For the OPs specific example, Tsons and DG Sorcerers may have many superficial similarities, but as they have different wargear and Psychic Power Options, not to mention different "pre-set" Factions, they are NOT the same datasheet.

-

Unless I am mis-reading what you are saying, Option 4 IS Option 3.

SM Rhino = SM Rhino, regardless of <Chapter>, but SM Rhino =/= BA Rhino =/= DA Rhino =/= SW Rhino. The only time where Option 3 breaks down is if you have (Codex) SM Rhino and (FW Index) SM Rhino (Which does not reference Codex SM/Index Imperium).

The break (as far as I can tell) is moot, because I do not believe there are any circumstances where army X has access to UNIT from the Codex AND from FW Index.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The rule of three is almost completely pointless.

It is ill-conceived, badly written and doesn't address the mischief it is purportedly aimed at.

Again, 24 Sorcerors of various stripes are fine. Four Hellflayers are not.

Can't you just take three Fire Prisms from one Craftworld and three from another? I don't have that book.

EDIT - Yes, you can. You can field three Fire Prisms from each of the five Craftworlds, so you're 'limited' to fifteen of them by the rule of three.

Phew.

No, no you can’t. All Craftworlds use the same Datasheet. You can take three, under the Rule Of Three.

Replacing <CRAFTWORLD> on two or more Datasheets with at two or more different words, like 'Alaitoc' or 'Iyanden' makes two or more Datasheets that are not identical. That are different. That are not the same.

'Cause one now says <ALAITOC> and one now says <IYANDEN> which, crucially, aren't the same words.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Replacing <CRAFTWORLD> on two or more Datasheets with at two or more different words, like 'Alaitoc' or 'Iyanden' makes two or more Datasheets that are not identical. That are different. That are not the same.

'Cause one now says <ALAITOC> and one now says <IYANDEN> which, crucially, aren't the same words.

That’s not how it works.

Oh, well if you say so then.

I didn't realize your counter-argument would be so compelling.

That is exactly how it works. A preposterous rule produces a preposterous result.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Oh, well if you say so then.

I didn't realize your counter-argument would be so compelling.

That is exactly how it works. A preposterous rule produces a preposterous result.

No need for snark, stay polite.

You are quite literally using the same Datasheet. Changing a mutable Keyword in no way changes the page of the book you’re using, or mystically change the printing. It’s the same Datasheet you’re starting from. So it’s the same Datasheet. If you’re going to argue black=white then mock me there’s little point in discussing anything.

The same datasheets that have different words on them now you've replaced <CRAFTWORLD>?

It quite openly and explicitly says 'replace'. When you replace it with something else, you make it different.

You make it no longer the same.

Did you replace them on the copy of your Datasheet in your book? Do you have two books to allow you to have two different copies of the Datahsheet?

This argument appears to be rooted in a dislike of the rule, not a real interpretation of what the rule says.

 alextroy wrote:
Did you replace them on the copy of your Datasheet in your book? Do you have two books to allow you to have two different copies of the Datahsheet?

This argument appears to be rooted in a dislike of the rule, not a real interpretation of what the rule says.

The rule doesn't care about what the book says, it cares about what datasheets are in your army. The unit in your army has the altered datasheet because the rule for the keyword tells you to do so. It works this way to allow Special Character Auras to work.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Did you replace them on the copy of your Datasheet in your book? Do you have two books to allow you to have two different copies of the Datahsheet?

This argument appears to be rooted in a dislike of the rule, not a real interpretation of what the rule says.

The rule doesn't care about what the book says, it cares about what datasheets are in your army. The unit in your army has the altered datasheet because the rule for the keyword tells you to do so. It works this way to allow Special Character Auras to work.

Whether you change the Keyword or not, it's the same Datasheet. Altered for rules purposes, but the same Datasheet.

To illustrate:

- On which page of the Craftworlds Codex do you find the Datasheet for an Alaitoc Fire Prism?
- On which page of the Craftworlds Codex do you find the Datasheet for a Biel-Tan Fire Prism?
- If the answer for both is the same, it's the same Datasheet

I hope this helps.

Replaceable keywords do not make the datasheet different.
You still start with the datasheet with <Craftworld> as a keyword. Replacing it with ALAITOC or IYANDEN does not change the datasheet itself, and that's the point

But when 2 very similar datasheets exist in different Codicies with different pre-set Faction keywords, such as THOUSAND SONS or DEATH GUARD, they are indeed different datasheets.
They also come with separate powers, thus reinforcing them as different

-

Altered, but the same.

Changed, but the same.

Different, but the same.

Not identical, but the same.

But of course, it is me putting ridiculous spins on things.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Altered, but the same.

Changed, but the same.

Different, but the same.

Not identical, but the same.

But of course, it is me putting ridiculous spins on things.

Replacing the Keyword changes the properties of the datasheet, but is doesn't change the fact that an Alaitoc Prism and an Iyanden Prism selected the same datasheet in the first place.
The Tsons and DG Sorcerers are actually different datasheets on different pages of different books

If I asked a player using "different" Fire Prisms to present their "different" datasheets to me as a TO, that player could only show me the same datasheet from the same page of the CWE codex with <Craftworld> on its page. Replacing the keyword in their list does NOT retroactively add a whole new datasheet into their printed Codex.
An ALAITOC and IYANDEN Prism use the same datasheet, ergo, you can only ever have 3 in a list of ANY kind of Prism

-

Not ridiculous, just incorrect as it currently stands. The Datasheet is literally the same. The Keyword system working as it does in no way makes the Datasheet a different Datasheet.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Not ridiculous, just incorrect as it currently stands. The Datasheet is literally the same. The Keyword system working as it does in no way makes the Datasheet a different Datasheet.

Exactly. Replacing keywords happens in your LIST, but since your book will still show <Chapter Tactic> or whatever, it remains the same datasheet.
If you can somehow show a printed datasheet with this keyword already replaced, again in your PRINTED codex, than we'd all get to call you out for forgery.
<Keywords> always stay on the datasheet, whether replaced in your list or not.

-

I simply adore that you're importing all of these convoluted methods instead of just using the actual definitions of the actual words.

The rules says you replace it on the Datasheet, not in the list, but nice try.

That you have to work this hard to try and make it workable says everything anyone needs to know about the rule of three.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The rules says you replace it on the Datasheet, not in the list, but nice try.

Show me your printed datasheet in which the keyword has been replaced.....I'll wait.

On second thought, I won't wait, because I know you cannot. Any datasheet you show me will still read <Keyword> on its print
As a TO, I would ask that you present the DIFFERENT datasheets to prove you can play 3 Alaitoc Prisms and 3 Iyanden Prism. You would not be able to, because it's the same datasheet.
That's hardly convoluted.

The rule of 3 only allows 3 of the same datasheet and no more. Replacing a keyword on a datasheet doesn't make it a different one, just changes the properties of that datasheet.
Unlike Tsons and DG Sorcerers that do indeed have wholly separate datasheets in wholly separate books
The crux of a datasheet being different is literally that it is printed more than once AND those printings have something different about them

If you could "make" a single datasheet different by simply replacing a word in your imagination (because we don't physically change the print) than the rule of 3 wold absolutely fail in it's purpose.
I chose the interpretation that doesn't outright fail. You should try that too, it makes the game work more often which is far more fun.

-

So now to make it work you're denying every Faction their Chapter Tactics equivalents. Awesome. If you're going to be htis rigid about things, then your army doesn't get CT equivalents unless you print off a datasheet for each unit and show me where you've replaced <CRAFTWORLD>.

You're explicitly directed to replace the keyword "on the datasheet". That is exactly what the rule says. I guess you could spit your dummy out because I haven't written Alaitoc on three datasheets and Iyanden on three others, or you could recognize that nobody is printing out a separate datasheet for every unit they take in every game they play.

Your version of events is not supported by the rules, the language or logic.

What does changing the properties of something do? Does it make it identical to what it was before? Does it make the same as before? You cannot even articulate your own position without shooting it in the foot.

What?!?!? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not invalidating anyone's <Keywords>

The question is: Are they different datasheets?
Nothing "in the rules" makes them a wholly different datasheet if you replace a keyword.
This is "proved" by presenting said datasheets. If you cannot present 2 separate datasheets (because you STARTED with the same one) than it is clearly the same datahsheet.
Ergo, you cannot have more than 3

-

Which part of what I said are you having trouble with?

The words and their meanings? Just make it up as you go along.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I simply adore that you're importing all of these convoluted methods instead of just using the actual definitions of the actual words.

The rules says you replace it on the Datasheet, not in the list, but nice try.

That you have to work this hard to try and make it workable says everything anyone needs to know about the rule of three.

Keywords are replaced after selecting a datasheet, this is clearly written in the BRB.

Therefore, in order to have 3 Iyanden fire prisms and 3 allaitoc fire prisms, you would have to select the same datasheet six times and then replace the keywords.

If you are playing by the rule of 3, you are forbidden from selecting the same datasheet six times.

It's as simple as following the rules.

 Jidmah wrote:

Keywords are replaced after selecting a datasheet, this is clearly written in the BRB.

Therefore, in order to have 3 Iyanden fire prisms and 3 allaitoc fire prisms, you would have to select the same datasheet six times and then replace the keywords.

If you are playing by the rule of 3, you are forbidden from selecting the same datasheet six times.

It's as simple as following the rules.

Thank you! That was worded way better than I was doing.

-

Where is it clearly written? I Ctrl-F'd 'keyword' and it doesn't appear to be in mine.

The actual rules in the Codexes says that you select the <KEYWORD> "when you include" the datasheet.

Also, your own logic breaks down at the slightest scrutiny. You go from pick a datasheet and replace the keyword to pick all six datasheets and then change the keyword. There's no support at all.

So when I include a datasheet, I select Alaitoc. I include it again and I select Iyanden. I now have two datasheets that are not the same.

The part where they tell you how to use models in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Where is it clearly written? I Ctrl-F'd 'keyword' and it doesn't appear to be in mine.

The actual rules in the Codexes says that you select the <KEYWORD> "when you include" the datasheet.

Which is exactly what I said. You bring six fire prisms, you include the datasheet six times.

 Jidmah wrote:
Which is exactly what I said. You bring six fire prisms, you include the datasheet six times.

And by that logic I can't include 3 units of Blood Angel Aggressors and 3 units of Ultramarine Aggressors. In fact I can't use the Ultramarine or Blood Angel Aggressors at all, I have to use the Space Wolf ones.

Odd that you won't give me a reference. Again, I searched it and what you are claiming doesn't appear to exist and is directly contrary to the Codex rules.

Oh, so you're also inventing a requirement that you have pick all six datasheets at the same time? Do you have a non-existent BRB reference for that, too?

Less snark please.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Which is exactly what I said. You bring six fire prisms, you include the datasheet six times.

And by that logic I can't include 3 units of Blood Angel Aggressors and 3 units of Ultramarine Aggressors. In fact I can't use the Ultramarine or Blood Angel Aggressors at all, I have to use the Space Wolf ones.

No because, those are three datasheets from three different codices. You can physically lay them next to each other.

Please stop your false analogies to derail actual RAW discussion.

The rules you are claiming 'as written' do not appear to actually be written anywhere at all.

Meanwhile you are studiously ignoring the rule of three as it is written.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Odd that you won't give me a reference. Again, I searched it and what you are claiming doesn't appear to exist and is directly contrary to the Codex rules.

Oh, so you're also inventing a requirement that you have pick all six datasheets at the same time? Do you have a non-existent BRB reference for that, too?

Look, I found the rule you referenced (which you wouldn't provide either), and it appears to prove you wrong:

Codex:Craftworld wrote:
If an Asuryani datasheet does not specify which craftworld is from, it will have the <CRAFTWORLD> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which craftworld that unit is from. You simply replace the <CRAFTWORLD> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen craftworld.

Wow, would you look at that. I guess datasheets don't multiply magically when choosing keywords.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Oh, so you're also inventing a requirement that you have pick all six datasheets at the same time?

No one is "inventing" anything. You have to select the datasheet in order to know if it has a <keyword> you can even replace in the first place.
So after you have selected 3 Fire Prism datasheets, you are done regardless of what <keywords> you decided to replace AFTER selecting them.

-

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The same datasheets that have different words on them now you've replaced <CRAFTWORLD>?

It quite openly and explicitly says 'replace'. When you replace it with something else, you make it different.

You make it no longer the same.

Unless you're writing in your codex the datasheet doesn't have different words in it, and in that case they would all still be the same datasheet with the words you scribbled in.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Which is exactly what I said. You bring six fire prisms, you include the datasheet six times.

And by that logic I can't include 3 units of Blood Angel Aggressors and 3 units of Ultramarine Aggressors. In fact I can't use the Ultramarine or Blood Angel Aggressors at all, I have to use the Space Wolf ones.

No because, those are three datasheets from three different codices. You can physically lay them next to each other.

Please stop your false analogies to derail actual RAW discussion.

So if the requirement is to "physically lay them next to each other" then Calgar never buffs anything except other Ultramarines Special Characters.

You can't have it both ways.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I simply adore that you're importing all of these convoluted methods instead of just using the actual definitions of the actual words.

The rules says you replace it on the Datasheet, not in the list, but nice try.

That you have to work this hard to try and make it workable says everything anyone needs to know about the rule of three.

Keywords are replaced after selecting a datasheet, this is clearly written in the BRB.

Therefore, in order to have 3 Iyanden fire prisms and 3 allaitoc fire prisms, you would have to select the same datasheet six times and then replace the keywords.

If you are playing by the rule of 3, you are forbidden from selecting the same datasheet six times.

It's as simple as following the rules.

This.

To complete the final nail on the coffin of this useless discussion:

Exact quote of the rule of three:

"NUMBER OF TIMES EACH
DATASHEET CAN BE INCLUDED*"

According to the rule from the eldar codex, you cannot choose keywords for a datasheet unless you include it in your army. You have no permission to include it more than thrice (at 2000 points).

And as has been explained, they are different datasheets because they have different keywords.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Which is exactly what I said. You bring six fire prisms, you include the datasheet six times.

And by that logic I can't include 3 units of Blood Angel Aggressors and 3 units of Ultramarine Aggressors. In fact I can't use the Ultramarine or Blood Angel Aggressors at all, I have to use the Space Wolf ones.

No because, those are three datasheets from three different codices. You can physically lay them next to each other.

Please stop your false analogies to derail actual RAW discussion.

So if the requirement is to "physically lay them next to each other" then Calgar never buffs anything except other Ultramarines Special Characters.

You can't have it both ways.

What exactly was your argument? Please keep on topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And as has been explained, they are different datasheets because they have different keywords.

This has been proven wrong by RAW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And as has been explained, they are different datasheets because they have different keywords.

Not when you're selecting them, they all have <KEYWORD> before the replacement.

Lest you still not see plain logic, this from the Rulebook FAQ:

Q1) Some units, like Carnifexes and Leman Russ Battle Tanks, can contain up to 3 models each, but after they are set up on the battlefield, they each become individual units. How many of these models can I include in my army if I’m using the Organised Events guidelines for, say, a 2,000 point game? A1) You can include up to 3 units in a 2,000 point game, meaning you could include up to 9 of these models.

Given Russes have <REGIMENT> that is functionally identical to <CRAFTWORLD> we have clear guidance, and proof Exvommunucatis and Baconcatbug are wrong. RAW.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Odd that you won't give me a reference. Again, I searched it and what you are claiming doesn't appear to exist and is directly contrary to the Codex rules.

Oh, so you're also inventing a requirement that you have pick all six datasheets at the same time? Do you have a non-existent BRB reference for that, too?

Look, I found the rule you referenced (which you wouldn't provide either), and it appears to prove you wrong:

Codex:Craftworld wrote:
If an Asuryani datasheet does not specify which craftworld is from, it will have the <CRAFTWORLD> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which craftworld that unit is from. You simply replace the <CRAFTWORLD> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen craftworld.

Wow, would you look at that. I guess datasheets don't multiply magically when choosing keywords.

So, your quote says that you when you include such A unit (singular) in your army, you select its keyword. That's not what you said before. You said you had to select all six before you selected your keyword and claimed it was clearly written in the BRB, which it isn't.

Now you have a Codex quote that says exactly the same thing as I said, that you select the Keyword when you include the unit. So I include a Fire Prism. I select Alaitoc. I include another. I select Iyanden. I have two datasheets that are different, not the same, not identical.

There is no rule that says you have to take all the datasheets and then select your keywords, that appears to be yet another invention. An invention that is in direct contravention to what the rule actually does say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Lest you still not see plain logic, this from the Rulebook FAQ:

Q1) Some units, like Carnifexes and Leman Russ Battle Tanks, can contain up to 3 models each, but after they are set up on the battlefield, they each become individual units. How many of these models can I include in my army if I’m using the Organised Events guidelines for, say, a 2,000 point game? A1) You can include up to 3 units in a 2,000 point game, meaning you could include up to 9 of these models.

Given Russes have <REGIMENT> that is functionally identical to <CRAFTWORLD> we have clear guidance, and proof Exvommunucatis and Baconcatbug are wrong. RAW.

You are going to hurt yourself stretching like that without a proper warmup.

That question and answer does not speak to this situation. Keywords are not mentioned or considered.

They very much are. Also, stop the insults.

- How many Russes does your incorrect interpretation allow? (Answer: infinite, as you just invent new Regiments)
- How many do GW tell us we’re allowed? (Answer: Three squadrons, ergo the same Datasheet chosen three times)

See?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
They very much are. Also, stop the insults.

How many Russes does your incorrect interpretation allow?
How many do GW tell us we’re allowed?
See?

They are not considering keywords. Where does it say keywords in the question?

See my edit for your answer. It does pertain to this discussion neatly.

How many Regiments are there? Multiply that by three.

There's no rule giving you permission to invent your own Regiment <KEYWORD>, just like there's no mention of Keywords in your quote, which you claim is a definitive answer on Keywords.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
They very much are. Also, stop the insults.

How many Russes does your incorrect interpretation allow?
How many do GW tell us we’re allowed?
See?

They are not considering keywords. Where does it say keywords in the question?

Of course GW is not considering Keywords. THAT'S THE POINT. You do not consider keywords when selecting datasheets to include in your list.
You change <keywords> AFTER the datasheet is selected and prior to that, the rule of 3 only allows you to SELECT a datasheet 3 times

-

 Excommunicatus wrote:
How many Regiments are there? Multiply that by three.

There's no rule giving you permission to invent your own Regiment <KEYWORD>, just like there's no mention of Keywords in your quote, which you claim is a definitive answer on Keywords.

Go and read your Codexes, then show me where it limits you in what you name your Regiment/Craftworld. It doesn’t, so you won’t be able to. There are infinite Regiments possible because you are not limited to just the ones named in the book; indeed, the book gives provision for custom ones and how to handle them.

Also I claimed that FAQ gives us the answer to this conversation, not all Keyword discussions. Cute misrepresentation. Cut that out too eh? Try and argue politely and without being disingenuous and you’ll get along a lot better.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

So, your quote says that you when you include such A unit (singular) in your army, you select its keyword. That's not what you said before. You said you had to select all six before you selected your keyword and claimed it was clearly written in the BRB, which it isn't.

Nope, that was just you twisting my argument.

I said you have to select datasheets before picking their keywords. Rule of 3 prevents you from selecting datasheets in the first place.

Now you have a Codex quote that says exactly the same thing as I said, that you select the Keyword when you include the unit. So I include a Fire Prism. I select Alaitoc. I include another. I select Iyanden. I have two datasheets that are different, not the same, not identical.

As soon as you pick the fourth datasheet and replace its keywords you have broken the rules and created an invalid list for organized play.

There is no rule that says you have to take all the datasheets and then select your keywords, that appears to be yet another invention. An invention that is in direct contravention to what the rule actually does say.

The only thing that's invented here is you claiming that datasheets magically become something new after adding them to your army.
You cannot select keywords without including a datasheet in your army. You have no permission to include more than three of a datasheet in your army.

Process of including a datasheet in your army.
1. Pick a datasheet
2. Include that datasheet in your army
3. When you include the datasheet, chose a keyword

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
How many Regiments are there? Multiply that by three.

There's no rule giving you permission to invent your own Regiment <KEYWORD>, just like there's no mention of Keywords in your quote, which you claim is a definitive answer on Keywords.

Go and read your Codexes, then show me where it limits you in what you name your Regiment/Craftworld. It doesn’t, so you won’t be able to. There are infinite Regiments possible because you are not limited to just the ones named in the book; indeed, the book gives provision for custom ones and how to handle them.

Also I claimed that FAQ gives us the answer to this conversation, not all Keyword discussions. Cute misrepresentation. Cut that out too eh? Try and argue politely and without being disingenuous and you’ll get along a lot better.

And to add to this, GW even had an FAQ that used regiment <Ultramarines> as a example, which clearly isn't in the Guard codex, but can be used to replace <Regiment>
While you only get benefits for specific words used to replace <keywords> all codicies allow to you use whatever word you want, so near infinite options

-

That is yet another utter fabrication. You are not given permission to invent Keywords anywhere in C:AM.

A definitive answer. Not THE definitive answer.

‘Utter fabrication’? Oh dear. You really don’t want to be wrong, do you?

You can name your Regiment whatever you like, and choose one of the Regimebtal Doctrines to reflect its fighting style. Same with a Chapter, Craftworld, Hive Fleet etc. You are not limited to the few ‘named’ ones. You can pick anything (short of trying to make two different Coxedes have synergy by picking the same... but that’s another topic). The Codexes explain how to go about this.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
That is yet another utter fabrication. You are not given permission to invent Keywords anywhere in C:AM.

A definitive answer. Not THE definitive answer.

Codex:Craftworld wrote:
If an Asuryani datasheet does not specify which craftworld is from, it will have the <CRAFTWORLD> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which craftworld that unit is from. You simply replace the <CRAFTWORLD> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen craftworld.

If the name of my chosen craftworld is LDKFNOSD, then I am perfectly given permission to use that in all instances per my Codex. I am NOT limited to the 5 craftworlds that grant other bonuses.

-

Indeed, the Astra Militarum Codex even gives you an example of how to do this with the Ventrillian Nobles, which is not one of the ‘named Regiments’. So ‘utter fabrication’? I think not, given it’s spelt out in the Codex.

C:AM tells you that if your regiment doesn't have a Doctrine to use one as printed. It does not give you permission to invent a Keyword.

There are no Asyurani datasheets in C:AM, nor Regiments in C:Eldar. Also, that underline doesn't give you permission to invent a Craftworld.

All of this instead of just accepting the ordinary meaning of the ordinary words in the rule, eh?

 Excommunicatus wrote:
C:AM tells you that if your regiment doesn't have a Doctrine to use one as printed. It does not give you permission to invent a Keyword.

There are no Asyurani datasheets in C:AM, nor Regiments in C:Eldar. Had I been asked if you could name infinite Craftworlds I'd have said yes.

The fact that you can have infinite Craftworlds does not in any way invalidate my main point, which is that the rule of three is a badly-written and ill-conceived rule. That it allows infinites is evidence OF this, not against it.

Shtappppp.

Seriously, you can name your Regiment or Craftworld whatever you like. That is not even in question. Not remotely, given they issued an FAQ to curb abuse of the system. So no need to address anymore claims you can’t name your dudes what you like.

Of course there are no Eldar in the Guard book, don’t be silly. <CRAFTWORLD> and <REGIMENT> are functionally identical Keywords but for different armies... tell me they’re not. You can’t. They are. So stop with attempting to nitpick something when I didn’t make an error.

Anyway, diversions aside, go back to addressing my point above... GW have said you can include the Leman Russ Datasheet three times in an army. So that is all we need to prove your view that you can count different <CRAFTWORLD> Prisms as being different Datasheets to be incorrect. If you were right, GW couldn’t say the Guard can take 3 x 3 Russes max. As they did, you’re wrong. Different example of the same rule. If you can’t see how it applies spend a bit of time working through my logic and step away from the keyboard for a bit.

You're adding parts to the questions answer that are not there.

Let's use a better example: Space Marines.
There are about 1,000 SM chapters per the fluff. 3 have their own Codex and the "vanilla" Codex have 7 others.
The other 990 can still be played, but subbing out <Chapter Tactic> with the appropriate Chapter name. This is allowed in the Marine Codex

Are you actually reading the rule of 3 as saying that Marines can have 3,000 of the "same" datasheet just by replacing the <Chapter Tactic>?
Because that's ridiculous. The RIGHT answer is that datasheets are selected FIRST, then <keywords> can be swapped.
Rule of 3 prevents SELECTING the same datasheet more than 3 times.

-

 Galef wrote:
Let's use a better example: Space Marines.
There are about 1,000 SM chapters per the fluff. 3 have their own Codex and the "vanilla" Codex have 7 others.
The other 990 can still be played, but subbing out <Chapter Tactic> with the appropriate Chapter name. This is allowed in the Marine Codex

Are you actually reading the rule of 3 as saying that Marines can have 3,000 of the "same" datasheet just by replacing the <Chapter Tactic>?
Because that's ridiculous. The RIGHT answer is that datasheets are selected FIRST, then <keywords> can be swapped.
Rule of 3 prevents SELECTING the same datasheet more than 3 times.

-

White Scars Terminators are not the same as Ultramarines Terminators, both in keywords and rules. They have different datasheets. By arguing they don't, that means I can use an Ultramarines Captain to buff White Scars.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
That is yet another utter fabrication. You are not given permission to invent Keywords anywhere in C:AM.

A definitive answer. Not THE definitive answer.

Designer's Commentary:
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.

Sure sounds you can have the <Regiment> of <Excomunnicatus's Snarky McSnarksters> fighting the battle...

But only 3 of each datasheet.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have different datasheets.

Can you show that to a TO? No, you cannot. You would end up showing the same datasheet twice. It's on the same page of the same codex with the same <Chapter tactic> keyword.
You selected it, THEN changed the keyword.

I am not arguing that they aren't treated differently and come with different rules AFTER you swap their <Chapter tactic>
But they did share the SAME datasheet when selected, which is all the Rule of 3 cares about

-

 Excommunicatus wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Lest you still not see plain logic, this from the Rulebook FAQ:

Q1) Some units, like Carnifexes and Leman Russ Battle Tanks, can contain up to 3 models each, but after they are set up on the battlefield, they each become individual units. How many of these models can I include in my army if I’m using the Organised Events guidelines for, say, a 2,000 point game? A1) You can include up to 3 units in a 2,000 point game, meaning you could include up to 9 of these models.

Given Russes have <REGIMENT> that is functionally identical to <CRAFTWORLD> we have clear guidance, and proof Exvommunucatis and Baconcatbug are wrong. RAW.

You are going to hurt yourself stretching like that without a proper warmup.

That question and answer does not speak to this situation. Keywords are not mentioned or considered.

It most certainly does speak to this situation. The answer would not be 3 datasheets if changing the regiment would have it count as a different datasheet. Denial isn't only a river in Egypt.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Let's use a better example: Space Marines.
There are about 1,000 SM chapters per the fluff. 3 have their own Codex and the "vanilla" Codex have 7 others.
The other 990 can still be played, but subbing out <Chapter Tactic> with the appropriate Chapter name. This is allowed in the Marine Codex

Are you actually reading the rule of 3 as saying that Marines can have 3,000 of the "same" datasheet just by replacing the <Chapter Tactic>?
Because that's ridiculous. The RIGHT answer is that datasheets are selected FIRST, then <keywords> can be swapped.
Rule of 3 prevents SELECTING the same datasheet more than 3 times.

-

White Scars Terminators are not the same as Ultramarines Terminators, both in keywords and rules. They have different datasheets. By arguing they don't, that means I can use an Ultramarines Captain to buff White Scars.

Which page handles the Chapter Tactics rules? It's not the Datasheet. They're both following the same rules around regarding choosing another rule. So no bueno there.
They use the same rules for swapping the mutable <CHAPTER> Keyword, but start with the same Datasheet. So again, sorry, you're not a winner.
White Scars Terminators are not the same as Ultramarines Terminators, you're right, due to additional special rules... but they use the same Datasheet to allow us to play them.

Honestly, I'm beginning to run out of new ways to say "this Datasheet that is the same is the same Datasheet", a concept that somehow apparently needs an FAQ. I despair a little!

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Honestly, I'm beginning to run out of new ways to say "this Datasheet that is the same is the same Datasheet", a concept that somehow apparently needs an FAQ. I despair a little!

I think the problem is not that people aren't understanding you, it's that they disagree with you. "This Datasheet that is the same is the same Datasheet" does not equate to "This Datasheet that is different because the rules say to change the datasheet is not the same Datasheet."

 Octopoid wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Honestly, I'm beginning to run out of new ways to say "this Datasheet that is the same is the same Datasheet", a concept that somehow apparently needs an FAQ. I despair a little!

I think the problem is not that people aren't understanding you, it's that they disagree with you. "This Datasheet that is the same is the same Datasheet" does not equate to "This Datasheet that is different because the rules say to change the datasheet is not the same Datasheet."

I get that, however I've also posted proof they are incorrect, which was ridiculed instead of addressed. It disproves their hot take. I've seen nothing in support of their position, and one of them is even incorrect about basics around the mutable Regiment/Craftworld/etc. Keywords. When you're arguing with two people and one is starting from incorrect rules and both are ignoring actual proof you can understand it's a touch tiresome.

If your position is "you can take infinite Leman Russes because they're not the same Datasheet" and GW's FAQ categorically says "you can take 3 x 3 Leman Russes max", it's kinda silly to stick to your guns.

I think this has gone around in circles for long enough. Time to move on.