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 us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 18:46:16


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Does Be’Lakor have allegiance to Slaanesh?

That is all that is asked.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

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?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

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
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 22:58:40


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 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.

"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

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

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




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.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

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.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/27 08:02:08


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




"These were all pretty clear before; we’ve made that case here repeatedly that these older FAQ items don’t apply to the new Datasheet. But some people steadfastly refused to just be cool about things, and so thankfully Games Workshop have released an additional FAQ update to make it clear that none of this old crap still applied."

Oh, Goonhammer, if only...
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Awesome, can we lock this thread now?
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Oh, Fezzik, if only...
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut






The Aristocrats/YMDC, ladies and gentlemen!
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Catulle wrote:


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

"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
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




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?"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 09:23:50


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

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.

"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.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: