Switch Theme:

Faction rules confusion  [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
Been Around the Block




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Korbee11 wrote:
With the list given, my call would be.
No, the list isn't legal, as the Knights don't have a household.
Unless you're <Household> is actually Household. Then, completely legal.
Your call is objectively wrong. It's not legal due to using BROOD BROTHERS as a <REGIMENT>.


Eh. The amount of Damns I give in this particular situation is 0.
He gains nothing by calling them Brood Brothers. If it were any other Regiment it would be legal.

The list doesn't circumvent any Detachment inclusion rules, and it doesn't circumvent any aura or ability crap.

If he tells me 'Ya, this Company Commander and his 27 buddies are actually under the influence of a growing Genestealer Cult, and trying to get information about this Household of knights'
My response would be 'cool.'

So. Throw whatever rules you want at it, in this particular instance, it literally makes no difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sorry, following the tenants stuff.
I am going off the Designer Commentary that allows people to personalize their army. Sure, that would mean he would have to use [Brood Brotherz] but the intention is clearly stated that it is meant not to circumvent rules of abilities/detachment inclusion/stuff like that.
The moment the list tries to add something like a Taurox, then there would be an issue.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/30 21:02:30


 
   
Made in gb
Gargantuan Gargant





So you're answering a totally different question than the one was asked.

If I asked "Is it legal to include Rowboat in an Ork detachment", would you reply "Yes, as long as you don't take any orks"?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/30 21:07:15


Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.
Because some people get their knickers in a twist, I'll list these RaW 'oddities' in my sig. Sadly GW's promise of fixing their broken rules has itself been broken. RaW you cannot advance and then fire assault weapons, you can't shoot pistols if within 1" of an enemy; "minimum" ranges don't work; Seraphim have to re-roll saves that "fail" pre-re-roll; the game simply breaks if you ever have more than one wounded model in a unit; the game also breaks if a single rule ever tries to do multiple things simultaneously; Khârn punches himself in the face if he's not near some meatshields; Librarians on Bikes are locked to the Index power list, Howling Banshees can't declare a charge further than 12"; Spore Mines have an infinite range; Shroudpsalm technically doesn't do anything, only enemy models, not friendly models, have permission to move on top of a Skyshield Landing Pad; T'au have access to stackable Ignore Wounds (albeit against Mortal Wounds only); the T'au Early Warning Override Support System only works if a unit is "teleporting to the battlefield", not just arriving mid-battle; you can only ever use the Deathwatch Teleportarium Stratagem "once", and then never again in any battle after you use it; if a model splits fire, each weapon must target a different unit; a Tyrant Guard with Lashwhip can absorb an infinite amount of damage via Shieldwall between the time they die and the time they fight; Chapter Tactics on Successor Chapters don't actually do anything; Codex Leman Russ's can take an infinite amount of Hunter-Killer Missiles, Storm Bolters and Heavy Stubbers; Imothekh's 'Lord of the Storm' ability hits the "target unit" twice; "Airborne" units can't be charged by non-FLY units, but can be Heroically Intervened into, piled into, or consolidated into just fine by non-FLY units; Wave Serpents cannot be legally charged at by any model with a standard base; and Slab Shields, along with the 'Take Cover!' stratagem no longer have any effect.
--- Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities --- Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. --- 
   
Made in us
Repentia Mistress




Tacoma, WA, USA

Korbee11 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Korbee11 wrote:
With the list given, my call would be.
No, the list isn't legal, as the Knights don't have a household.
Unless you're <Household> is actually Household. Then, completely legal.
Your call is objectively wrong. It's not legal due to using BROOD BROTHERS as a <REGIMENT>.


Eh. The amount of Damns I give in this particular situation is 0.
He gains nothing by calling them Brood Brothers. If it were any other Regiment it would be legal.

The list doesn't circumvent any Detachment inclusion rules, and it doesn't circumvent any aura or ability crap.

If he tells me 'Ya, this Company Commander and his 27 buddies are actually under the influence of a growing Genestealer Cult, and trying to get information about this Household of knights'
My response would be 'cool.'

So. Throw whatever rules you want at it, in this particular instance, it literally makes no difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sorry, following the tenants stuff.
I am going off the Designer Commentary that allows people to personalize their army. Sure, that would mean he would have to use [Brood Brotherz] but the intention is clearly stated that it is meant not to circumvent rules of abilities/detachment inclusion/stuff like that.
The moment the list tries to add something like a Taurox, then there would be an issue.

You are correct for Open or Narrative Play. Battle-forged or not, a Match Play army has no restrictions on which Keywords you use in the army overall.

For Matched Play, there are specific rules regarding Factions included in your army and specific rules for use the the Brood Brothers Keyword, which I quoted. You are not allowed to use Brood Brothers Keyword for Regiment unless your army except for an AM Detachment for which you also have a GCS Detachment. The sample army did not have a GSC detachment and was thus illegal for Matched Play.
   
Made in gb
Sneaky Lictor



UK

 alextroy wrote:
Korbee11 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Korbee11 wrote:
With the list given, my call would be.
No, the list isn't legal, as the Knights don't have a household.
Unless you're <Household> is actually Household. Then, completely legal.
Your call is objectively wrong. It's not legal due to using BROOD BROTHERS as a <REGIMENT>.


Eh. The amount of Damns I give in this particular situation is 0.
He gains nothing by calling them Brood Brothers. If it were any other Regiment it would be legal.

The list doesn't circumvent any Detachment inclusion rules, and it doesn't circumvent any aura or ability crap.

If he tells me 'Ya, this Company Commander and his 27 buddies are actually under the influence of a growing Genestealer Cult, and trying to get information about this Household of knights'
My response would be 'cool.'

So. Throw whatever rules you want at it, in this particular instance, it literally makes no difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sorry, following the tenants stuff.
I am going off the Designer Commentary that allows people to personalize their army. Sure, that would mean he would have to use [Brood Brotherz] but the intention is clearly stated that it is meant not to circumvent rules of abilities/detachment inclusion/stuff like that.
The moment the list tries to add something like a Taurox, then there would be an issue.

You are correct for Open or Narrative Play. Battle-forged or not, a Match Play army has no restrictions on which Keywords you use in the army overall.

For Matched Play, there are specific rules regarding Factions included in your army and specific rules for use the the Brood Brothers Keyword, which I quoted. You are not allowed to use Brood Brothers Keyword for Regiment unless your army except for an AM Detachment for which you also have a GCS Detachment. The sample army did not have a GSC detachment and was thus illegal for Matched Play.


I like all quote include in this post! And better answer
In real life I wouldn’t do that anyway but it’s too good to miss out to clean up the confused about Faction keywords..
For someone wonder what my Hybrid faction called, its Cult of Secundus ( post-uprising GSC) and Guard of Secundus ( pre-uprising pure AM ) and the model is very blending of Cadia and hybrid. ( will put up a pic if someone want )

Too bad we don’t have Brood Brother datasheet yet, I am sure it will be in GSC codex. For Named Regiment “Brood Brothers”.

My W40K armys 6000+ 2000 4000+ 2500 3000+ 1500 500 5 Imperial Knight 200+ 500+ 
   
Made in gb
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard




Right Behind You

As far as this whole "Brood Brothers" situation is concerned, I would err on the negative side, at least in Matched Play.

Especially considering that you are aware of the fact that <Brood Brothers> is an actual keyword (so it's not meaningless, it's not like you've said <Brud Bruvvas>, it does have a meaning), and that <Brood Brothers> can only be obtained via having a GSC ally, and even if so, Knights wouldn't be able to be fielded too. You CAN have your Knights as <Brood Brothers>, because it can NEVER affect them.

It would be like me giving my Guardsmen the <Cadian> keyword, but saying "no, they have the Cadian KEYWORD, but their in game effects are Catachan." Because <Brood Brothers> IS an actual keyword that can apply to Guardsmen, it shouldn't be applied unless it's actually being used.

Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Cardiff

Call them "Cult Militia" and "Cult Questoris" to silence any complaints about the use of the exact term "Brood Brothers", and there's no issue.

As there are no actual GS Cult Detachments in the army presented, trying to say that a force comprised completely of Astra Militarum and Knights units is illegal is... well, silly.

 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
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard




Right Behind You

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Call them "Cult Militia" and "Cult Questoris" to silence any complaints about the use of the exact term "Brood Brothers", and there's no issue.

As there are no actual GS Cult Detachments in the army presented, trying to say that a force comprised completely of Astra Militarum and Knights units is illegal is... well, silly.
Again, this is fine. It's purely the fact that the initial question was about <Brood Brothers>, and that the only actual official use of <Brood Brothers> is as allies to a GSC.

Calling them by anything else (even the above, as JohnnyHell says, or even <Brood Brotherz> ) would be absolutely fine. Model them how you want, fluff it how you want, but in a matched game, the term <Brood Brothers> has a defined meaning and value to AM units.

Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: