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.

This thread could do without the straw man stuff. Argue your point, don't misrepresent others' positions.

What Kel claims is #1 is the RAW as I see it. Read the screenshot I posted and tell me that's not clear on how Keywords appear and are interpreted? It's specific by way of example. Please, rather than deriding others explain how that's in any way unclear?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Arkaine: that is just a variant of #1 with an add-on of true and supportable #3 with a twist of an ineffective attack at dissenters to your holy-writ of things that don't exist.

Or it's adhering to the Rules As Written instead of the presumptuous stance that GW made a mistake. Over, and Over, and Over again. I find it much more plausible that your interpretation is incorrect rather than GW has, in every single codex, continually created errors that are themselves inconsistent with your beliefs.

As I said, there is no reason for HELBRUTE to be bold and capitalized in the Chaos Legion Traits yet not the Death Guard Legion Trait unless it has a distinction, supported by the rulebook and the above image.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Arkaine: that is just a variant of #1 with an add-on of true and supportable #3 with a twist of an ineffective attack at dissenters to your holy-writ of things that don't exist.

Or it's adhering to the Rules As Written instead of the presumptuous stance that GW made a mistake. Over, and Over, and Over again. I find it much more plausible that your interpretation is incorrect rather than GW has, in every single codex, continually created errors that are themselves inconsistent with your beliefs.

As I said, there is no reason for HELBRUTE to be bold and capitalized in the Chaos Legion Traits yet not the Death Guard Legion Trait unless it has a distinction, supported by the rulebook and the above image.

Agreed. As a parallel, whilst I'd love my Genestealer Patriarch (Keyword GENESTEALER) to be buffed by his own +1 to hit ability, he isn't, as it specifies 'Genestealer unit' in non-bold text. I can't just decide it should have been for him to and count the +1... it appears a conscious choice to only make the rule buff Purestrain Genestealers. This seems no different - it's a choice to buff a GW Helbrute, not an omission of FW ones by accident.

I think this picture might add to the discussion:



Note that it has both bold and not-bold versions of same keywords.

There might be some sort of grammar like can't and cannot, where "astra militarum" is "can't" and "astra militarum keyword" is "cannot".

Guys, can we ask GW on Facebook already? I don't have an account, and this thread shows that we have common sense vs lack of actual rule.

There really isn't a lack of rule though. Just a refusal to accept what I posted as part of the rules. When it is.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There really isn't a lack of rule though. Just a refusal to accept what I posted as part of the rules. When it is.

This is from Age of Sigmar rules FAQ:

Q: How do you determine what models and units make up a
warscroll battalion? When is it based on a keyword and when is
it a unit name?
A: When a warscroll battalion is referring to a keyword,
it appears in Keyword Bold. Otherwise, it is referring to
the name of a unit.

Show me something even remotely similiar to this wording for 40k?
I agree that it is intended to work as you say, BUT even in digital codex enhanced edition where there is an interactive datasheet example, there is not a single word on how keywords are translated into rules in "keyword bold".

Fan67 wrote:
Note that it has both bold and not-bold versions of same keywords.

There might be some sort of grammar like can't and cannot, where "astra militarum" is "can't" and "astra militarum keyword" is "cannot".

Which is more than acceptable! Except all the instances being discussed regarding things like Helbrute or Vindicator do not say Helbrute keyword or Vindicator keyword.

When the sentence literally states that the previous word is a keyword, I see no need to bold or capitalize it. That is not what is happening in all these other points. No one is being so obstinate as to think a stratagem that says "Helbrute keyword units may do this" to mean it's not a keyword technically. When it's not bold, not capitalized, AND not denoted by the word keyword, there is really no reason to think it is one.

Fan67 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There really isn't a lack of rule though. Just a refusal to accept what I posted as part of the rules. When it is.

This is from Age of Sigmar rules FAQ:

Q: How do you determine what models and units make up a
warscroll battalion? When is it based on a keyword and when is
it a unit name?
A: When a warscroll battalion is referring to a keyword,
it appears in Keyword Bold. Otherwise, it is referring to
the name of a unit.

Show me something even remotely similiar to this wording for 40k?
I agree that it is intended to work as you say, BUT even in digital codex enhanced edition where there is an interactive datasheet example, there is not a single word on how keywords are translated into rules in "keyword bold".

It sucks that this is even needed. And I showed you our equivalent - a brief piece stating via example, that most seem to understand, else how is anyone using Keywords at all? Everyone in this thread must implicitly understand it to pick an army, use a power, to even be discussing it. So why is an FAQ like that needed?

Guess we'll see that pop up for 40K soon though.

Is that what you're shocked about? I'm shocked that the boldface explanation exists in Sigmar, by the same company, and people expect it to have some radically different meaning in 40k unless explicitly told otherwise. I can understand being skeptical that a rule works the same way as its intended in another version of the game.

Keyword bold isn't a rule... it's how the rules writers write their documents.

 Arkaine wrote:
Is that what you're shocked about? I'm shocked that the boldface explanation exists in Sigmar, by the same company, and people expect it to have some radically different meaning in 40k unless explicitly told otherwise. I can understand being skeptical that a rule works the same way as its intended in another version of the game.

