Switch Theme:

Be'lakor advance and charge?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




 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!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 15:46:29


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

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.
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





 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.
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan






Austin, Texas.

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

I do drugs.
Mostly Plastic Crack, but I do dabble in Cardboard Cocaine. 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

You should ask him to explain his RAW since it isn't RAW any longer.
   
Made in be
Regular Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




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?
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





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.
   
Made in de
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






Germany

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 04:46:08


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 08:14:45


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




 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.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

No, no it isn’t.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




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





Chicago, IL

 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.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





No, no...

He's got a point.

DO NOT ATTACH NON-WARGAMING IMAGES TO YOUR POSTS

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 11:32:07


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 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?
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




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.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I thought FAQs overrule all?
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




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.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

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.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 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)

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




 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.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

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

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




 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...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 17:44:03


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

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.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 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?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




 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?
  •    
     
    Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
    Go to: