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.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually if you go strictly RAW then substituting the keyword would mean that no abilities take effect; as written, the ability affects units with <faction>. If you replace <faction> with something else, then that ability ceases to work as it can only, by RAW, affect units with the <faction> keyword.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: This loophole is on the same level as "there is no rule that says I can't dreadsock my opponent into conceding".
The rules team has already literally stated what the rule is for, and yet people are acting like that isn,t enough. Does the Emperor need to come down off his throne carried and present a gilded parchment that says what it's meant for?
If you feel this is such a big rule issue, tweet Foley about it. He heads the rules team for this edition. Posting on Dakka doesn,t "fix" anything, it just lets a certain group fluff their ego about ow right they are.
This is kind of reminding me of that time in 5th (think, or was it 6th?) when units with no eyes can't draw LoS, and as such aren't allowed to fire.
My personal favorite thing about 5e was that Go to Ground involved turning your models on their side. I once asked in YDMC how this would interact with TLOS, especially when ruins/etc were involved. (Advance next to a low wall, using Incoming to hide from enemy guns)
...that actually makes a lot of sense.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Does it matter though? Is an army with Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines fighting together as "Ultramarines" really going to be significantly more powerful than just playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines?
If someone turned up with an army like that I'd shrug my shoulders and play them. 8th has normalized power levels to the point where I can't see any advantage being derived from it.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
I find passive aggressive messages in people's signatures quite amusing.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Does it matter though? Is an army with Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines fighting together as "Ultramarines" really going to be significantly more powerful than just playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines?
If someone turned up with an army like that I'd shrug my shoulders and play them. 8th has normalized power levels to the point where I can't see any advantage being derived from it.
It matters because if you argue that you can do this, then you can give the units keyword Fly and now your grots can melee the Vendetta flying over the field.
It's a silly argument that has to ignore previous steps and simply read the new keyword letter by letter, rather than respecting the fact that it is a CHAPTER keyword.
In some cases it seems like a general way to get allies like traitor guard <Wu Tang Clan> and legion <Wu Tang Clan>. I would be okay if that is what my opponent was doing. If they where abusing it, I would probably have a problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/08 14:47:43
ryanme12 wrote: In some cases it seems like a general way to get allies like traitor guard <Wu Tang Clan> and legion <Wu Tang Clan>. I would be okay if that is what my opponent was doing. If they where abusing it, I would probably have a problem.
Exploits aside, I'm not sure I'd be willing to go up against that army. <Wu Tang Clan> ain't nothin' to feth with.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Does it matter though? Is an army with Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines fighting together as "Ultramarines" really going to be significantly more powerful than just playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines?
If someone turned up with an army like that I'd shrug my shoulders and play them. 8th has normalized power levels to the point where I can't see any advantage being derived from it.
I think the real worry is less about someone taking the best individual things from a bunch of factions (though this is a concern) and more being able to take advantage of synergies and special rules that depend on keywords.
For example, Hive Fleet Aeldari units can be taken in an Ynarri army, where they receive the Strength from Death rule.
Clan Ultramarines' shooting is famous because Guilliman increases their accuracy by 67%.
Sept Drukhari's Breacher teams and Vespids had a hard time getting in range to use their AP-2 guns and surviving until they started mounting up in open-topped Raiders.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Does it matter though? Is an army with Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines fighting together as "Ultramarines" really going to be significantly more powerful than just playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines?
If someone turned up with an army like that I'd shrug my shoulders and play them. 8th has normalized power levels to the point where I can't see any advantage being derived from it.
I think the real worry is less about someone taking the best individual things from a bunch of factions (though this is a concern) and more being able to take advantage of synergies and special rules that depend on keywords.
For example, Hive Fleet Aeldari units can be taken in an Ynarri army, where they receive the Strength from Death rule.
Clan Ultramarines' shooting is famous because Guilliman increases their accuracy by 67%.
Sept Drukhari's Breacher teams and Vespids had a hard time getting in range to use their AP-2 guns and surviving until they started mounting up in open-topped Raiders.
Hive Fleet Character can never be shot at anything except what is closest to you.
Astra Militarum wrote:<Regiment> If an Astra Militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will typically have the <Regiment> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which regiment that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Regiment> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen regiment.
Adeptus Ministorum wrote:<Order> All members of the Adepta Sororitas belong to an order and have the <Order> keyword. When you include such a unit your your army, you must nominate which Order that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Order> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen Order. You can use any of the Orders that you have read about, or make up your own.
