Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/14 21:59:45


Post by: ninjafiredragon


So I read in many competitive tournament analysis/articles that Bel'akor is potentially competitive because he can advance and charge in a slaanesh daemon detachment.

Yet, I also see in the faq that the daemon detachment loses all loci?

So does he get to advance and charge in a slaanesh daemon detachment or not?

Thanks to anyone who knows where to find the relevant rules.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/14 22:41:06


Post by: Cheex


RAW, the FAQ entry still applies, even though it was written for an old datasheet. The FAQ entry is still in a current publication, and the datasheet name that it refers to is still the same.

Most people seem to agree that the FAQ shouldn't apply by RAI, though, since it was for the old Be'lakor datasheet from when he didn't have all allegiances. That's probably where these discussions come from.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/14 22:46:41


Post by: p5freak


Yes, new belakor can advance and charge in a slaanesh deamon detachment, because its a pure slaanesh detachment, he has the SLAANESH keyword. The old belakor didnt have NURGLE, SLAANESH, KHORNE, TZEENTCH. Thats why the chaos daemon FAQ says the daemon detachment would lose loci. GW simply forgot to change the FAQ.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/14 23:01:58


Post by: DeathReaper


The Daemonic Loci rules say "If your army is Battle-forged, all CHARACTERS in Chaos Daemons Detachments gain a Daemonic Locus, so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" (Page 124 Codex: Chaos Daemons)

40k FAQ wrote:If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.

The FAQ says that the daemon detachment does not benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability if Be’lakor is included that detachment.

This is the current RAW.

Unless they change the FAQ it will stay the RAW.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/14 23:17:26


Post by: ninjafiredragon


Well that's annoying. The tourney I'm competing in is taking it RAW so no advance and charge. Last minute list change time let's go


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 04:36:59


Post by: p5freak


 DeathReaper wrote:
The Daemonic Loci rules say "If your army is Battle-forged, all CHARACTERS in Chaos Daemons Detachments gain a Daemonic Locus, so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" (Page 124 Codex: Chaos Daemons)

40k FAQ wrote:If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.

The FAQ says that the daemon detachment does not benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability if Be’lakor is included that detachment.

This is the current RAW.

Unless they change the FAQ it will stay the RAW.


Im all about FAQs overruling everything, but in this case the FAQ is very wrong, because belakor does owe allegiance to every chaos god. He has all four keywords. Its very clear that this means old belakor, who didnt have any of the chaos god keywords.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 08:27:17


Post by: JohnnyHell


Owing allegiance to all four gods is the same as “does not owe allegiance to one god”.

You’ve accidentally agreed with the old FAQ!


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 11:45:13


Post by: p5freak


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Owing allegiance to all four gods is the same as “does not owe allegiance to one god”.


It is not. I can swear allegiance to A, B, C, and D, and still say yes when someone ask me if i swore allegiance to A.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 17:38:38


Post by: warped


Is the FAQ in question you are referring to the one revising the rules from the 8th Edition Chaos Daemons Codex?

The newest version of Be'lakor is not from that Codex and therefore the guidance given in the FAQ has no bearing on Be'lakor as listed in the Warzone Charadon supplement.

The FAQ is not a "FAQ for any instance of Be'lakor in any book or magazine he ever appeared in"; as written, it's a FAQ for the version of Be'lakor in Codex: Chaos Daemons specifically.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 19:31:28


Post by: JohnnyHell


 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Owing allegiance to all four gods is the same as “does not owe allegiance to one god”.


It is not. I can swear allegiance to A, B, C, and D, and still say yes when someone ask me if i swore allegiance to A.


Yes, but do you have allegiance to one god? That was the question being asked. No, you have four allegiances. Seriously, look at the words and don’t twist them in a vain attempt to be right. Amazing if you change the question the answer does too!


FWIW applying an FAQ written before the latest rules is bonkers, I don’t have a horse in that logic race. Simply pointing out the accidental agreement in your post.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 19:53:31


Post by: nosferatu1001


You owe allegiance to four gods, not one god. If you ask the q "does B owe allegiance to a single god" , which has the same meaning, the answer is no.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 20:02:38


Post by: warped


nosferatu1001 wrote:
You owe allegiance to four gods, not one god. If you ask the q "does B owe allegiance to a single god" , which has the same meaning, the answer is no.

In the end that's irrelevant.

The FAQ refers to a Be'lakor that has allegiance to no god(s).
The 4-god Be'lakor and the Chaos Daemons FAQ interact in no way what so ever. The first page of the FAQ has a headline that specifically says "Codex: Chaos Daemons".

I don't know of your local scene let people play models using older rules but if that were to happen and someone said "I want to play the 8th Ed. Codex version of Be'lakor" then sure, they would use the related FAQ to get the most up to date version of applicable rules for that model.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 20:23:43


Post by: DeathReaper


 p5freak wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
The Daemonic Loci rules say "If your army is Battle-forged, all CHARACTERS in Chaos Daemons Detachments gain a Daemonic Locus, so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" (Page 124 Codex: Chaos Daemons)

40k FAQ wrote:If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.

The FAQ says that the daemon detachment does not benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability if Be’lakor is included that detachment.

This is the current RAW.

Unless they change the FAQ it will stay the RAW.


Im all about FAQs overruling everything, but in this case the FAQ is very wrong, because belakor does owe allegiance to every chaos god. He has all four keywords. Its very clear that this means old belakor, who didnt have any of the chaos god keywords.
Wrong or not, the FAQ still exists, and is still rules.

The current RAW is that the daemon detachment does not benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability if Be’lakor is included that detachment.

That aside, they will probably update the FAQ, so wait til then do to get the real answer, and not the mix and match answer we have now.



Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 20:31:37


Post by: doctortom


 JohnnyHell wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Owing allegiance to all four gods is the same as “does not owe allegiance to one god”.


It is not. I can swear allegiance to A, B, C, and D, and still say yes when someone ask me if i swore allegiance to A.


Yes, but do you have allegiance to one god? That was the question being asked. No, you have four allegiances. Seriously, look at the words and don’t twist them in a vain attempt to be right. Amazing if you change the question the answer does too!


FWIW applying an FAQ written before the latest rules is bonkers, I don’t have a horse in that logic race. Simply pointing out the accidental agreement in your post.


The question posed in the FAQ is NOT having allegiance to only one god.

"If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?"

It doesn't say "only" the same Chaos God, it's only worried about the one specific God the rest of the detachment has allegiance to. You can have allegiance to all four gods and have allegiance to the same Chaos God that the others in the detachment have.

But, you're right in that we shouldn't be trying to apply a FAQ for an 8th edition Be'lakor to a 9th edition datasheets. That way lies madness...


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 21:37:30


Post by: nosferatu1001


Yes, but he also has allegiance to three other gods, so still doesn't allow you to get the locus as you have 3 other god key words in there.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 21:59:52


Post by: doctortom


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but he also has allegiance to three other gods, so still doesn't allow you to get the locus as you have 3 other god key words in there.


Does daemonic locus specify that you can worship only one god?


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 22:18:32


Post by: DeathReaper


 doctortom wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but he also has allegiance to three other gods, so still doesn't allow you to get the locus as you have 3 other god key words in there.


Does daemonic locus specify that you can worship only one god?
"so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" (Page 124 Codex: Chaos Daemons)" is implying only one by use of the wording "the same"



Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 22:22:34


Post by: nosferatu1001


 doctortom wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but he also has allegiance to three other gods, so still doesn't allow you to get the locus as you have 3 other god key words in there.


Does daemonic locus specify that you can worship only one god?

It is required to owe allegiance, which is singular in nature, to same god

By definition, of the character, belakor in no way owes allegiance to the same god. It has four masters.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 22:42:08


Post by: doctortom


nosferatu1001 wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but he also has allegiance to three other gods, so still doesn't allow you to get the locus as you have 3 other god key words in there.


Does daemonic locus specify that you can worship only one god?

It is required to owe allegiance, which is singular in nature, to same god

By definition, of the character, belakor in no way owes allegiance to the same god. It has four masters.


Doesn't it have allegiance to all four Chaos Gods? (I would say that would be answered by whether Be'lakor has keywords for all four). That would mean that no matter which Chaos God you named, Be'lakor has allegiance to it


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/15 23:09:06


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn




As I understand it, he can choose to be of any "faction" so to speak, but it severely restricts his ability to include other daemons in his army. Whereas if he chooses unaligned, he can include as many daemons as he wants?

Also he seems like Smite bait for any army with even halfway decent Psykers. GK can drop him in a single turn if the rolls go off. That's a lot of burden on a list just to watch it get nuked on turn 2.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/16 04:26:31


Post by: p5freak


This is not about disciples of belakor, and no, belakor cant choose to be of any faction. This is about including belakor in a slaneesh daemon detachment.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/16 07:27:39


Post by: nosferatu1001


 doctortom wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but he also has allegiance to three other gods, so still doesn't allow you to get the locus as you have 3 other god key words in there.


Does daemonic locus specify that you can worship only one god?

It is required to owe allegiance, which is singular in nature, to same god

By definition, of the character, belakor in no way owes allegiance to the same god. It has four masters.


Doesn't it have allegiance to all four Chaos Gods? (I would say that would be answered by whether Be'lakor has keywords for all four). That would mean that no matter which Chaos God you named, Be'lakor has allegiance to it

He has allegiances to all four gods
If you ask "does he have allegiance to Slaanesh" it is an incomplete answer to say yes, or no. As you cannot say "yes", without equivocation, you do not get the locus


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/16 11:36:15


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Pardon me, by "any faction" I meant any Chaos god. Obviously I didn't mean Belakor could wind up in a Ad Mech Detachment.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/16 12:06:35


Post by: JohnnyHell


There’s a lot of basic grammar errors going on above, but again this whole thread is about trying to apply an FAQ written before new rules to those new rules. Agree with your opponent and move on if it’s actually an issue in your game, else there’s precious little point in a dogmatic to-and-fro here.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/16 12:24:08


Post by: nosferatu1001


 JohnnyHell wrote:
There’s a lot of basic grammar errors going on above, but again this whole thread is about trying to apply an FAQ written before new rules to those new rules. Agree with your opponent and move on if it’s actually an issue in your game, else there’s precious little point in a dogmatic to-and-fro here.

Nothing to do with applying the faq, I'm going from the codex. The codex does not allow belakor to advance and change, as he does not owe allegiance to the same god


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/16 12:31:25


Post by: Yarium


I'm going to offer my opinion on this, for how I would rule it if I were running an event and had to answer this.


The rule for Daemonic Loci, not even the FAQ, specifically calls out Be'lakor as NOT owing its allegiance to any of the Chaos Gods. This seems, to me, to be a rule that prohibits Be'lakor from gaining an allegiance, even if at some point the daemon were to gain the keyword. Whilst the rule was written at a time that the datasheet did not contain the keywords, it now does, but this rule specifically naming Be'lakor as not owing any allegiance still stands.

Note, this is NOT a "fluff" thing, like how the FAQ could be so interpreted. This is a specific rule - Be'lakor does not have an allegiance to any Chaos god.

Furthermore, the rule for Daemonic Loci states that all the daemons in the detachment must owe allegiance to the same Chaos God. Whilst one can argue that this works in the one direction (Be'lakor shares at least 1 god keyword with the other units in the detachment), it does NOT work in the opposite direction (the other units in the detachment do not owe allegiance to the other 3). In this way, one can also say the answer to this question is "no", as all daemons do not owe allegiance to the same god.


So those are 2 reasons I can see that Be'lakor would not gain a Loci.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 08:55:55


Post by: Eihnlazer


Since the intent is pretty obvious this is an easy one.

FAQ is old and does not apply to new Belakor since its an 8th edition FAQ and he is now a 9th edition model.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 09:05:48


Post by: p5freak


 Yarium wrote:

The rule for Daemonic Loci, not even the FAQ, specifically calls out Be'lakor as NOT owing its allegiance to any of the Chaos Gods. This seems, to me, to be a rule that prohibits Be'lakor from gaining an allegiance, even if at some point the daemon were to gain the keyword. Whilst the rule was written at a time that the datasheet did not contain the keywords, it now does, but this rule specifically naming Be'lakor as not owing any allegiance still stands.


Citation please. I cannot find anything in the Loci rule which says that Belakor is not owing its allegiance to any of the Chaos Gods.

DAEMONIC LOCI

If your army is Battle-forged, all CHARACTERS in Chaos Daemons Detachments gain a Daemonic Locus, so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God. The Daemonic Locus gained depends upon their allegiance, as shown in the table below. For example, all CHARACTERS in a NURGLE Chaos Daemons Detachment gain the Locus of Virulence.


Lets look at the allegiance rule.

<ALLEGIANCE>
With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.


The example is quite clear, the great unclean one has the NURGLE keyword, so he owes owes allegiance to NURGLE. Belakor has all four keywords, so he owes allegiance to all four gods.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 11:15:57


Post by: Yarium


I think you just cited it with the allegiance rule itself stating that he doesn’t owe allegiance. You are welcome to your interpretation.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 12:30:32


Post by: nosferatu1001


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Since the intent is pretty obvious this is an easy one.

FAQ is old and does not apply to new Belakor since its an 8th edition FAQ and he is now a 9th edition model.

We're not using the faq

We're using the rules, which requires you owe a,legiance to the same chaos god. Belakor does not only owe allegiance to Nurgle, or slaanessh, but all four. So you cannot say he owes allegiance to slaanesh as your response is incomplete. You have to equivocate.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 13:03:40


Post by: p5freak


 Yarium wrote:
I think you just cited it with the allegiance rule itself stating that he doesn’t owe allegiance. You are welcome to your interpretation.


Did you actually read the rule ? All Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Except Belakor, because he owes allegiance to all four gods. There is no room for misinterpretation. If a unit has a certain keyword, it owes allegiance to that god. The example clearly states that.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 16:27:13


Post by: DeathReaper


 p5freak wrote:


Lets look at the allegiance rule.

<ALLEGIANCE>
With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.


The example is quite clear, the great unclean one has the NURGLE keyword, so he owes owes allegiance to NURGLE. Belakor has all four keywords, so he owes allegiance to all four gods.
Actually if you re-read the allegiance rule, it is clear that Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 16:37:00


Post by: JNAProductions


Does Be’Lakor owe allegiance to Slaanesh?
Yes.

No equivocating is needed. You could say more, but the answer to the question is clear.

Even when it lists him as an exception, it doesn’t say “Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to any god,” it simply says he does not owe allegiance to ONE god.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 16:57:25


Post by: DeathReaper


 JNAProductions wrote:
Does Be’Lakor owe allegiance to Slaanesh?
Yes.

No equivocating is needed. You could say more, but the answer to the question is clear.

Even when it lists him as an exception, it doesn’t say “Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to any god,” it simply says he does not owe allegiance to ONE god.
Except, "With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods"

So clearly asking "Does Be’Lakor owe allegiance to Slaanesh?" can not be answered with a simple yes. It can be answered by saying 'No, he owes his allegiance to Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle and Slaanesh.'


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 16:58:52


Post by: nosferatu1001


Does the keeper of secrets owe allegiance to the same god as belakor?
No


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 18:05:41


Post by: warped


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Does the keeper of secrets owe allegiance to the same god as belakor?
No
The way you worded it, yes, yes, it does.

You'd be right to say no if you had said "gods".

To clarify, there is nothing here to suggest the statement is meant to be interpreted as an XOR statement.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 18:20:26


Post by: DeathReaper


warped wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Does the keeper of secrets owe allegiance to the same god as belakor?
No
The way you worded it, yes, yes, it does.

You'd be right to say no if you had said "gods".

To clarify, there is nothing here to suggest the statement is meant to be interpreted as an XOR statement.
"With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods"

Is Slaanesh a chaos god? (A: Yes)

Can Be’lakor owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods? (A: No)

Therefore Be’lakor can not, by definition, owe allegiance to Slaanesh.
.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 18:40:25


Post by: JNAProductions


Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to ONE of the four. He owes it to all four.

It’s like asking “Does your username here contain an e?”
For Deathreaper and Nosferatu, the answer to that is yes. There are more letters, but it’s not asking about those.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 19:00:27


Post by: warped


 DeathReaper wrote:

Can Be’lakor owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods? (A: No)

The Be'lakor from the War Zone Charadon supplement fulfils the requirement just fine.

Your Battle-forged army fulfils the requirement of Daemonic Loci if all picked characters owe their allegiance to Slaanesh.
How do you check if a daemon owes its allegiance to a specific god? You check the faction keywords.

An explanation of how to check is on page 84 of the Chaos Daemons Codex:

(e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle)

Be'lakor aces that check and the same goes with verifying the allegiance to the other three Chaos Gods.

War Zone Charadon Act 2 states that Be'lakor, as he appears in that supplement, replaces the one from the Codex. That is communicated not only once but twice, on pages 62 and 74 in the book. So he really does owe allegiance to the lot.

The first sentence of the definition of <Allegiance> mentions Be'lakor as he appeared in the Codex. The newer supplement calls it out and explains that the newer version takes precedence.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 19:44:27


Post by: DeathReaper


 JNAProductions wrote:
Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to ONE of the four. He owes it to all four.

It’s like asking “Does your username here contain an e?”
For Deathreaper and Nosferatu, the answer to that is yes. There are more letters, but it’s not asking about those.
For deathreaper that is not right, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As per a prior post of mine, I have proven that Be’lakor can not owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 19:50:31


Post by: doctortom


 DeathReaper wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to ONE of the four. He owes it to all four.

It’s like asking “Does your username here contain an e?”
For Deathreaper and Nosferatu, the answer to that is yes. There are more letters, but it’s not asking about those.
For deathreaper that is not right, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As per a prior post of mine, I have proven that Be’lakor can not owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


Actually your post didn't prove it.

Be'lakor has the keyword for all 4 Chaos Gods. As was pointed out, that is used for determining allegiance. They aren't asking if he has allegiance to only one god, but if he also has an allegiance to the Chaos god that the other units in the detachment have. He fulfills the requirements of having allegiance to all 4 Chaos Gods. Having allegiance to one of those four is merely a subset of him having allegiance to all 4. Does he have allegiance? Yes, it come with having allegiance to all 4 Chaos Gods.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 20:39:19


Post by: DeathReaper


 doctortom wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to ONE of the four. He owes it to all four.

It’s like asking “Does your username here contain an e?”
For Deathreaper and Nosferatu, the answer to that is yes. There are more letters, but it’s not asking about those.
For deathreaper that is not right, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As per a prior post of mine, I have proven that Be’lakor can not owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


Actually your post didn't prove it.
It did if you understood it. Here it is again.

"With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods"

Is Slaanesh a chaos god? (A: Yes)

Can Be’lakor owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods? (A: No)

Therefore Be’lakor can not, by definition, owe allegiance to Slaanesh.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 20:45:45


Post by: doctortom


 DeathReaper wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to ONE of the four. He owes it to all four.

It’s like asking “Does your username here contain an e?”
For Deathreaper and Nosferatu, the answer to that is yes. There are more letters, but it’s not asking about those.
For deathreaper that is not right, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As per a prior post of mine, I have proven that Be’lakor can not owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


Actually your post didn't prove it.
It did if you understood it. Here it is again.

"With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods"

Is Slaanesh a chaos god? (A: Yes)

Can Be’lakor owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods? (A: No)

Therefore Be’lakor can not, by definition, owe allegiance to Slaanesh.


Just repeating it doesn't make it true.

"With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods"

Be'lakor has allegiance to all four Chaos Gods, not just one.

"Can Be’lakor owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods? (A: No)"

Wrong. (A:Yes). He has allegiance to all four gods. Is Slaanesh one of the four Chaos Gods Be'lakor has allegiance to? If he has the SLAANESH keyword, then the answer is yes, just like the answer would be yes for any of the other Chaos Gods he has the keyword for.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 20:48:54


Post by: Catulle


B'e'lakor or has the ALLEGIANCE keyword.

Locus tells you to choose what that means, i.e. pick a keyword for one of the four and replace.

That is which god is setting up his bar tab and *ought* to be crystal clear to any good faith reader.

Alternatively, twist oneself into loops trying to apply FAQ from one book to a different one released significantly later. Your choice.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 21:24:26


Post by: DeathReaper


 doctortom wrote:
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
The logic behind it does though.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 21:30:50


Post by: JNAProductions


 DeathReaper wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
The logic behind it does though.
"Does [THING X] meet [CRITERIA Y]?"

If [THING X] meets [CRITERIA Y] and [CRITERIA Z] it still meets Y.

Be'Lakor meets the criteria of "Owes allegiance to Slaanesh." Him also meeting the criteria of "Owes allegiance to Nurgle," and :Owes allegiance to Khorne," and "Owes allegiance to Tzeentch," doesn't somehow make the first bit false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to ONE of the four. He owes it to all four.

It’s like asking “Does your username here contain an e?”
For Deathreaper and Nosferatu, the answer to that is yes. There are more letters, but it’s not asking about those.
For deathreaper that is not right, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As per a prior post of mine, I have proven that Be’lakor can not owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.
Also, your username here has an e in it.

That's... That shouldn't even be in question.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 21:56:09


Post by: warped


 DeathReaper wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
The logic behind it does though.

So you're out of arguments?
Okay, good effort.

Moving on.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 22:08:44


Post by: doctortom


 DeathReaper wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
The logic behind it does though.


Not when it ignores what Allegiance says, as many people have been pointing out to you. According to those rules, he has the allegiance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
The logic behind it does though.
"Does [THING X] meet [CRITERIA Y]?"

If [THING X] meets [CRITERIA Y] and [CRITERIA Z] it still meets Y.

Be'Lakor meets the criteria of "Owes allegiance to Slaanesh." Him also meeting the criteria of "Owes allegiance to Nurgle," and :Owes allegiance to Khorne," and "Owes allegiance to Tzeentch," doesn't somehow make the first bit false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Be’Lakor does not owe allegiance to ONE of the four. He owes it to all four.

It’s like asking “Does your username here contain an e?”
For Deathreaper and Nosferatu, the answer to that is yes. There are more letters, but it’s not asking about those.
For deathreaper that is not right, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As per a prior post of mine, I have proven that Be’lakor can not owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.
Also, your username here has an e in it.

That's... That shouldn't even be in question.



This. He's reading it as if it says "only one Chaos God", which it doesn't.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 22:19:58


Post by: DeathReaper


warped wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
The logic behind it does though.

So you're out of arguments?
Okay, good effort.

Moving on.
because my argument was correct, no reason to look at anything else...



Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 22:59:29


Post by: alextroy


As have been shown, a unit has allegiance to a specific Chaos God if it has that's gods Keyword.

The old Be'lakor rules had none of the Chaos God Keywords and thus did not have allegiance to one of the Chaos Gods.

The new Be'lakor rules has all 4 of the Chaos God Keywords and thus has allegiance to all four of the Chaos Gods.

So if you put Be'lakor in a Chaos Daemon detachment that is otherwise filled with units that have allegiance to the same one of the Chaos Gods, all units in the detachment have allegiance to that Chaos God since all the units, including Be'lakor, have that Chaos Gods keyword.

This is not rocket science people, it is simple logic.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 23:15:28


Post by: DeathReaper


Normally "As have been shown, a unit has allegiance to a specific Chaos God if it has that's gods Keyword." is true, however Be’lakor does not because of the allegiance rules.

Lets look at the allegiance rule.

"<ALLEGIANCE> With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."

Is Be’lakor classified as belonging to the group " Chaos Daemons" (A: Yes)

Does Be’lakor owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods? (A: The allegiance rules say he does not).


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/17 23:55:15


Post by: nosferatu1001


When you look at belakor from a keepers perspective he has allegiance with, at best, 4 different grids. Therefore does not have allegiance to slaanesh as he has allegiance to Nurgle.

Yiu don't get to just ignore the three other marks because you find it inconvenient.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear: With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods

This means belakor either owes allegiance to
- no gods
Or
- all four gods

Both are completely correct ways of parsing this, but the second option is the less likely way due to convention.

So if you ask - does a KoS owe allegiance to the same god as belakor? you're required to answer either:
1) No, because he owes allegiance to no gods
Or
2) No, because he owes allegiance to {K, N, T, S}

Anything else is an incorrect or incomplete response to the question.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 00:20:16


Post by: JNAProductions


nosferatu1001 wrote:
When you look at belakor from a keepers perspective he has allegiance with, at best, 4 different grids. Therefore does not have allegiance to slaanesh as he has allegiance to Nurgle.

Yiu don't get to just ignore the three other marks because you find it inconvenient.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear: With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods

This means belakor either owes allegiance to
- no gods
Or
- all four gods

Both are completely correct ways of parsing this, but the second option is the less likely way due to convention.

So if you ask - does a KoS owe allegiance to the same god as belakor? you're required to answer either:
1) No, because he owes allegiance to no gods
Or
2) No, because he owes allegiance to {K, N, T, S}

Anything else is an incorrect or incomplete response to the question.
If I'm wearing a polo shirt, and someone asks "Does your shirt have buttons?" is my answer incorrect or incomplete if I say "Yes,"?

It does NOT ask "Does this unit owe allegiance to Slaanesh and Slaanesh alone?" It only asks if allegiance is owed to Slaanesh.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 00:26:38


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Isn't this all missing the forest through the trees though? There are no Slaneeshi Daemons to build an army with, in 40k at least, right? Therefor, according to my understanding of the rules, it would be impossible to even create a Disciples of Belakor list, because there is nothing you could put in it if you made him Slaneshi. Are there Slanesh Marines I'm not aware of? Emperors Children marines? And you can't include Cultists without an equal number of said marines. So if you build a list with Slanesh as the god of choice, what else do you put in the list?


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 00:28:43


Post by: JNAProductions


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't this all missing the forest through the trees though? There are no Slaneeshi Daemons to build an army with, in 40k at least, right? Therefor, according to my understanding of the rules, it would be impossible to even create a Disciples of Belakor list, because there is nothing you could put in it if you made him Slaneshi. Are there Slanesh Marines I'm not aware of? Emperors Children marines? And you can't include Cultists without an equal number of said marines. So if you build a list with Slanesh as the god of choice, what else do you put in the list?
Urm... Daemonnettes. Keepers of Secrets. The chariots. Contorted Epitome. All the unique characters.

Edit: It's also NOT a Disciples of Be'Lakor army-those get their Locus replaced.

It's a Slaanesh Army with Be'Lakor.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 00:31:12


Post by: nosferatu1001


Huh? There's loads of slaanesh daemons...

JNA - you quoted but nothing indicates you read. Did you miss that the conventional parsing of the sentence is that B has no allegiance at all, to any god?

Or

He has allegiance to all 4, meaning when you ask
Does the KoS owe allegiance to the same gods as B, the answer is NO. You don't get to ignore the ones you don't want to acknowledge just because you like giving incomplete answers.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 00:34:29


Post by: JNAProductions


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Huh? There's loads of slaanesh daemons...

JNA - you quoted but nothing indicates you read. Did you miss that the conventional parsing of the sentence is that B has no allegiance at all, to any god?

Or

He has allegiance to all 4, meaning when you ask
Does the KoS owe allegiance to the same gods as B, the answer is NO. You don't get to ignore the ones you don't want to acknowledge just because you like giving incomplete answers.
But it's not incomplete.

"Does Be'Lakor owe allegiance to Slaanesh?"
Yes.

It doesn't ask if he has allegiance to Slaanesh alone, which is how you're reading it. But that requires adding additional words-words not in the text of the actual rules.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 05:55:33


Post by: DeathReaper


 JNAProductions wrote:
But it's not incomplete.

"Does Be'Lakor owe allegiance to Slaanesh?"
Yes.

Incorrect, it is no, not yes.

"<ALLEGIANCE> With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."

Since Slaanesh is "one of the four Chaos Gods." Be’lakor can not owe allegiance to Slaanesh. This is black and white and can not be disputed, as there are no rules that counter this rule about allegiance.

Therefore Be’lakor owes allegiance to no gods.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 09:12:48


Post by: nosferatu1001


 JNAProductions wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Huh? There's loads of slaanesh daemons...

JNA - you quoted but nothing indicates you read. Did you miss that the conventional parsing of the sentence is that B has no allegiance at all, to any god?

Or

He has allegiance to all 4, meaning when you ask
Does the KoS owe allegiance to the same gods as B, the answer is NO. You don't get to ignore the ones you don't want to acknowledge just because you like giving incomplete answers.
But it's not incomplete.

"Does Be'Lakor owe allegiance to Slaanesh?"
Yes.

It doesn't ask if he has allegiance to Slaanesh alone, which is how you're reading it. But that requires adding additional words-words not in the text of the actual rules.

Again

There are two possible parsings if the allegiance statement
The first states he has no allegiance at all. Address this. You've failed to do so

OR

The second means he has allegiance to four.
This means if you ask "does the KoS have allegiance to the same god as belakor", which is WHAT THE RULE REQUIRES you do, you cannot answer yes. Because no AND yes are both equally valid answers. No; Belakor owes allegiance to Nurgle

Stop ignoring rules you find inconvenient

I'm not requiring "alone". Stop making words up I didn't ever use.



Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 14:00:32


Post by: Yarium


nosferatu1001 wrote:

The second means he has allegiance to four.


You’re right that there are two ways to read it. However, I think that since the rule was written when Be’Lakor had no god keywords, it’s pretty clear that the statement means the first option; allegiance to none. And this rule remains, meaning that the rule is “he has no allegiance”. This rule would remain even if the keywords changed, but the keywords changing doesn’t change the meaning of this rule. Thus; no loci.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 17:06:03


Post by: nosferatu1001


 Yarium wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

The second means he has allegiance to four.


You’re right that there are two ways to read it. However, I think that since the rule was written when Be’Lakor had no god keywords, it’s pretty clear that the statement means the first option; allegiance to none. And this rule remains, meaning that the rule is “he has no allegiance”. This rule would remain even if the keywords changed, but the keywords changing doesn’t change the meaning of this rule. Thus; no loci.

Absolutely

There is no way where yiu can ever answer yes because it's not just about belakor and allegiance to slaanesh, but about how other units see Bs allegiance.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 17:22:59


Post by: JNAProductions


You're reading an awful lot into the text that isn't written there.

Does Be'Lakor have allegiance to ONE god?
No.

Does Be'Lakor have allegiance to Slaanesh?
Yes.

Does nosferatu have an e in it?
Yes.

Is that last answer incomplete or lacking because nosferatu ALSO has an n, and an o, and all those other letters?
Same with Be'Lakor and his allegiance.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 20:01:49


Post by: Catulle


Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, so he clearly "has" allegiance.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 20:10:14


Post by: DeathReaper


Catulle wrote:
Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, so he clearly "has" allegiance.
Was that in an FAQ because it is not on his Dataslate from the Warzone Charadon Book of fire.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 21:59:54


Post by: nosferatu1001


JNA - again
Addres that the conventional parsing of the allegiance rule states belakor has no allegiance at all.

You've conspicuously failed to do so.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 22:12:58


Post by: warped


 DeathReaper wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, so he clearly "has" allegiance.
Was that in an FAQ because it is not on his Dataslate from the Warzone Charadon Book of fire.

There are currently four allegiance keywords.
KHORNE
NURGLE
SLAANESH
TZEENTCH

The most current Be'lakor, from the War Zone supplement, has all four.

Is that something you dispute?


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 22:14:20


Post by: nosferatu1001


That's not what was asked. The poster stated they have the "allegiance " keyword, as in the actual keyword.


Do you dispute that the actual book states he has no allegiance? Because that's one of two parsings, and the other doesn't help you either...


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 22:23:12


Post by: JNAProductions


nosferatu1001 wrote:
JNA - again
Addres that the conventional parsing of the allegiance rule states belakor has no allegiance at all.

You've conspicuously failed to do so.
It doesn’t. It states he doesn’t have allegiance to ONE of them.

One could read that as “He has no allegiance at all,” but that’d be a misreading of what’s actually there.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 22:27:28


Post by: warped


nosferatu1001 wrote:
JNA - again
Addres that the conventional parsing of the allegiance rule states belakor has no allegiance at all.

You've conspicuously failed to do so.

Since you keep bringing it up; saying something is convention does not make it so. Using that phrase does not give your argument more weight.
Everything you say is merely your own personal opinion.

The rule you refer to refers to Be'lakor as he appears the Codex. It's now mostly irrelevant because that version of Be'lakor is outdated and any player with access to the War Zone supplement has access to a newer datasheet for the model.

Another thing to note is that the first two sentences in the Allegiance definition give background and context to the rules in the sentences following. They paint a broad picture based on what daemons looked like at the time. Then time happened and Be'lakor changed.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 22:35:52


Post by: nosferatu1001


 JNAProductions wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
JNA - again
Addres that the conventional parsing of the allegiance rule states belakor has no allegiance at all.

You've conspicuously failed to do so.
It doesn’t. It states he doesn’t have allegiance to ONE of them.

One could read that as “He has no allegiance at all,” but that’d be a misreading of what’s actually there.

No, no it doesn't. You're making that up

"<ALLEGIANCE> With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."
Belakor is not stated as having any allegiance at all. You're making up - by inserting words - that he owes some level of allegiance greater than null.

Warped - prove it. Also, that rule is still live, it's still in the codex, and your argument is null.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 22:45:21


Post by: warped


nosferatu1001 wrote:
That's not what was asked. The poster stated they have the "allegiance " keyword, as in the actual keyword.

I listed the allegiance keywords. When you see <ALLEGIANCE> specifically, it's shorthand for one of the four I listed, this literally is RAW on page 84 under the headline "KEYWORDS".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do you dispute that the actual book states he has no allegiance? Because that's one of two parsings, and the other doesn't help you either...

That depends.
The book gives context by saying that Be'lakor has no allegiance. That was true when the book was written. That is no longer true assuming you play with the new version of Be'lakor. A new book has literally changed how Be'lakor works. This is something that happens almost every time GW releases a new book.

The part about the supposed two parsing is a choice you've made. You have decided to parse it with "XOR" even though there is little to support that restrictive reading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Warped - prove it. Also, that rule is still live, it's still in the codex, and your argument is null.

No problem!

Those are the faction keywords of Be'lakor from page 74 of the War Zone Act 2 supplement.
Be'lakor has changed.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 22:56:26


Post by: nosferatu1001


Prove the rule is "mostly irrelevant".
You've failed to do so

Prove he has allegiance when the rule, live, states he does not. (Rather, it states a null value for his allegiance value, and if you wish to change the written rule you can get to four allegiances, and that STILL DOES NOT HELP YOU because he does NOT have the same allegiance as a KoS. )


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I've not parsed with XOR. There's only two ways to parse that as written. If you wish to make up rules, cool, but that's not what the forum is main,y here for.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 23:28:56


Post by: JNAProductions


The rule you quoted only stated that Be’Lakor does not have allegiance to ONE chaos god.

That’s all it does. You’re reading into it what’s not there.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/18 23:31:34


Post by: warped


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Prove the rule is "mostly irrelevant".
You've failed to do so

I can't read your mind, you didn't specify what you objected to.
The words "mostly irrelevant" signify an opinion. If you want to know what I base that on I can elaborate of course, although I have already said why in other places. I base it on the fact that Be'lakor has newer rules that modify what allegiances he has. He's gone from none to all four, again page 74 of the War Zone supplement, which are the newer rules which replace the old.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Prove he has allegiance when the rule, live, states he does not. (Rather, it states a null value for his allegiance value, and if you wish to change the written rule you can get to four allegiances, and that STILL DOES NOT HELP YOU because he does NOT have the same allegiance as a KoS. )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I've not parsed with XOR. There's only two ways to parse that as written. If you wish to make up rules, cool, but that's not what the forum is main,y here for.

Please stop shouting.
Again, page 74 of the War Zone supplement. The god names in his faction keywordlist are there for a reason. They signify allegiance. Is your argument that old rules overrule newer rules? That would certainly be an interesting interpretation. Can you prove that is the correct way to do it? It would probably change 40K as we know it if it you can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So if you ask - does a KoS owe allegiance to the same god as belakor? you're required to answer either:
1) No, because he owes allegiance to no gods
Or
2) No, because he owes allegiance to {K, N, T, S}

Option 2 looks pretty XOR to me. Change to an OR and it suddenly works fine.
You are making rules up in order to make it XOR.

When verifying if something qualifies for a specific Loci you compare if the two entities share a specific allegiance. Nothing more is going on. You compare them and if they share the same god, they get a pass.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 00:04:53


Post by: DeathReaper


warped wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, so he clearly "has" allegiance.
Was that in an FAQ because it is not on his Dataslate from the Warzone Charadon Book of fire.

There are currently four allegiance keywords.
KHORNE
NURGLE
SLAANESH
TZEENTCH

The most current Be'lakor, from the War Zone supplement, has all four.

Is that something you dispute?
I know Be'lakor, from the War Zone supplement, has KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH, and TZEENTCH keywords, but that is not what Catulle was talking about.

Catulle claimed that "Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword" I was asking him to show that rule, since I could not find it.

KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword. He claimed that Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, which he needs to prove since I cant find that rule anywhere.


Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 03:47:26


Post by: alextroy


Time to pull out the entire rule:
<Allegiance>
With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
So the statement holds true both both versions of the Be'lakor datasheet
  • Codex Chaos Daemons: Be'lakor has none of the allegiance keyword and thus does not have allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.
  • Warzone Charadon: Act II – Book of Fire: Be'lakor has all 4 of the allegiance keywords and thus does not have allegiance to 1 of the four Chaos Gods. He has allegiance to all 4 of them!

  • Now finally we go down to the FAQ Question and Answer:
    Q: If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.
    This is still correct. He does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God because he has allegiance to all four of them. So the answer is still completely correct, if not for the same rules reason. This does expand upon the wording of Daemonic Loci detachment rule, but doesn't contradict it. Damn you Spirit of the Rule written into FAQ! You don't get a Daemonic Loci if Be'lakor is in your detachment.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 10:13:10


    Post by: nosferatu1001


     JNAProductions wrote:
    The rule you quoted only stated that Be’Lakor does not have allegiance to ONE chaos god.

    That’s all it does. You’re reading into it what’s not there.

    No it doesn't, it states a null value for belakor allegiance, or the set of the real line excluding 1. You're literally making up rules here, as the value of belakor allegiance is never stated in this rule. All you know is it isn't 1.

    Warped - a keeper of secrets checks "do I have the same allegiance as belakor?". The rule, that is still live and is not "old" as you claim without substantiation (if you claim that rule is obsolete, how many gods does a keeper of secrets owe allegiance to? What about a daemon Prince? The rule telling you this is "old" in your mind, and not reality, and so has to be removed, so you can no longer answer this. Whoops) gives us two possible and probable values for belakor s allegiance : null, because you're given no information at all on how to determine allegiance for belakor - and this is how it parses, I note you've yet to make up any other value - or, at best, you can shoe horn 4 in. So belakor has allegiance at best for your rules breaking interpretation, FOUR allegiances. Meaning the answer is simultaneously yes and no. As there is no unequivocal yes here, from the perspective of the KoS, you dont share the same allegiance. No loci

    The faq continues to apply, as it is still completely true

    So that's three hurdles for you to,overcome. So far you've got.....nothing.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 10:56:37


    Post by: Valkyrie


    Isn't this a prime example of "just roll a D6 to determine" rather than 3+ pages of circular arguing?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 11:12:41


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    Not really - there are three strong reasons , including a faq that is as valid now as it was before, why belakor means the army loses loci effects.

    In counter we have posters making up rules and arbitrarily deciding a rule is "old" and so does not apply.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 11:21:05


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    Is there any source in existence that either side of this debate would accept as proof that they are currently wrong? What about a 40kGT official? Surely one of those has to exist here. If they make a ruling, would both sides accept it?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 11:22:26


    Post by: Aash


    The way I see it, the Codex: Chaos Daemons Errata and FAQ only apply to Be'lakor if you are using the datasheet from that codex, and not the newer rules from War Zone Charadon Act II: The Book of Fire, which has its own Errata/FAQ.
    Q: If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes
    its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit
    from the Daemonic Loci ability?
    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God

    doesn't apply any more than
    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    A: Be’lakor can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait from the
    Warhammer 40,000 Core Book.
    from the same errata/FAQ.

    Be'lakor has the Shadow Lord Warlord Trait, not the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait.



    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 11:50:46


    Post by: p5freak


    Belakors datasheet from book of fire replaces the datasheet from the daemon codex, it says so his datasheet. Can isnt must. He can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, but he doesnt have to. Question is, can he have a warlord trait from codex daemons ? He is a CHARACTER with all four chaos god keywords.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 12:04:45


    Post by: Aash


     p5freak wrote:
    Belakors datasheet from book of fire replaces the datasheet from the daemon codex, it says so his datasheet. Can isnt must. He can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, but he doesnt have to. Question is, can he have a warlord trait from codex daemons ? He is a CHARACTER with all four chaos god keywords.


    Except that he can't have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, the rules clearly state that:
    If Be'lakor is your warlord, he must have the Warlord Trait SHADOW LORD...
    (emphasis mine)
    In addition, the wording of the FAQ is:
    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    (emphasis of the plural is mine)

    So the question is asking in plural and the answer is singular, implying that Inspiring Leader is the only Warlord Trait Be'lakor can have.



    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 15:53:26


    Post by: p5freak


    Aash wrote:
     p5freak wrote:
    Belakors datasheet from book of fire replaces the datasheet from the daemon codex, it says so his datasheet. Can isnt must. He can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, but he doesnt have to. Question is, can he have a warlord trait from codex daemons ? He is a CHARACTER with all four chaos god keywords.


    Except that he can't have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, the rules clearly state that:
    If Be'lakor is your warlord, he must have the Warlord Trait SHADOW LORD...
    (emphasis mine)
    In addition, the wording of the FAQ is:
    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    (emphasis of the plural is mine)

    So the question is asking in plural and the answer is singular, implying that Inspiring Leader is the only Warlord Trait Be'lakor can have.



    Except that he must only have the shadow lord warlord trait when he is the warlord of his disciples of belakor army. He can be included in a slaanesh/khorne/nurgle/tzeentch chaos daemon detachment, which isnt disciples of belakor.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 16:55:14


    Post by: Aash


     p5freak wrote:
    Aash wrote:
     p5freak wrote:
    Belakors datasheet from book of fire replaces the datasheet from the daemon codex, it says so his datasheet. Can isnt must. He can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, but he doesnt have to. Question is, can he have a warlord trait from codex daemons ? He is a CHARACTER with all four chaos god keywords.


    Except that he can't have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, the rules clearly state that:
    If Be'lakor is your warlord, he must have the Warlord Trait SHADOW LORD...
    (emphasis mine)
    In addition, the wording of the FAQ is:
    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    (emphasis of the plural is mine)

    So the question is asking in plural and the answer is singular, implying that Inspiring Leader is the only Warlord Trait Be'lakor can have.



    Except that he must only have the shadow lord warlord trait when he is the warlord of his disciples of belakor army. He can be included in a slaanesh/khorne/nurgle/tzeentch chaos daemon detachment, which isnt disciples of belakor.


    The rule says that he must have the shadow lord warlord trait if he is your warlord, irrespective of what type of detachment he is in, and if he isn’t the warlord I’m not aware of a rule that allows you to give him a different warlord trait as he is a named character. So he still cannot have the Inspiring Leader warlord trait, which demonstrates that the FAQ is wrong, out of date and doesn’t apply to the Be’lakor data sheet in the Book of Fire.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 17:04:18


    Post by: Yarium


     Valkyrie wrote:
    Isn't this a prime example of "just roll a D6 to determine" rather than 3+ pages of circular arguing?


    Hey Valkyrie,

    While a lot of these arguments may feel overly, um, semantic, it does have a real purpose. Rolling a D6 to determine the outcome is fine and DANDY for finishing out a game when this kind of thing happens during a game, but it's really helpful to have a firm answer for all those times that you're not in a game. That way, if it ever comes up again later, you have an answer at the ready that everyone should be able to agree upon.

    But this specific argument is more important, since it is very distinctly about list construction. If you play like Be'lakor can gain a Loci ability, you might put him into a list for this intent. That means this argument will come up EVERY game - not just once in a while. Having your list "work" or "not work" based on a 50% dice roll isn't just a risky play, it's inherently unfair that a rule you are investing in has a random outcome each game. This is especially true for tournament organizers, where players may be submitting you questions before the event asking what your ruling will be on these kinds of things before bringing them.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 17:15:51


    Post by: warped


     DeathReaper wrote:

    KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword.


    Page 84 of the Codex under the headline KEYWORDS, second sentence:
    This is shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below:

    Not treated different in the rules.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    Is there any source in existence that either side of this debate would accept as proof that they are currently wrong? What about a 40kGT official? Surely one of those has to exist here. If they make a ruling, would both sides accept it?

    Great question, let's see...

     alextroy wrote:
    So the statement holds true both both versions of the Be'lakor datasheet
  • Codex Chaos Daemons: Be'lakor has none of the allegiance keyword and thus does not have allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.
  • Warzone Charadon: Act II – Book of Fire: Be'lakor has all 4 of the allegiance keywords and thus does not have allegiance to 1 of the four Chaos Gods. He has allegiance to all 4 of them!

  • I keep seeing this argument from various people and I see it as a lynchpin to the whole debacle for the side that thinks that Be'lakor breaks the Loci, among other things.

    Their core argument appears to be that since the allegiance keywords don't match exactly (Be'lakor has all 4, a KoS has only 1), they are not the same and thus having Be'lakor stops you from getting a Daemonic Loci bonus.

    Have you looked in the BRB page 245, where it specifically deals with how you should read rules like the ones for Daemonic Loci that ask you to look if things match in some way?
    Here's a snippet from the page in question:
    BRB page 245, headline FACTIONS, summery box wrote:
    Faction: Described by Faction keywords on a unit's datasheet.
    If Detachment requires all units to be from the same Faction, they must all share at least one Faction keyword.

    So, since a KoS and Be'lakor from the War Zone supplement both share at least one Faction keyword, SLAANESH, they fulfil the requirement.

    If you still think keywords must all match exactly to qualify, back that up with references to the rules that supports your interpretation.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/19 21:11:18


    Post by: DeathReaper


    warped wrote:
     DeathReaper wrote:

    KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword.
    Page 84 of the Codex under the headline KEYWORDS, second sentence:
    This is shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below:

    Not treated different in the rules.
    For the Be'lakor dataslate, which is what we were talking about, it does not let you get a keyword of your own choosing at all. So they are treated different in the rules for the situation we are discussing.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 00:52:55


    Post by: alextroy


    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    No. It does not. The SLAANESH keyword is the SLAANESH keyword whether it is on the datasheet or selected via <Allegiance>.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 02:23:32


    Post by: DeathReaper


     alextroy wrote:
    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    No. It does not. The SLAANESH keyword is the SLAANESH keyword whether it is on the datasheet or selected via <Allegiance>.
    No what does not? What are you talking about?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 03:47:23


    Post by: alextroy


    DeathReaper wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    No. It does not. The SLAANESH keyword is the SLAANESH keyword whether it is on the datasheet or selected via <Allegiance>.
    No what does not? What are you talking about?

    DeathReaper wrote:
    warped wrote:
     DeathReaper wrote:

    KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword.
    Page 84 of the Codex under the headline KEYWORDS, second sentence:
    This is shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below:

    Not treated different in the rules.
    For the Be'lakor dataslate, which is what we were talking about, it does not let you get a keyword of your own choosing at all. So they are treated different in the rules for the situation we are discussing.
    I'm talking about the red above. You said his god keywords are treated differently from Allegiance keywords, which is simply not true.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 10:39:49


    Post by: JakeSiren


    Alextroy has it right. A datasheet with faction SLAANESH is the same faction as a datasheet with faction <Allegiance> when replaced with Slaanesh, much in the same way that faction ULTRAMARINES characters are the same faction as a datasheet with faction <Chapter> when replaced with Ultramarines.

    On the whole issue, I think GW need to clean up their Chaos Daemons FAQ. I would personally consider the Daemons FAQ irrelevant for Be'lakor - the Warlord trait FAQ is a example where the FAQ doesn't make sense and clearly hasn't been updated for the newer datasheet.

    In terms of the Loci, with how it interacts with the newer datasheet for Be'lakor, I think that it is sufficiently ambiguous. If Be'lakor is included in a Slaanesh Daemons detachment, all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh. But Be'lakor also has allegiance to Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. If you approach the Loci question as, "Do all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh?" then the answer is yes. If you approach it as "Do all of the daemons have matching allegiance?" then the answer is no. IMO both approaches are valid interpretations of the RAW.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 15:28:33


    Post by: warped


    JakeSiren wrote:

    In terms of the Loci, with how it interacts with the newer datasheet for Be'lakor, I think that it is sufficiently ambiguous. If Be'lakor is included in a Slaanesh Daemons detachment, all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh. But Be'lakor also has allegiance to Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. If you approach the Loci question as, "Do all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh?" then the answer is yes. If you approach it as "Do all of the daemons have matching allegiance?" then the answer is no. IMO both approaches are valid interpretations of the RAW.

    Just to be sure, is that your interpretation after reading BRB page 245 section "FACTIONS"?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 16:48:51


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    Yes, because that only applies to factions, unless you can prove otherwise

    Also, he either has no stated allegiance (from null to infinite) based on the written rules, or he has 4, and not the required one.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 17:38:50


    Post by: warped


    nosferatu1001 wrote:
    Yes, because that only applies to factions, unless you can prove otherwise

    Also, he either has no stated allegiance (from null to infinite) based on the written rules, or he has 4, and not the required one.

    First of all, I didn't ask you.
    Second I don't think you read it or if you did, you don't care.

    The rule on p245 specifically clarifies that the wording used for <ALLEGIANCES> is inclusive. Matching 1 is enough. The whole rule just for you:
    Spoiler:

    FACTIONS
    A unit's Faction is important when building a Battle-forged army, because most Detachments require all units included in them to be from the same Faction. Importantly, for an army to be Battle-forged it must have an Army Faction (see below).

    The Factions that a unit belongs to will be listed in the Factions keywords sections of its datasheet.

    Faction: Described by Faction keywords on a unit's datasheet.
    If Detachment require all units to be from the same Faction, they must all share at least one Faction Keyword.


    So let's go through it.
    Daemonic Loci is something Chaos Daemons Detchments qualify for "so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God.". Comparing that with the rules on 245 that show that to be from the same Faction, they must all share at least one Faction Keyword, we can conclude that the phrasing is the same, ie; same allows for "at least one".

    You're quite right that the rule in question is in the context of factions. Luckily for us, <ALLEGIANCES> happen to be factions and how you check a faction it's literally spelt out in the last sentence of the spoilered rules, or on p245 if you prefer. This is Be'lakor from War Zone p74 of War Zone Act 2:
    FACTION KEYWORDS: Chaos, Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Daemon

    Enough.
    The burden of proof is on you.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 19:22:02


    Post by: DeathReaper


     alextroy wrote:
    Spoiler:
    DeathReaper wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    No. It does not. The SLAANESH keyword is the SLAANESH keyword whether it is on the datasheet or selected via <Allegiance>.
    No what does not? What are you talking about?

    DeathReaper wrote:
    warped wrote:
     DeathReaper wrote:

    KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword.
    Page 84 of the Codex under the headline KEYWORDS, second sentence:
    This is shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below:

    Not treated different in the rules.
    For the Be'lakor dataslate, which is what we were talking about, it does not let you get a keyword of your own choosing at all. So they are treated different in the rules for the situation we are discussing.
    I'm talking about the red above. You said his god keywords are treated differently from Allegiance keywords, which is simply not true.
    What I was saying is true if you do not ignore the context of my post. I said "KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword." Which is true.

    Let me explain the context of what I was talking about.

    If a Dataslate has KHORNE, then that keyword can not be replaced with NURGLE.

    If a Dataslate has <ALLEGIANCE>, then that keyword can be replaced with NURGLE.

    See how they are different?

    Basically just because all apples are fruit does not mean all fruit are apples.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 19:48:10


    Post by: JNAProductions


    So what is the difference between SLAANESH on a datasheet, and <ALLEGIANCE> on a datasheet that’s replaced with SLAANESH?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 19:55:48


    Post by: DeathReaper


     JNAProductions wrote:
    So what is the difference between SLAANESH on a datasheet, and <ALLEGIANCE> on a datasheet that’s replaced with SLAANESH?
    One is printed on the Dataslate and can not be changed, and <ALLEGIANCE> can be KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH, or TZEENTCH depending on what you pick.






    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 20:08:37


    Post by: JNAProductions


    So no difference when it’s been selected.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/20 20:33:40


    Post by: DeathReaper


     JNAProductions wrote:
    So no difference when it’s been selected.
    Technically, one was static, and one you picked would be the difference.

    But what does that have to do with anything?

    No one was talking about that.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/21 02:33:36


    Post by: alextroy


     DeathReaper wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
    So no difference when it’s been selected.
    Technically, one was static, and one you picked would be the difference.

    But what does that have to do with anything?

    No one was talking about that.
    What's the point in noting this difference? It has zero rules effect if your datasheet come stock with Slannesh or your picked Slannesh to replace <Allegiance> when you added the unit to your army list.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/21 04:45:23


    Post by: DeathReaper


     alextroy wrote:
    Spoiler:
     DeathReaper wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
    So no difference when it’s been selected.
    Technically, one was static, and one you picked would be the difference.

    But what does that have to do with anything?

    No one was talking about that.
    What's the point in noting this difference? It has zero rules effect if your datasheet come stock with Slannesh or your picked Slannesh to replace <Allegiance> when you added the unit to your army list.
    I am not sure why JNAProductions went on that tangent.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/21 07:25:14


    Post by: JakeSiren


    warped wrote:
    JakeSiren wrote:

    In terms of the Loci, with how it interacts with the newer datasheet for Be'lakor, I think that it is sufficiently ambiguous. If Be'lakor is included in a Slaanesh Daemons detachment, all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh. But Be'lakor also has allegiance to Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. If you approach the Loci question as, "Do all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh?" then the answer is yes. If you approach it as "Do all of the daemons have matching allegiance?" then the answer is no. IMO both approaches are valid interpretations of the RAW.

    Just to be sure, is that your interpretation after reading BRB page 245 section "FACTIONS"?
    Yes.

    Having read your response to Nosferatu1001, I don't think you can reasonably make the conclusion that "every unit... owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" as being equivalent to "every unit... shares at least one Chaos God allegiance".


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/21 14:58:03


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    As above

    The burden of proof hasn't shifted, you in fact showed that the wording for factions is handily different to that of allegiance

    To be Same is not the same as to share

    You've proven your own argument false.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/21 15:00:12


    Post by: warped


    JakeSiren wrote:
    warped wrote:
    JakeSiren wrote:

    In terms of the Loci, with how it interacts with the newer datasheet for Be'lakor, I think that it is sufficiently ambiguous. If Be'lakor is included in a Slaanesh Daemons detachment, all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh. But Be'lakor also has allegiance to Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. If you approach the Loci question as, "Do all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh?" then the answer is yes. If you approach it as "Do all of the daemons have matching allegiance?" then the answer is no. IMO both approaches are valid interpretations of the RAW.

    Just to be sure, is that your interpretation after reading BRB page 245 section "FACTIONS"?
    Yes.

    Having read your response to Nosferatu1001, I don't think you can reasonably make the conclusion that "every unit... owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" as being equivalent to "every unit... shares at least one Chaos God allegiance".

    That's not what I wrote. You modified the part of the statement I said was equivalent. (Why?)

    In my reply to Nosferatu1001 I compared the following:
    "so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God."

    with:
    "to be from the same Faction, they must all share at least one Faction Keyword"

    The two parts in italics are equivalent, it's reasonable to conclude that the underlined clarification applies to both.

    If B means C and A and B are the same, then A also means C.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    nosferatu1001 wrote:
    As above

    The burden of proof hasn't shifted, you in fact showed that the wording for factions is handily different to that of allegiance

    To be Same is not the same as to share

    You've proven your own argument false.

    I firmly believe you're trolling and enjoy arguing for argument's sake instead of actually looking at the validity of your claims.
    In the context of that, the chosen username is apt.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/21 15:19:45


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    Why is faction and allegiance equivalent? They may use the same keywords, but we know that chaos daemons of Nurgle are not the same as CSM daemons of Nurgle (for a specific use - strats) and that's comparing exactly the same thing (faction) and not a different concept entirely.

    Your reasonable conclusion is completely unsafe.
    Sharing at least one keyword is not the same (hah) as being told you must have the same keyword. One is many to one, the other is one to one

    But given you've proven you're arguing in bad faith already, I don't believe you will engage.

    Also, you realise nosferatu was a vampire, right ? Not a troll?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/21 18:22:26


    Post by: WarsmithMike


    I still have my old finecast Be'lakor and I used to play lots of mixed daemons and Chaos Warriors/CSM in 40k and WHFB back when that was a thing, but I have been considering the new model/books so this is actually pretty relevant to me. As the OP and others noted, this is a situation where a D6 roll really doesn't resolve the situation if you're going to a tournament or FLGS, unless you've got room in your bag for Be'lakor AND a Keeper of Secrets AND the rest of your army, plus extra models/units you need to bring two lists. So, really, I don't think this will be resolved without an updated FAQ, but I think there is another way to approach the RAW that we currently have.

    So, to quickly summarize the argument so far as I can tell, there are 3 rules in 3 different publications that are in conflict:

    1. The first sentence of the Allegiance rule in Codex: Chaos Daemons:

    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


    2. The answer to a Codex Daemons FAQ question:

    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.


    3. The updated Be'lakor datasheet from War Zone: Charadon 2 which replaces the old datasheet and gives Be'lakor faction keywords for all four chaos gods.


    So, addressing these in reverse order, no one is disputing (3) that the new datasheet takes precedence and that it has added the keywords for all four gods.

    Most people seem to agree that the FAQ answer in (2) was the correct RAW interpretation at the time it was published, but that it is now incorrect or irrelevant due to a new datasheet being released in a new book.

    A lot of people in this thread seem to be hung up on (1) the Allegiance rule and the first sentence there, and whether it is still relevant or not.

    My Hot Take: The sentence that says "With the exception of Be'lakor..." is not actually a rule at all. It's descriptive prose to clarify the subsequent rule that follows it and describes the state of the codex and datasheets that were published at the time. Out of all the datasheets published in that codex, all had exactly one allegiance, with the exception of Be'lakor, who had none. The FAQ answer can also clarifies that this is the reason a detachment with Be'lakor does not get a Locus, because he has no allegiance as was RAW at the time.

    So if (1) was never relevant and (2) is no longer relevant as it references a fact of the old datasheet, then current RAW is that a mono-daemon detachment which includes Be'lakor gets the Locus of that god.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/22 14:01:05


    Post by: alextroy


     WarsmithMike wrote:
    Spoiler:
    I still have my old finecast Be'lakor and I used to play lots of mixed daemons and Chaos Warriors/CSM in 40k and WHFB back when that was a thing, but I have been considering the new model/books so this is actually pretty relevant to me. As the OP and others noted, this is a situation where a D6 roll really doesn't resolve the situation if you're going to a tournament or FLGS, unless you've got room in your bag for Be'lakor AND a Keeper of Secrets AND the rest of your army, plus extra models/units you need to bring two lists. So, really, I don't think this will be resolved without an updated FAQ, but I think there is another way to approach the RAW that we currently have.

    So, to quickly summarize the argument so far as I can tell, there are 3 rules in 3 different publications that are in conflict:

    1. The first sentence of the Allegiance rule in Codex: Chaos Daemons:

    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


    2. The answer to a Codex Daemons FAQ question:

    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.


    3. The updated Be'lakor datasheet from War Zone: Charadon 2 which replaces the old datasheet and gives Be'lakor faction keywords for all four chaos gods.


    So, addressing these in reverse order, no one is disputing (3) that the new datasheet takes precedence and that it has added the keywords for all four gods.

    Most people seem to agree that the FAQ answer in (2) was the correct RAW interpretation at the time it was published, but that it is now incorrect or irrelevant due to a new datasheet being released in a new book.

    A lot of people in this thread seem to be hung up on (1) the Allegiance rule and the first sentence there, and whether it is still relevant or not.

    My Hot Take: The sentence that says "With the exception of Be'lakor..." is not actually a rule at all. It's descriptive prose to clarify the subsequent rule that follows it and describes the state of the codex and datasheets that were published at the time. Out of all the datasheets published in that codex, all had exactly one allegiance, with the exception of Be'lakor, who had none. The FAQ answer can also clarifies that this is the reason a detachment with Be'lakor does not get a Locus, because he has no allegiance as was RAW at the time.

    So if (1) was never relevant and (2) is no longer relevant as it references a fact of the old datasheet, then current RAW is that a mono-daemon detachment which includes Be'lakor gets the Locus of that god.
    I noted this earlier in the thread, but Be'lakor is still an exception to the "one Chaos God" statement, just for the opposite reason from before (4 Gods instead of none). Similarly, the FAQ answer is also still correct for the very same opposite reason (4 Gods, not just any 1). So until they revise the FAQ, it is still a clear ruling that cannot be logically refuted.

    Now the Warlord Trait FAQ answer simply contradicts the rules.

    My suggestion, email GW Rules and hope they revise the Chaos Daemon or Charadon FAQ to give a clear and updated answer to the question.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/22 15:59:37


    Post by: warped


    nosferatu1001 wrote:
    Why is faction and allegiance equivalent? They may use the same keywords, but we know that chaos daemons of Nurgle are not the same as CSM daemons of Nurgle (for a specific use - strats) and that's comparing exactly the same thing (faction) and not a different concept entirely.

    Your reasonable conclusion is completely unsafe.
    Sharing at least one keyword is not the same (hah) as being told you must have the same keyword. One is many to one, the other is one to one

    But given you've proven you're arguing in bad faith already, I don't believe you will engage.

    Also, you realise nosferatu was a vampire, right ? Not a troll?

    I have no need to convert you, you've made your case and the forum can judge you based on that. The same goes for me.
    You source none of your opinions and anytime you're questioned you flip your argument, don't address the criticism and request that the other side show proof, never doing so yourself. When proof is shown you ignore it and repeat your statements.

    Your last comment is something I can agree with; I won't engage your baiting anymore.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     WarsmithMike wrote:
    Spoiler:
    I still have my old finecast Be'lakor and I used to play lots of mixed daemons and Chaos Warriors/CSM in 40k and WHFB back when that was a thing, but I have been considering the new model/books so this is actually pretty relevant to me. As the OP and others noted, this is a situation where a D6 roll really doesn't resolve the situation if you're going to a tournament or FLGS, unless you've got room in your bag for Be'lakor AND a Keeper of Secrets AND the rest of your army, plus extra models/units you need to bring two lists. So, really, I don't think this will be resolved without an updated FAQ, but I think there is another way to approach the RAW that we currently have.

    So, to quickly summarize the argument so far as I can tell, there are 3 rules in 3 different publications that are in conflict:

    1. The first sentence of the Allegiance rule in Codex: Chaos Daemons:

    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


    2. The answer to a Codex Daemons FAQ question:

    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.


    3. The updated Be'lakor datasheet from War Zone: Charadon 2 which replaces the old datasheet and gives Be'lakor faction keywords for all four chaos gods.


    So, addressing these in reverse order, no one is disputing (3) that the new datasheet takes precedence and that it has added the keywords for all four gods.

    Most people seem to agree that the FAQ answer in (2) was the correct RAW interpretation at the time it was published, but that it is now incorrect or irrelevant due to a new datasheet being released in a new book.

    A lot of people in this thread seem to be hung up on (1) the Allegiance rule and the first sentence there, and whether it is still relevant or not.

    My Hot Take: The sentence that says "With the exception of Be'lakor..." is not actually a rule at all. It's descriptive prose to clarify the subsequent rule that follows it and describes the state of the codex and datasheets that were published at the time. Out of all the datasheets published in that codex, all had exactly one allegiance, with the exception of Be'lakor, who had none. The FAQ answer can also clarifies that this is the reason a detachment with Be'lakor does not get a Locus, because he has no allegiance as was RAW at the time.

    So if (1) was never relevant and (2) is no longer relevant as it references a fact of the old datasheet, then current RAW is that a mono-daemon detachment which includes Be'lakor gets the Locus of that god.


    Nice summary and observations.
    I agree 100%.

    Thank you for taking your time posting that.

    Edited: Spoilered Warsmiths reply.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/22 18:31:36


    Post by: WarsmithMike


     alextroy wrote:

    I noted this earlier in the thread, but Be'lakor is still an exception to the "one Chaos God" statement, just for the opposite reason from before (4 Gods instead of none). Similarly, the FAQ answer is also still correct for the very same opposite reason (4 Gods, not just any 1). So until they revise the FAQ, it is still a clear ruling that cannot be logically refuted.


    Oh, right, that argument. I specifically didn't address that because it's not a real issue. The only thing that mentions "any one Chaos God" is the FAQ answer, which is not only irrelevant now, but again I would interpret that answer as a description of the reason why the answer was no, not a rule unto itself.

    The Daemonic Locus rule says "the same Chaos God". And allegiances are basically just another word for factions. The only way that argument works is if you start debating the meaning of basic english words like "same" and "share", and at that point, you're not really making an argument, you're just being pedantic.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/22 21:27:26


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    Warped - incorrect, as I cited sources and explained my argument. I also refuted yours

    Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make me a troll. Your foot stomp on the other hand...


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/22 22:09:52


    Post by: alextroy


     WarsmithMike wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    I noted this earlier in the thread, but Be'lakor is still an exception to the "one Chaos God" statement, just for the opposite reason from before (4 Gods instead of none). Similarly, the FAQ answer is also still correct for the very same opposite reason (4 Gods, not just any 1). So until they revise the FAQ, it is still a clear ruling that cannot be logically refuted.

    Oh, right, that augument. I specifically didn't address that because it's not a real issue. The only thing that mentions "any one Chaos God" is the FAQ answer, which is not only irrelevant now, but again I would interpret that answer as a description of the reason why the answer was no, not a rule unto itself.

    The Daemonic Locus rule says "the same Chaos God". And allegiances are basically just another word for factions. The only way that argument works is if you start debating the meaning of basic english words like "same" and "share", and at that point, you're not really making an argument, you're just being pedantic.
    I'm confused. You ignored the argument because what isn't a real issue?

    Going by your argument, I have to think you are ignoring it because you don't want the statement With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods to be a rule. Only GW knows the answer to that, However given their FAQ answer, I kinda think it is. YMMV, but when GW's ruling can be plausibility correct, I'm not inclined to discount it because I don't want it to be.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/23 03:21:17


    Post by: WarsmithMike


     alextroy wrote:
    I'm confused. You ignored the argument because what isn't a real issue?

    This:
     alextroy wrote:
    Be'lakor has all 4 of the allegiance keywords and thus does not have allegiance to 1 of the four Chaos Gods. He has allegiance to all 4 of them!

    I like that you added the exclamation point at the end, as it highlights my point perfectly. This statement reads as absurd and/or humorous, because while it is grammatically and logically consistent, it relies on a non-standard usage of language to reach an absurd and unexpected conclusion. It reads like a bad "Dad Joke", which you might punctuate with an exclamation point to indicate the punch-line.

    That's fine, some people may actually like "Dad Jokes", but we probably shouldn't be using them to determine rules questions, IMO.


    Going by your argument, I have to think you are ignoring it because you don't want the statement With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods to be a rule.


    It's possible, like I said, I do like Be'lakor and have played Chaos Daemons quite a bit, but I already explained why I do not think it's a rule at all, let alone one that should apply in this situation. I actually thought about breaking it down further, but my last post was already getting a bit long, but I'll do it for you now.

    Here's the part of that rule I would consider descriptive or explanatory and not specifically a 'rule' per se:
    Spoiler:

    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle).


    And here's the actual rules text (emphasis mine for the rulez logiks):
    Spoiler:

    IF a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to,
    [ THEN ] it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword.
    WHEN you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to.
    It THEN replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in EVERY INSTANCE on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.


    See the difference? Maybe you don't, but I think most people will. The first part is just descriptive prose, but the text that follows (which I do consider 'the rules' is written in clear and precise language so that there is almost no room for interpretation of its meaning. (I only added a single implied word and some formatting, otherwise this is the exact text.)

    In addition, this rule never applied to any of Be'lakor's datasheets, because as you noted above they do not have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. So I highly doubt it was intended to apply to this situation.

    Only GW knows the answer to that, However given their FAQ answer, I kinda think it is. YMMV, but when GW's ruling can be plausibility correct, I'm not inclined to discount it because I don't want it to be.

    So, now you're arguing RAI based on an outdated/superceded FAQ question. Good luck with that. I'm not discounting a GW ruling, I am discounting your interpretation of it, because it's silly. The fact that you added the exclamation point to the end of the sentence makes me believe you know this too. I won't grant you the fact that it could even be plausible that GW intended us to interpret a rule using this kind of atypical logic that would essentially break the entire Faction Keyword system of the whole game.

    So that's why it's not a real issue. If I showed up with Be'lakor and Khorne daemons list, and you said "Hey, I think there was an FAQ ruling about that, my buddy used to play Chaos Daemons," I would show you the updated datasheet in Book of Fire with all the keywords and explain that it was released after said FAQ, and then we would most likely get on with the game. If you tried to make this argument to me instead, I would start packing up my models and leave. If a TO told me "No Locus for mono-faction daemons with Be'lakor HQ" because we're going with the old FAQ, or because it's too powerful/meta-breaking, I'd say that's fine, tournaments have lots of rules and regulations like that. If a TO tried to make the argument you are making, I would pack up my models and ask for a refund, because if you or the TO think this is a valid argument, what other crazy rule interpretations might start coming out?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/23 05:07:02


    Post by: alextroy


    The flaws to your logic train is that you first assume the sentence is descriptive and not rules. It may be, but there is no proof one way or the other.

    Secondly, you assume the FAQ answer has been superseded because of the changes to the datasheet. However the FAQ does not specifically mention anything on the datasheet. It seems to be more designers commentary than a simple explanation of the rule. It could have said, “As Be’lakor does not have the required keyword, including him in a detachment prevents any models in that detachment from gaining a Daemonic Loci”. Sadly, it did not.

    What GW intends is something only they can tell when/if they update one of the FAQs.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/23 07:06:48


    Post by: WarsmithMike


     alextroy wrote:
    The flaws to your logic train is that you first assume the sentence is descriptive and not rules. It may be, but there is no proof one way or the other.

    Secondly, you assume the FAQ answer has been superseded because of the changes to the datasheet. However the FAQ does not specifically mention anything on the datasheet. It seems to be more designers commentary than a simple explanation of the rule. It could have said, “As Be’lakor does not have the required keyword, including him in a detachment prevents any models in that detachment from gaining a Daemonic Loci”. Sadly, it did not.


    Except I didn't assume anything. I quoted the exact text and provided an interpretation (which I believe to be correct) and explained how I came to that conclusion. I also pointed out the fact that the rule in question never applied to Be'lakor in the first place, that seems like decent evidence to me.

    Yes, we may never get absolute, definitive proof, without an official FAQ, but I think there is plenty of evidence supporting my interpretation. This type of combination of descriptive prose alongside formal rules can be found throughout GW rulebooks, other gaming rulebooks, textbooks, technical manuals, etc.

    Can you provide any evidence that the first clause, "With the exception of Be’lakor," should apply to anything other than the immediately following phrase, "all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."? Because I think that's all it's there for, it's stating a fact about the datasheets in the codex that was correct at the time it was published. So the FAQ answer is just a restatement of this fact, like, it wasn't a misprint or an error of omission that Be'lakor's old datasheet didn't have those keywords.

    Be'lakor's new datasheet, however, contains all the faction keywords, which are the same thing as allegiances. So, if Be'lakor's new rules specifying he can only take his Shadow Lord trait supercede the FAQ about his Warlord Trait, then the new faction keywords supercede the "does not owe allegiance" FAQ answer. I guess you could argue that faction keywords and allegiances are different, but I think that's a pretty weak argument which warped already covered earlier in the thread.

    I think we all wish that in these kinds of situations, GW's rules writers/designers would use more precise language. But then what would we argue about on Dakka? The answer you gave as an example is perfectly clear, I would have no problem with it at all. If you ever apply for a job as a FAQ writer, feel free to use me as a reference. ;-)

    What GW intends is something only they can tell when/if they update one of the FAQs.


    Which is why there's literally an entire section in the wiki article linked to the sticky at the top of this subforum telling people not to argue Intents. And why I am intentionally avoiding it and making an argument based on what is written. So if you can provide any counter-evidence, please do, otherwise I think I have made my case.

    But, ultimately I think this rules conflict resulted from a misreading of one sentence and a misapplication of outdated rules. So, from my point of view, the RAW and RAI are the same, no FAQ update is strictly needed. Old mono-daemon Be'lakor got no Locus. New Be'lakor does. Simple as.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/23 07:56:49


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    New belakor doesn't, because he does not owe allegiance to the same chaos god as the keeper of secret. He owes allegiance to Khorne. And Nurgle. And tzeentch

    You cannot disprove this, because it is true.

    GW need to errata the rules on allegiance if you want to allow belakor to exist in a detachment and not break locus.

    As for the first bit of the allegiance rule not being rules, it is. It tells you how to identify the allegiance of, for example , a keeper of secrets.

    Your opinion that it isn't rules is just that. An opinion. And one proven not to be factually correct.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    "So, if Be'lakor's new rules specifying he can only take his Shadow Lord trait supercede the FAQ about his Warlord Trait, then the new faction keywords supercede the "does not owe allegiance" FAQ answer"
    Assumption

    The concept of allegiance is not the same as faction. We know this to be true. Faction is "at least one" whereas allegiance is "exactly the same".


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/23 13:56:57


    Post by: alextroy


     WarsmithMike wrote:
    Spoiler:
     alextroy wrote:
    The flaws to your logic train is that you first assume the sentence is descriptive and not rules. It may be, but there is no proof one way or the other.

    Secondly, you assume the FAQ answer has been superseded because of the changes to the datasheet. However the FAQ does not specifically mention anything on the datasheet. It seems to be more designers commentary than a simple explanation of the rule. It could have said, “As Be’lakor does not have the required keyword, including him in a detachment prevents any models in that detachment from gaining a Daemonic Loci”. Sadly, it did not.


    Except I didn't assume anything. I quoted the exact text and provided an interpretation (which I believe to be correct) and explained how I came to that conclusion. I also pointed out the fact that the rule in question never applied to Be'lakor in the first place, that seems like decent evidence to me.

    Yes, we may never get absolute, definitive proof, without an official FAQ, but I think there is plenty of evidence supporting my interpretation. This type of combination of descriptive prose alongside formal rules can be found throughout GW rulebooks, other gaming rulebooks, textbooks, technical manuals, etc.

    Can you provide any evidence that the first clause, "With the exception of Be’lakor," should apply to anything other than the immediately following phrase, "all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."? Because I think that's all it's there for, it's stating a fact about the datasheets in the codex that was correct at the time it was published. So the FAQ answer is just a restatement of this fact, like, it wasn't a misprint or an error of omission that Be'lakor's old datasheet didn't have those keywords.

    Be'lakor's new datasheet, however, contains all the faction keywords, which are the same thing as allegiances. So, if Be'lakor's new rules specifying he can only take his Shadow Lord trait supercede the FAQ about his Warlord Trait, then the new faction keywords supercede the "does not owe allegiance" FAQ answer. I guess you could argue that faction keywords and allegiances are different, but I think that's a pretty weak argument which warped already covered earlier in the thread.

    I think we all wish that in these kinds of situations, GW's rules writers/designers would use more precise language. But then what would we argue about on Dakka? The answer you gave as an example is perfectly clear, I would have no problem with it at all. If you ever apply for a job as a FAQ writer, feel free to use me as a reference. ;-)

    What GW intends is something only they can tell when/if they update one of the FAQs.


    Which is why there's literally an entire section in the wiki article linked to the sticky at the top of this subforum telling people not to argue Intents. And why I am intentionally avoiding it and making an argument based on what is written. So if you can provide any counter-evidence, please do, otherwise I think I have made my case.

    But, ultimately I think this rules conflict resulted from a misreading of one sentence and a misapplication of outdated rules. So, from my point of view, the RAW and RAI are the same, no FAQ update is strictly needed. Old mono-daemon Be'lakor got no Locus. New Be'lakor does. Simple as.
    I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm also not saying you're right. I'm saying there is enough space in the way the rule and FAQ written to not be able to rule against the Daemonic Loci rule while the Warlord Trait rule clearly contradicts subsequently published rules.

    As I said, we need to wait for GW to clean up their mess before we know what they really intended.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/23 16:20:56


    Post by: warped


    My opinion is that any time you see a mention of Be'lakor in the FAQ, it refers to Be'lakor from the book the FAQ amends.
    snippets from the public FAQ for the 8th ed Chaos Daemons Codex wrote:
    Page 102 – Be’lakor, Abilities
    Remove ‘Daemonic Ritual’

    Q: If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.

    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    A: Be’lakor can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait from the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book.

    So, none of the above rules have any effect on Be'lakor as he now exists, from the War Zone supplement. I base this on the fact that the FAQ boldly lists the name of the Codex in the very first line below the logo. It's further reinforced by the lack of Daemonic Ritual on the new dataslate (p74 War Zone Act 2), so that errata is clearly a miss. The same goes for the allegiances, since he now has allegiances to all four gods instead of none and finally that the new dataslate specifies that you have to take Shadow Lord as the warlord trait. They even added a designer's note to preempt similar discussions, stating that the new dataslate replaces the old one.

    The only reasonable conclusion I can make from all this is that references to Be'lakor in the FAQ are null and void. Ever seen an Excel document with broken formulas listing #REF! ? That is equivalent what I see as having happened here.

    I feel that the moment you decide to allow the FAQ for the Codex affect dataslates released after the publication of the FAQ is the moment you open the door to anarchy in the context of how to interpret almost any of the rules.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/23 21:00:14


    Post by: WarsmithMike


     alextroy wrote:
    I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm also not saying you're right. I'm saying there is enough space in the way the rule and FAQ written to not be able to rule against the Daemonic Loci rule while the Warlord Trait rule clearly contradicts subsequently published rules.

    As I said, we need to wait for GW to clean up their mess before we know what they really intended.


    Yup, I agree that there's some ambiguity, I'm not going to claim that it's 100% clear, so we're in agreement there. But, you seem to think it's more like 50/50, so we need a ruling from GW. My point is if you look at all the rules and text that we have (across 2 or 3 books and several FAQs), I think it's more like 80/20 or 90/10, i.e. there's more evidence supporting that he gets the Locus than against it. So that's How I Would Play It, but I would also expect most people to consider that the current RAW with the absence of other evidence.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    warped wrote:
    The only reasonable conclusion I can make from all this is that references to Be'lakor in the FAQ are null and void. Ever seen an Excel document with broken formulas listing #REF! ? That is equivalent what I see as having happened here.

    I feel that the moment you decide to allow the FAQ for the Codex affect dataslates released after the publication of the FAQ is the moment you open the door to anarchy in the context of how to interpret almost any of the rules.


    I like the Excel example, that is a good analogy of why there's confusion in the first place.

    So, does anyone know of any examples of a similar situation, i.e. where GW published new datasheets to override old ones, but both the new and old rulebooks/codexes are still current?

    I know they provide guidance such as "Use the most recent rules/codex and the most up-to-date FAQ", etc. But have they ever said anywhere how the FAQs should be applied? I think your reasoning makes the most sense, as it's clearly broken in this case otherwise. But let's say we do see an FAQ update for this before we get a new Codex: Chaos Daemons. Do you think GW would update the existing Codex Daemons FAQ, or the War Zone Charadon FAQ? Both?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/24 12:11:39


    Post by: Aash


    GW have updated the Codex: Chaos Daemons errata removing the references to Be’lakor:

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/fg9dAIcx6EvpwCM3.pdf

    Designer’s Note: Some entries in this document required removal as they do not apply to the updated datasheet for Be’lakor found in War Zone Charadon Act 2: The Book of Fire. In order to make it easier to identify what has been removed, for this iteration of this document we have struck those entries out. These entries will be removed in future iterations of this document.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/24 12:52:12


    Post by: Yarium


    This FAQ for Be'lakor was unhelpful. I'm inclined to say that he SHOULD get it now, but that's only on the basis of Rules as Intended. I think deleting this shows an intent that he SHOULD get it. But honestly, it doesn't change my position on the Rules as Written; which (in my way of reading it) says that Be'lakor is an exception to gaining allegiance altogether. They really needed to actually, you know, REVISE this FAQ, not just strike it out.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/24 15:46:04


    Post by: warped


     WarsmithMike wrote:


    I like the Excel example, that is a good analogy of why there's confusion in the first place.

    So, does anyone know of any examples of a similar situation, i.e. where GW published new datasheets to override old ones, but both the new and old rulebooks/codexes are still current?

    I know they provide guidance such as "Use the most recent rules/codex and the most up-to-date FAQ", etc. But have they ever said anywhere how the FAQs should be applied? I think your reasoning makes the most sense, as it's clearly broken in this case otherwise. But let's say we do see an FAQ update for this before we get a new Codex: Chaos Daemons. Do you think GW would update the existing Codex Daemons FAQ, or the War Zone Charadon FAQ? Both?

    The short answer is that no, I did not think that GW would update the FAQ for the Codex.
    Turns out I was wrong and GW was kind enough to do so.

    I am happy to see that they mirror our interpretation of which rules were still relevant.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Aash wrote:
    GW have updated the Codex: Chaos Daemons errata removing the references to Be’lakor:

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/fg9dAIcx6EvpwCM3.pdf

    Designer’s Note: Some entries in this document required removal as they do not apply to the updated datasheet for Be’lakor found in War Zone Charadon Act 2: The Book of Fire. In order to make it easier to identify what has been removed, for this iteration of this document we have struck those entries out. These entries will be removed in future iterations of this document.

    Many thanks for posting that!


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/24 17:45:36


    Post by: alextroy


    Excellent. We can now conclude that Be’lakor can be included in a Chaos Daemon detachment without preventing Daemonic Loci and also will gain a Daemonic Loci of the appropriate Chaos God for that detachment.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/24 19:59:01


    Post by: WarsmithMike


     Yarium wrote:
    This FAQ for Be'lakor was unhelpful. I'm inclined to say that he SHOULD get it now, but that's only on the basis of Rules as Intended. I think deleting this shows an intent that he SHOULD get it. But honestly, it doesn't change my position on the Rules as Written; which (in my way of reading it) says that Be'lakor is an exception to gaining allegiance altogether. They really needed to actually, you know, REVISE this FAQ, not just strike it out.


    You know, the fact that they updated the FAQ and you agree that the intent is now clearer, should maybe make you consider the fact that you were reading that rule wrong the whole time.

    The rule about 'allegiances' is for applying the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword, you know, for datasheets that can be taken by any allegiance, like a Daemon Prince, or Furies. In these cases, you pick ONE and only one god keyword to replace the allegiance. Be'lakor doesn't have the <ALLEGIANCE> placeholder, so the rule will never apply to him. But then why is he mentioned there as an exception? Indulge me in this completely contrived and hypothetical conversation with your Friendly Local That Guy:

    FLTG: "I'm running a multi-faction daemon list with a Daemon Prince of Slaanesh and Nurgle".
    Chad: "You can't do that, it says you have to pick one god for your Daemon Prince."
    FLTG: "But it doesn't say I can't pick more than one!"
    Chad: "Yes it does, that's why it says ALL daemons owe allegiance to ONE god. (Also that's literally the worst kind of rules argument)."
    FLTG: "Bu-bu-but! What about Be'lakor!" OLD FAQ: "He doesn't have any allegiance!" NEW FAQ: "He has all four allegiances!"
    Chad: "Yes, but that's why it says he is an exception to the rule."

    That's it. That's all that sentence was ever there for. But the way the old FAQ answer for Daemonic Locus was answered, it added some confusion about this. The rule in question here is about Be'lakor and Daemonic Locus, not allegiances or <ALLEGIANCE>, and the new FAQ clears that up by removing the confusing ruling that was based on the old datasheet.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/24 22:23:21


    Post by: ninjafiredragon


    The TO still is playing it RaW that Belakor can not advance and charge which is.... unfortunate.
    Why did GW not revise the question to give us a clear answer?

    Ugh. I'm not building this damn model until I can use it properly lol


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/24 22:43:35


    Post by: alextroy


    You should ask him to explain his RAW since it isn't RAW any longer.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/24 22:47:28


    Post by: Catulle


     ninjafiredragon wrote:
    The TO still is playing it RaW that Belakor can not advance and charge


    FWIW, they aren't.

    Cold comfort, but them's the breaks.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/25 00:13:18


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    Here lies the utter silliness of threads like this: Instead of asking "What is the correct interpretation of X Rule/s?" We should be asking "Do any of the people in this forum TO any tournaments and are they willing to make a ruling on this?". Because all the arguments and semantics and FAQs, and RAW v RAI doesn't matter, if the TO tells you to kick rocks. Also, Each TO is completely different right? So having this TO say this is how we are playing the rule, could change tomorrow.

    I'm sorry your TO isn't letting you play by the correct reading. I hope you still have a great time at your event. PS - I'd love to see your slanesh army next to your Belakor model, do you have photos of your army?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/25 00:27:36


    Post by: WarsmithMike


    Catulle wrote:
     ninjafiredragon wrote:
    The TO still is playing it RaW that Belakor can not advance and charge


    FWIW, they aren't.

    Cold comfort, but them's the breaks.


    If the tournament is scheduled to happen fairly soon, or the TO already posted the ruling online in a group or Discord or a shared document with tournament rules or something, it's perfectly reasonable to not want to change a ruling like that at the last minute. Or if the tournament rules say something like "All codexes, datasheets, and FAQs released before Sept. 1st", even GW did that for their own tourneys. Then I'm with Catulle there, them's the breaks, TO's have a lot on their plate and you should respect their rulings if you want to participate.

    If it was a private discussion between you and the TO where they explained what they thought the RaW is, and you show them the updated FAQ and they say something like "I'm the TO and my rules are law!" or "Why can't you just bring a Keeper of Secrets like everybody else?"

    Well, everybody has to make their own choices, but personally I would back out, ask for a refund if I had paid anything already, and (calmly, politely) inform the TO that if they are going to be stubborn and not adjust to an updated FAQ ruling because GW ruled the opposite of the way they thought, then I don't have any confidence that they would be able to run the tournament fairly and/or deal with any other rules questions that might come up.

    Or just tell your TO to hop onto Dakka and let us deal with them

    This most recent FAQ update is exciting, and as I am already a Be'lakor fan, I'm excited to see some competitive lists and to see how they will perform.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/25 04:43:16


    Post by: p5freak


     WarsmithMike wrote:

    This most recent FAQ update is exciting, and as I am already a Be'lakor fan, I'm excited to see some competitive lists and to see how they will perform.


    Dont get your hopes up. Belakor is fairly easy to kill. A unit of retributors with four multimeltas and two cherubs shoots 12 times, hitting on 4s, wounding on 3s, with the +1 to wound stratagem. They cannot reroll hit rolls against him, but can reroll wound rolls with morvenn vahl. With a bit of dice luck he is dead in one turn, if not he dies next turn.

    And i agree that GW should have been more precise with the FAQ. I asked them if Belakor can get a warlord trait other than shadow lord when he is in a chaos daemon detachment, and if he owes allegiance to all four gods.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/25 08:14:32


    Post by: JohnnyHell


    And the FAQ has now been updated so the dogmatic bickering can cease!

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/fg9dAIcx6EvpwCM3.pdf

    TL;DR they deleted all the old FAQ entries and clarified they do not apply to new Belakor.



    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/25 09:43:55


    Post by: warped


     p5freak wrote:
     WarsmithMike wrote:

    This most recent FAQ update is exciting, and as I am already a Be'lakor fan, I'm excited to see some competitive lists and to see how they will perform.


    Dont get your hopes up. Belakor is fairly easy to kill. A unit of retributors with four multimeltas and two cherubs shoots 12 times, hitting on 4s, wounding on 3s, with the +1 to wound stratagem. They cannot reroll hit rolls against him, but can reroll wound rolls with morvenn vahl. With a bit of dice luck he is dead in one turn, if not he dies next turn.

    I'd say that those Retributors would have a good chance of killing almost any target they get to shoot twice at.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/25 12:27:42


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    That assumes the retributors don't get screened out of half range.

    It's a frustrating faq, and as my argument wasn't based on the faq, but on the rule that tells you how allegiances are determined - and they HAVENOT changed that - the raw argument against loci still stands. It suggests they intended him to now allow a loci, but it's still debatable.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/25 19:38:28


    Post by: JohnnyHell


    No, no it isn’t.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 00:55:53


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    Until GW sends us each a DETAILED EMAIL with the full listing of how each unit should work, I saw TEACH the Controversy....


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 01:53:05


    Post by: DeathReaper


     JohnnyHell wrote:
    No, no it isn’t.
    It is now a less strong case for him to not have a loci, but it is debatable that he gets one.

    The rule that tells you how allegiances are determined have not changed, so RAW he can not have a loci. It is a little less clear since the FAQ came our.

    We knew what their intent used to be, but will it stay that way is anyone's guess.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 02:15:46


    Post by: WarsmithMike


    No, no...

    He's got a point.

    DO NOT ATTACH NON-WARGAMING IMAGES TO YOUR POSTS


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 08:56:55


    Post by: nosferatu1001


     JohnnyHell wrote:
    No, no it isn’t.

    The rule stating he doesn't have allegiance to one god exists, and has nkt been altered
    So yes, yes it is

    See how unhelpful that is?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 11:04:16


    Post by: warped


    The datasheet from Warzone act 2 lists four allegiances in the Faction Keyword list.

    As you're not told otherwise, use the normal rules for determining what takes precedence.
    Warzone Act 2 is a lot newer than the Codex.

    It doesn't get more RAW than that.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 11:40:14


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    I thought FAQs overrule all?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 13:01:13


    Post by: warped


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    I thought FAQs overrule all?

    The short answer is that it depends.

    In any case, that is not relevant to this topic anymore since no FAQ contains rules related Be'lakor.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 15:52:17


    Post by: alextroy


    nosferatu1001 wrote:
     JohnnyHell wrote:
    No, no it isn’t.

    The rule stating he doesn't have allegiance to one god exists, and has nkt been altered
    So yes, yes it is

    See how unhelpful that is?
    You mean this rule?
    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    I've highlighted the important part of that rule. Be'lakor doesn't hold allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods, he holds allegiance to all 4 since he has all four of the applicable keywords.

    So going by the Daemonic Loci rule, if Be'lakor is in a Slannesh Chaos Daemon detachment, all units in the detachment have the Slannesh keyword and all Slannesh Characters in the detachment gain SLAANESH: LOCUS OF SWIFTNESS. This includes Be'lakor, since he is a Slannesh Character.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 16:52:58


    Post by: DeathReaper


     alextroy wrote:
    Spoiler:
    nosferatu1001 wrote:
     JohnnyHell wrote:
    No, no it isn’t.

    The rule stating he doesn't have allegiance to one god exists, and has nkt been altered
    So yes, yes it is

    See how unhelpful that is?
    You mean this rule?
    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    I've highlighted the important part of that rule. Be'lakor doesn't hold allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods, he holds allegiance to all 4 since he has all four of the applicable keywords.

    So going by the Daemonic Loci rule, if Be'lakor is in a Slannesh Chaos Daemon detachment, all units in the detachment have the Slannesh keyword and all Slannesh Characters in the detachment gain SLAANESH: LOCUS OF SWIFTNESS. This includes Be'lakor, since he is a Slannesh Character.

    You have it backwards.

    Going by the Daemonic Loci rule all Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God"

    Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment that includes Be'lakor absolutely do not hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" as Be'lakor

    "so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" (Page 124 Codex: Chaos Daemons)


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 17:05:19


    Post by: warped


     DeathReaper wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    Spoiler:
    nosferatu1001 wrote:
     JohnnyHell wrote:
    No, no it isn’t.

    The rule stating he doesn't have allegiance to one god exists, and has nkt been altered
    So yes, yes it is

    See how unhelpful that is?
    You mean this rule?
    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    I've highlighted the important part of that rule. Be'lakor doesn't hold allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods, he holds allegiance to all 4 since he has all four of the applicable keywords.

    So going by the Daemonic Loci rule, if Be'lakor is in a Slannesh Chaos Daemon detachment, all units in the detachment have the Slannesh keyword and all Slannesh Characters in the detachment gain SLAANESH: LOCUS OF SWIFTNESS. This includes Be'lakor, since he is a Slannesh Character.

    You have it backwards.

    Going by the Daemonic Loci rule all Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God"

    Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment that includes Be'lakor absolutely do not hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" as Be'lakor

    "so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" (Page 124 Codex: Chaos Daemons)

    The rule describing how you deal with this situation is on p.245 of the BRB. The summary box in the Faction-section clarifies out that if a detachment requires the units to have the same faction, sharing at least one faction keyword counts as having fulfilled the requirement.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 17:24:15


    Post by: DeathReaper


    The unit's faction has nothing to do with the Daemonic Loci rule.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 17:26:34


    Post by: JNAProductions


     DeathReaper wrote:
    The unit's faction has nothing to do with the Daemonic Loci rule.
    So Loci are completely different from Chapter Tactics, or Regiment Traits, or Kabal Obsessions, or...

    There is a minor difference-it only works on Characters instead of all units in the army. But CSM Legion Traits only apply to Infantry, Bikers, HELBRUTES, and Characters, so clearly you don't have to apply to everything to qualify.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 17:43:05


    Post by: warped


     DeathReaper wrote:
    The unit's faction has nothing to do with the Daemonic Loci rule.

    The four Daemonic Loci, one for each god, refer to each of the four chaos gods.

    To take one example: Locus of Swiftness refers to "SLAANESH DAEMON units".
    SLAANESH is a faction. The rule describing how that is, is also on p.245, on the line right above the one I referred to in my previous post.
    It's a faction because SLAANESH is a faction keyword and that page states that Factions are described by faction keywords on the unit's datasheet...


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 18:13:24


    Post by: DeathReaper


    All Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God"

    Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment that includes Be'lakor absolutely do not hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" as Be'lakor.

    This is true, and you have not posted anything that actually refutes this.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 18:19:32


    Post by: JNAProductions


     DeathReaper wrote:
    All Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God"

    Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment that includes Be'lakor absolutely do not hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" as Be'lakor.

    This is true, and you have not posted anything that actually refutes this.
    Is there an e in your username here?
    Does Be'Lakor, as of the Campaign Book, have allegiance to Slaanesh?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 18:39:54


    Post by: warped


     DeathReaper wrote:
    All Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God"

    Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment that includes Be'lakor absolutely do not hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" as Be'lakor.

    This is true, and you have not posted anything that actually refutes this.

    I believe what I posted disproves your second sentence.

    I'm curious what this disconnect is based on so if you don't mind answering a couple of questions, please:

  • How do you determine if a unit owes allegiance to a Chaos God?

  • Is SLAANESH a Faction keyword?

  • How do you determine what Factions a unit has?

  • Are allegiances examples of Factions?

  • Do the Daemonic Loci require that all units in a battle-forged army belong to the same Faction to qualify?


  • Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 18:43:56


    Post by: alextroy


     DeathReaper wrote:
    All Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God"

    Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment that includes Be'lakor absolutely do not hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" as Be'lakor.

    This is true, and you have not posted anything that actually refutes this.
    As noted in the Allegiance rule, the keyword(s) tells you which Chaos God(s) two whom a unit has allegiance. If all units in the detachment have the Slannesh Keyword, then they all hold allegiance to Slannesh. That is enough. The rule does not require them to not hold allegiance to any other Chaos God.

    We also have confirming proof from GW since they deleted the FAQ answer that stated Be'lakor's presence in a detachment prevents Daemonic Loci from coming into effect.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 20:09:41


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    I look at his sheet and see he holds allegiance to Nurgle. That isn't the SAME allegiance as every other unit , so no loci.

    Sadly warped, while Nurgle is ALSO a faction, as we've already gone over, the rules for allegiance do not require at least one, they require the same. Belakor in no way has the *same* allegiance, by definition.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 21:27:22


    Post by: JNAProductions


    Does Be’Lakor have allegiance to Slaanesh?

    That is all that is asked.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 22:03:46


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    Except it isn't.

    It asks if every unit has allegiance to the same god

    Belakor has a,legiance to Nurgle. This is NOT the same as slaanesh.

    You're answering a different question - does belakor have allegiance to AT LEAST slaanesh.

    Which is wrong, and why pretending that the faction rules help you is of course, also wrong.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 22:12:06


    Post by: JNAProductions


    nosferatu1001 wrote:
    Except it isn't.

    It asks if every unit has allegiance to the same god

    Belakor has a,legiance to Nurgle. This is NOT the same as slaanesh.

    You're answering a different question - does belakor have allegiance to AT LEAST slaanesh.

    Which is wrong, and why pretending that the faction rules help you is of course, also wrong.
    So you’re saying that Loci are not the faction purity bonus, similar to Chapter Tactics, and should therefore be treated entirely differently?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 22:13:45


    Post by: alextroy


    You are wrong. Just check the deleted FAQ answer.
    CODEX: CHAOS DAEMONS, Indomitus Version 1.2 wrote:Q: If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.
    This agrees with your interpretation that Be'lakor's allegiance to all 4 Chaos Gods means he can't match allegiance to models that only have one allegiance. But GW deleted this, rendering it the wrong answer to the question


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/26 22:57:20


    Post by: nosferatu1001


     JNAProductions wrote:
    nosferatu1001 wrote:
    Except it isn't.

    It asks if every unit has allegiance to the same god

    Belakor has a,legiance to Nurgle. This is NOT the same as slaanesh.

    You're answering a different question - does belakor have allegiance to AT LEAST slaanesh.

    Which is wrong, and why pretending that the faction rules help you is of course, also wrong.
    So you’re saying that Loci are not the faction purity bonus, similar to Chapter Tactics, and should therefore be treated entirely differently?

    The rule for allegiance has a specific requirement. Do you meet this requirement? It's a simple question, one I've proven repeatedly since probably page 1 to be "no".

    Alextroy- that question and answer was from when B had zero allegiance as he lacked any of the required keywords. It had nothing to do with his new status.

    Now, he has according to the Allegiance rule, either no allegiance or more than one allegiance. No allegiance is not possible, when combined with the new data sheet, meaning he has more than one allegiance.

    More than one allegiance is not the same as having the same allegiance. 4 is not the same as 1, in simple terms

    Yes, it's likely not intended. But GE could have, you know, answered the question properly instead of leaving it RAW as a broken loci.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/27 01:06:43


    Post by: DeathReaper


     JNAProductions wrote:
     DeathReaper wrote:
    All Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God"

    Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment that includes Be'lakor absolutely do not hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" as Be'lakor.

    This is true, and you have not posted anything that actually refutes this.
    Is there an e in your username here?
    Does Be'Lakor, as of the Campaign Book, have allegiance to Slaanesh?
    What does my username have to do with anything?
    As for Be'Lakor he does not have allegiance to Slaanesh. "With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods." Is Slaanesh one of the four Chaos Gods? If so, Be'Lakor can not have "allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."

    warped wrote:
     DeathReaper wrote:
    All Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God"

    Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment that includes Be'lakor absolutely do not hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" as Be'lakor.

    This is true, and you have not posted anything that actually refutes this.

    I believe what I posted disproves your second sentence.
    It does not.

    To answer your questions warped:
    Spoiler:

    How do you determine if a unit owes allegiance to a Chaos God?
    Through the <Allegiance> rules that say "With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods." From this we know Be’lakor absolutely does not "owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."
    Is SLAANESH a Faction keyword?
    Sure, but Be’lakor absolutely does not "owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."
    How do you determine what Factions a unit has?
    This is 100% not relevant to the discussion.
    Are allegiances examples of Factions?
    Maybe sometimes, but not for Be’lakor
    Do the Daemonic Loci require that all units in a battle-forged army belong to the same Faction to qualify?/quote]Almost, the Daemonic Loci rule says that all Daemons in a Chaos Daemon detachment need to hold allegiance to "the same Chaos God" and clearly Be’lakor absolutely does not "owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods." as shown in the rules above.
    As Nos said "More than one allegiance is not the same as having the same allegiance. "

    And this is the fact that your side is handwaving away to make it fit, when the rules don't fit with your interpretation.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/27 01:50:34


    Post by: JNAProductions


    Doesn’t owe allegiance to ONE. He owes allegiance to all four.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/27 01:58:35


    Post by: JakeSiren


    The problem we have is trying to apply rules that were written when only mono-aligned Daemons existed.

    It all hinges on what is meant by "same allegiance".

    To compare apples and oranges, they are the same but different. They are both round(ish) fruits. But are also different in their own ways.

    Be'lakor is similar, he has the same allegiance as a detachment with all Slaanesh Daemons, but he is also different in that he also has different allegiance (being all four gods)

    In other words, Be'lakor has the same allegiance as a Daemonette, but a Daemonette doesn't have the same allegiance as Be'lakor.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/27 03:15:03


    Post by: alextroy


    The only things we need to know are this statement:
    Designer’s Note: Some entries in this document required removal as they do not apply to the updated datasheet for Be’lakor found in War Zone Charadon Act 2: The Book of Fire. In order to make it easier to identify what has been removed, for this iteration of this document we have struck those entries out. These entries will be removed in future iterations of this document.
    And this struck out FAQ answer:
    Q: If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.
    If the interpretation that Be'lakor having all 4 Chaos Gods keywords would prevent the Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability, then this FAQ answer would still be valid. Since they struck the answer, the alternative interpretation that their presence does not prevent it is the proper analysis.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/27 08:00:15


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    Incorrect. It means that question, asked when B had no allegiance at all, is not valid as B has changed to have at least 4 allegiances

    To make it clear: you are assuming just because A implies B that B must imply A. Ie the excluded middle fallacy. Because I have posited another, equally valid (because we are not GW so cannot KNOW intent) solution to why the q was removed you cannot conclude with safety, ie without assuming, that your position is correct.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/27 19:12:36


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    Awesome, can we lock this thread now?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/27 20:26:39


    Post by: Catulle


    Oh, Fezzik, if only...


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/27 21:19:35


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    Well there's no new arguments against the RAW, and hasn't been for ages now.
    The faq was never the Crux of my argument, which at its core remains true. Just likely unintended. Much like assault weapons and advancing in 8th


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/28 01:16:07


    Post by: Catulle




    The Aristocrats/YMDC, ladies and gentlemen!


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/28 05:02:58


    Post by: DeathReaper


    Catulle wrote:


    The Aristocrats/YMDC, ladies and gentlemen!
    You can not believe that what nos said was sophistry can you?


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/28 08:51:51


    Post by: nosferatu1001


    Catulle wrote:


    The Aristocrats/YMDC, ladies and gentlemen!

    Don't change what I put and retain the quote.

    Not sophistry
    An explanation that the faq wasn't the core of my argument. Which is true

    Feel free to troll tho.


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/28 09:22:57


    Post by: Catulle


    Well, you chaps keep advancing a nonsensical read on the rules and claim in it "as written" when the written history directly opposes your stance. Thus making a mockery of the supposed function of this forum.

    You ought to both be banned from posting this rubbish, and yet you remain here.

    Thus "sophistry" - the kinder, gentler alternative to "you have to be fething kidding me, right, why are you still posting this gak here?"


    Be'lakor advance and charge?  @ 2021/09/28 09:33:22


    Post by: DeathReaper


    Catulle wrote:
    Well, you chaps keep advancing a nonsensical read on the rules and claim in it "as written" when the written history directly opposes your stance. Thus making a mockery of the supposed function of this forum.

    You ought to both be banned from posting this rubbish, and yet you remain here.

    Thus "sophistry" - the kinder, gentler alternative to "you have to be fething kidding me, right, why are you still posting this gak here?"
    Your remarks are not at all accurate though. It only seems like rubbish because clearly you can not have understood what Nos has posted.

    An you say we should be banned for parsing the rules? That good sir is, in itself, rubbish. We are not willfully backing a non-sensical parsing of the rules, and not trolling just to get a reaction. Look at the history for both of us, we are correct 99.99999 times out of 100. we try to parse the rules as close to RAW as possible without fail.

    It is not a "nonsensical read on the rules" at all.

    It is not at all "making a mockery of the supposed function of this forum." just because you believe it so.