So you can definitely make up the WAAC <Regiment> and the WAAC <Order> but each of them remain a custom Regiment and Order as explained by the underlined sections of the quotes above. Just like if you name your <daughter> “Celestine Smith” and your <boat> “Celestine Smith” they do not become the same class of entity.
Looking at the Regimental Standard for an Imperial Guard Command squad we get this:
Regimental Standard wrote:All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6” of any <Regiment> Veteran with a regimental standard.
A Sister from the WAAC <Order> is not from a friendly <Regiment>, she’s from a friendly <Order>, even if those two happen to share the same string of identifying characters. When she gained the WAAC keyword it was her “chosen Order”, while WAAC keyword that the Veteran has is her “chosen Regiment”.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/06/12 05:24:24
Astra Militarum wrote:<Regiment> If an Astra Militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will typically have the <Regiment> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which regiment that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Regiment> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen regiment.
Adeptus Ministorum wrote:<Order> All members of the Adepta Sororitas belong to an order and have the <Order> keyword. When you include such a unit your your army, you must nominate which Order that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Order> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen Order. You can use any of the Orders that you have read about, or make up your own.
So you can definitely make up the WAAC <Regiment> and the WAAC <Order> but each of them remain a custom Regiment and Order as explained by the underlined sections of the quotes above. Just like if you name your <daughter> “Celestine Smith” and your <boat> “Celestine Smith” they do not become the same class of entity.
Looking at the Regimental Standard for an Imperial Guard Command squad we get this:
Regimental Standard wrote:All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6” of any <Regiment> Veteran with a regimental standard.
A Sister from the WAAC <Order> is not from a friendly <Regiment>, she’s from a friendly <Order>, even if those two happen to share the same string of identifying characters. When she gained the WAAC keyword it was her “chosen Order”, while WAAC keyword that the Veteran has is her “chosen Regiment”.
Yes yes, this is known and has already been discussed to death in this thread. However, the other side holds that this doesn't matter, as the keyword, once it is made, doesn't hold that distinction. It is just a keyword. You're not gonna convince them just as they're not gonna convince you. I think both arguments have a point, but one is so dumb it doesn't deserve to be considered.
It for sure does deserve to be considered. When you take snikrot (ork special character) it gives a bonus to blood axe, kommando's.
It for sure is then intended when you replace <clan> with blood axe, you get to have the bonus he provides, instead of it being a totally useless rule.
The wording shoud've been 'Clan "<clan name>"' / 'Legion "<legion name>"'
I think the rule was intended to work as written (a true replacement of all instances of < > ), it's just the (rather big) side effect that was not intended.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/12 11:11:22
ThePauliPrinciple wrote: It for sure does deserve to be considered. When you take snikrot (ork special character) it gives a bonus to blood axe, kommando's.
It for sure is then intended when you replace <clan> with blood axe, you get to have the bonus he provides, instead of it being a totally useless rule.
The wording shoud've been 'Clan "<clan name>"' / 'Legion "<legion name>"'
I think the rule was intended to work as written (a true replacement of all instances of < > ), it's just the (rather big) side effect that was not intended.
What are you on about. Of course it's made so that you can give an Ork a clan. It's the reading that allows an Ork to join a Chapter that isn't even worth considering.
Astra Militarum wrote:<Regiment> If an Astra Militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will typically have the <Regiment> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which regiment that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Regiment> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen regiment.
Adeptus Ministorum wrote:<Order> All members of the Adepta Sororitas belong to an order and have the <Order> keyword. When you include such a unit your your army, you must nominate which Order that unit is from. You then simply replace the <Order> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with the name of your chosen Order. You can use any of the Orders that you have read about, or make up your own.
So you can definitely make up the WAAC <Regiment> and the WAAC <Order> but each of them remain a custom Regiment and Order as explained by the underlined sections of the quotes above. Just like if you name your <daughter> “Celestine Smith” and your <boat> “Celestine Smith” they do not become the same class of entity.
Looking at the Regimental Standard for an Imperial Guard Command squad we get this:
Regimental Standard wrote:All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6” of any <Regiment> Veteran with a regimental standard.
A Sister from the WAAC <Order> is not from a friendly <Regiment>, she’s from a friendly <Order>, even if those two happen to share the same string of identifying characters. When she gained the WAAC keyword it was her “chosen Order”, while WAAC keyword that the Veteran has is her “chosen Regiment”.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that the WAAC Order and the WAAC Regiment are the same entity, but the rules don't care about this at all.
The rules -- the ones you just quoted -- are extremely clear. You misquote them later when you say that the Sister's WAAC keyword was her "chosen Order". That's not what the rules say. You underlined this the first time. She gains the name of her Chosen Order as a keyword. This is explicitly referring to "the string of identifying characters". The keyword is not an Order; it is a name. Two very different things can have the same name. This happens frequently in life and I'm sure you've encountered it before. And all the rules seem to care about is whether the Order and the Regiment have the same name.
I mean, the gameplay implications of this are ridiculous and no one should be trying to make use of this obviously-unintended loophole. But I don't really understand why people feel the need to pretend that the rules don't contain this loophole when they're actually very clear. Why bother trying to make this weird argument about how the keywords somehow, despite there being no indication that this is the case in the text and seemingly contradicted by the keywords given to special characters, preserve knowledge of the kinds of names that they could have taken on instead? Just say: "Yeah, that's some sloppy rules writing and a kinda amusing loophole, now let's play the way we know it's supposed to work". Surely this isn't, like, threatening to anyone's faith in GW as far too careful with their rules writing to let something like this slip in, right?
The thing is, that the parts you underlined are also what allows you to pick anything.
It limits the keywords to orders, legions, etc. The problem is that, without providing a list of orders, it's solely limited by fluff, which by extension is purely limited by your imagination.
That makes it so an army of half heretic and half loyal ultramarines is totally legit as you could argue that (now more than ever) they are both a legion and a chapter. An IG regiment that goes rogue and joins a sept is still a regiment but now also part of a sept.
Keep the wording, but provide a list and suddenly the limitations are crystal clear. Somebody that is new to 40k might not even know about the various orders etc.
Some exotic combinations that would be fluffy or sub chapters might not works as well with this, but it keeps things clean and those few exceptions can always bend the rules if need be considering how rare they are.
They should just have provided a list and say that if you want to take a sub chapter you can replace the keywords with their chapter but to treat it as one of the listed choices for all intents and purposes.
Which is also what some people here are saying. RAW should be better written and doing somehting like "Chapter: X" or providing a list would be example of a tighter ruleset.
As it is, it's just one of many examples that GW hasn't improved one bit in terms of writing rules. I don't have the rulebook yet, but it's feeling almost like it's the most ambiguous version of 40k yet.
Dionysodorus wrote: I don't think that anyone is arguing that the WAAC Order and the WAAC Regiment are the same entity, but the rules don't care about this at all.
The rules -- the ones you just quoted -- are extremely clear. You misquote them later when you say that the Sister's WAAC keyword was her "chosen Order". That's not what the rules say. You underlined this the first time. She gains the name of her Chosen Order as a keyword. This is explicitly referring to "the string of identifying characters". The keyword is not an Order; it is a name. Two very different things can have the same name. This happens frequently in life and I'm sure you've encountered it before. And all the rules seem to care about is whether the Order and the Regiment have the same name.
I mean, the gameplay implications of this are ridiculous and no one should be trying to make use of this obviously-unintended loophole. But I don't really understand why people feel the need to pretend that the rules don't contain this loophole when they're actually very clear. Why bother trying to make this weird argument about how the keywords somehow, despite there being no indication that this is the case in the text and seemingly contradicted by the keywords given to special characters, preserve knowledge of the kinds of names that they could have taken on instead? Just say: "Yeah, that's some sloppy rules writing and a kinda amusing loophole, now let's play the way we know it's supposed to work". Surely this isn't, like, threatening to anyone's faith in GW as far too careful with their rules writing to let something like this slip in, right?
Ah, I see - so you guys are ignoring the rules as written - where it clearly and unequivocally says that AM belong to Regiments, Sisters belong to Orders etc in favour of some unwritten theory of "the transmutative properties of keywords" that transform regiments, orders, chapters, etc into the same thing.
The rules as written, however, clearly state that the <Regiment> keyword describes which regiment a model belongs to, while an <Order> keyword describes which Order a model belongs to. An order and a regiment are not the same things - as written - and nowhere is it written that they are. Whereever there are powers that apply to an applicable keyword it uses the <Regiment> or <Order> formulation, which has to describe a regiment or order respectively or it is in violation of the rules as written. The word, whichever one you make up or choose to use, has to describe a type of regiment, order, or what-have-you - as called out explicitly in each entry - or else it is not a valid substitution.
You can call your Imperial Guard regiment the Ultramarines within the rules as written, absolutely. But the moment that stops describing a regiment - which it no longer does if you apply rule that describes a chapter, which any Space Marine or <Chapter> based Ultramarines keyword does - you are disregarding the rules as written and are cheating.
Ah, I see - so you guys are ignoring the rules as written - where it clearly and unequivocally says that AM belong to Regiments, Sisters belong to Orders etc in favour of some unwritten theory of "the transmutative properties of keywords" that transform regiments, orders, chapters, etc into the same thing.
The rules as written, however, clearly state that the <Regiment> keyword describes which regiment a model belongs to, while an <Order> keyword describes which Order a model belongs to. An order and a regiment are not the same things - as written - and nowhere is it written that they are. Whereever there are powers that apply to an applicable keyword it uses the <Regiment> or <Order> formulation, which has to describe a regiment or order respectively or it is in violation of the rules as written. The word, whichever one you make up or choose to use, has to describe a type of regiment, order, or what-have-you - as called out explicitly in each entry - or else it is not a valid substitution.
I don't think you've understood the argument. You may want to re-read my post, but I'll try to clarify below.
A Guard unit's keyword <Regiment> is the name of the regiment that it belongs to. This is explicit in the rules. You quoted the part that says this even though you seemed to forget about the use of "name" later. Now you're using "describe", and I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that. If by that you just mean that it tells you the name of the regiment, then, yeah, like I said in my previous post I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Now, obviously there's nothing inherent in the keyword that tells you that it's the name of a regiment specifically. This is easily seen by simply inspecting the "Sergeant Harker" entry, which has the keyword "Catachan". Is this the name of Harker's regiment? You can't tell without consulting other text, though you can deduce that "Catachan" is the name of his regiment from the fact that he also has the "AM" keyword and every AM unit has a regiment.
I would disagree that the keyword "describes" the unit's regiment in any deeper sense. It tells me nothing about it. It doesn't even tell me by itself that it is a regiment. You keep using the word "describe" and I can't tell if you're trying to sneak in a much stronger sort of idea or if you were just sloppy.
But yes, the faction keyword that you use for a Guard unit has to name a regiment. I have no idea why you'd think this was a point of contention. I said this explicitly.
You can call your Imperial Guard regiment the Ultramarines within the rules as written, absolutely. But the moment that stops describing a regiment - which it no longer does if you apply rule that describes a chapter, which any Space Marine or <Chapter> based Ultramarines keyword does - you are disregarding the rules as written and are cheating.
I am unaware of any rule that refers specifically to "Chapter Ultramarines". You seem confused, and you're again using "describe" in an inappropriate way. I'm looking at Guilliman's entry right now and it just says "Ultramarines" with no indication of whether this should be understood as only applied to Space Marines from Chapter Ultramarines. If they had intended it this way they could have easily said that he gives a bonus to "Adeptus Astartes Ultramarines" instead. Now, I do think that was intended, and that the loophole is accidental, but while what you're suggesting would seem to get that right you end up getting absurd results from a lot of other rules. Guilliman has another rule that gives a bonus to "Imperium" units. Do you expect me to believe that this only applies to Space Marines from Chapter Imperium? On what basis are you distinguishing between these?
It gets even worse than this. The Craftworld Eldar have a special rule that looks for the "Slaanesh" keyword. I guess you'd argue that obviously this is referring to Eldar from Craftworld Slaanesh -- I mean, this is coming immediately after the rules discuss the <Craftworld> keyword -- but I would suggest that you're wrong. I think this was actually intended to apply to Chaos units, who either take "Slaanesh" as their <Mark of Chaos> keyword or which "owe allegiance" to Slaanesh and gain a generic keyword that way. If I were to play Eldar against your Slaanesh army I would be pretty annoyed if you tried to make this kind of argument about how you can somehow discern from the use of the keyword in the Eldar rules that it must refer to Eldar units from Craftworld Slaanesh. Likewise the Chaos Marines have a special rule that looks for "Imperium" units, but you're being ridiculous if you think that this refers to Chaos Marines from the Imperium Legion.
I really have a hard time understanding what's going on here. It is hard to see why people are so committed to this loophole not being RAW. Like, what's motivating the motivated reasoning here?
Dionysodorus wrote: I don't think that anyone is arguing that the WAAC Order and the WAAC Regiment are the same entity, but the rules don't care about this at all.
The rules -- the ones you just quoted -- are extremely clear. You misquote them later when you say that the Sister's WAAC keyword was her "chosen Order". That's not what the rules say. You underlined this the first time. She gains the name of her Chosen Order as a keyword. This is explicitly referring to "the string of identifying characters". The keyword is not an Order; it is a name. Two very different things can have the same name. This happens frequently in life and I'm sure you've encountered it before. And all the rules seem to care about is whether the Order and the Regiment have the same name.
I mean, the gameplay implications of this are ridiculous and no one should be trying to make use of this obviously-unintended loophole. But I don't really understand why people feel the need to pretend that the rules don't contain this loophole when they're actually very clear. Why bother trying to make this weird argument about how the keywords somehow, despite there being no indication that this is the case in the text and seemingly contradicted by the keywords given to special characters, preserve knowledge of the kinds of names that they could have taken on instead? Just say: "Yeah, that's some sloppy rules writing and a kinda amusing loophole, now let's play the way we know it's supposed to work". Surely this isn't, like, threatening to anyone's faith in GW as far too careful with their rules writing to let something like this slip in, right?
Ah, I see - so you guys are ignoring the rules as written - where it clearly and unequivocally says that AM belong to Regiments, Sisters belong to Orders etc in favour of some unwritten theory of "the transmutative properties of keywords" that transform regiments, orders, chapters, etc into the same thing.
The rules as written, however, clearly state that the <Regiment> keyword describes which regiment a model belongs to, while an <Order> keyword describes which Order a model belongs to. An order and a regiment are not the same things - as written - and nowhere is it written that they are. Whereever there are powers that apply to an applicable keyword it uses the <Regiment> or <Order> formulation, which has to describe a regiment or order respectively or it is in violation of the rules as written. The word, whichever one you make up or choose to use, has to describe a type of regiment, order, or what-have-you - as called out explicitly in each entry - or else it is not a valid substitution.
You can call your Imperial Guard regiment the Ultramarines within the rules as written, absolutely. But the moment that stops describing a regiment - which it no longer does if you apply rule that describes a chapter, which any Space Marine or <Chapter> based Ultramarines keyword does - you are disregarding the rules as written and are cheating.
Except <chapter> is replaced and the wording looks for the keyword. That's what replace does, totally ignores the origin. Look at unique characters: RG or Calgar give buffs to units with the "ultramarines" keyword. They don't have chapter listed anywhere on their datasheet. That's what every unit looks like after it ahs been assigned it's keyword, the origin ceases to matter, just as it never mattered for unique characters. The rules explictly mention that abilities effect anyone with the proper keyword, never mentioning anything about origin.
So, again, what you are describing is not how the books describe keywords working, and it doesn't make sense given many units don't have an origin for keywords.
I don't know how to make this more clear, origin not only doesn't matter to the rules as written, origin can't matter to the rules as written without rendering unique characters totally pointless.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/12 18:20:59
This is not a new exploit, as long as there have been names and official rules there have been people that have tried gak like legally changing their names to 'player in possession' or 'batter at plate' or 'presiding judge' or 'the contest winner' or whatever, and you've always been able to name your models whatever you want in every edition so you could have always said 'well my space marine commander is named 'Eldar' so this ability that only effects 'eldar' applies to him mertmertmertmertmert' and it has never worked.
ClockworkZion wrote: This already has a YMDC thread and is basically a rules issue so this thread should probably be left to die at this point.
I would suggest to move this to YMDC instead. This thread is more informative than the stub that you linked.
As for:
Aesthete wrote:Ah, I see - so you guys are ignoring the rules as written - where it clearly and unequivocally says that AM belong to Regiments, Sisters belong to Orders etc in favour of some unwritten theory of "the transmutative properties of keywords" that transform regiments, orders, chapters, etc into the same thing.
Purifier has a good point in that both sides have made their arguments and are unlikely to convince each other at this point.
That said, it's not nearly as clearly and unequivocally as you say. The rules say that you replace the bracketed keywords with an order/whatever of your choice.
This creates a problem. What is the definition of an order/chapter/etc?
Take csm for example, are you only allowed to pick on of the nine traitor legions? Or do renegade warbands also count? what about renegade primaris? Those never belonged to any legion at all. And the loyalists were also legions and could have been shot through time.
Without a formal definition, you can insert literally anything you want as the only limits are those of your head canon.
So even if you say that the rules limit you to a chapter, you run into issues as to what exactly your acceptable choices are.
Sure, it's mostly an academic issue and has very little impact on actual games, but would it have killed GW to give you a list of available choices?
Or add "Chapter:" in front so even if you made an Ultramarine Digga Nobz Klan it still wouldn't be affected by Roboute while still allowing you to insert whatever floats your boat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/12 19:02:37
Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’? A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus
Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes
– neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units? A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 19:40:01
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
~4100
~1660
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