Keyword bold isn't a rule... it's how the rules writers write their documents.

GWs history with inconsistent rules writing is the reason why we are not sure they did it all the time. And aos isn't a different version of 40k, it's a different game.

I agree that it seems very much like it applies to 40k.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This thread could do without the straw man stuff. Argue your point, don't misrepresent others' positions.

What Kel claims is #1 is the RAW as I see it. Read the screenshot I posted and tell me that's not clear on how Keywords appear and are interpreted? It's specific by way of example. Please, rather than deriding others explain how that's in any way unclear?

Where? Where is it Written within the rules?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Where? Where is it Written within the rules?

The part where the rules point to uniquely formatted words on a datasheet, define them as keywords, explain how they are used, give an example of their use while maintaining that unique formatting, and then explain the example. This has been quoted several times in this thread, but it appears in the core rules as well as, I think, every index.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This thread could do without the straw man stuff. Argue your point, don't misrepresent others' positions.

What Kel claims is #1 is the RAW as I see it. Read the screenshot I posted and tell me that's not clear on how Keywords appear and are interpreted? It's specific by way of example. Please, rather than deriding others explain how that's in any way unclear?

Where? Where is it Written within the rules?

Given you reference FAQs etc in your posts you understand that the 40K Rules are compromised of many relevant publications - Core Rules, Advanced, Indexes, Codexes, Datasheets, FAQs, Designer's Commentary, Stepping Into A New Edition, etc. Quite a few documents that all are part of the rules of 40k.

The image I posted is from the start of the Index I mentioned. It or similar is in every publication that includes unit rules.

You cannot say it's not part of the rules. It is.

I was confused at first as well, since Hellbrute is both the name of a unit and a keyword. And not everybody will have the time or inclination to sift through tons and tons of 'precedents' or forums to be sure. It may be clear to veteran players and rules lawyers from the start, but that does not mean it is clearly written for everybody.

Personally I think it would be best if GW further clarified it by making all references to keywords bolded, and all references to specific units in italics.

They don't need the italics. They already have Keywords in bold and a different font, unit names not in bold. They do exactly what you're suggesting already bar the italicising. So how is it in any way confusing?

It just was confusing. I am not an entirely new player, but I stopped playing for about 15 years and I had not read a 40k rulebook in all that time, so how was I to be 100% certain what the meaning is of every rule?

Example: I saw the genestealer one first with the broodlord rules. It talked about genestealer units. Well, what is a genestealer unit? It says nowhere that the only genestealer unit is the unit named genestealer. And it would be equally viable to say that every unit with the Genestealer keyword is a genestealer unit. Rules should be written with maximum clarity, not minimally acceptable clarity.

And to be clear, I don't play AoS, I have never played AoS and I have never read a single rule from any AoS source. So pointing at AoS rules and saying that it's obvious that GW uses the same rules for 40k is not good enough for clarity. As a player I should not be expected to know every other game system GW uses so I can infer what they meant when they wrote 40k rule X, Y or Z.

I'm not suggesting you need to. I don't play AoS either.

Is it not self evident that a Genestealer unit is a Genestealer unit? What else could it be?

Keywords ARE defined (see image I posted), so as it isn't in Keyword format, what's your only other option? See, you got there, it was fairly clearly explained and easy to figure out.

How much do GW need to explain, really? If it isn't a Keyword (defined, used in a particular format) then common sense applies.

Malachon wrote:

And to be clear, I don't play AoS, I have never played AoS and I have never read a single rule from any AoS source. So pointing at AoS rules and saying that it's obvious that GW uses the same rules for 40k is not good enough for clarity. As a player I should not be expected to know every other game system GW uses so I can infer what they meant when they wrote 40k rule X, Y or Z.

I think that example has more to do with continued willful ignorance than saying it should be obvious. You're right that you shouldn't be expected to know, and no one here is saying GW was in the right for leaving out such crystal clear explanations for ANY of the rules argued about on YMDC. But in this case, it's like telling people that fyi you have to stop at red traffic lights and people will continue arguing that they will race through them until the signs have instructions posted on them for how to obey a traffic light.

It's okay not to know how keywords are handled. But when it's made clear to you how they are handled, it's not healthy to continue to insist that they aren't handled that way until you get a rule that any 3rd grader will plainly understand and accept. Yes, the rules suck and are written poorly, what else is new? But I think we all understand now what a keyword is and how it is formatted in the rules when not supplemented directly by the word 'keyword'.

I think we agree then.

I don't disagree with the conclusion about what the rule is. To me this discussion and the previous ones have been clear enough. The only thing I say, and which I still stand by is that the rule in the books is not clear enough for people who don't read these discussions (and they shouldn't have to). Stuff like this needs to be explicit. To me that would mean that either GW should clarify that under no circumstance they will wirte a keyword if it's not bolded, and/or that all non-bolded references that are identically worden to a keyword are either a reference to a specific unit, or they could just make it explicit that any reference to a keyword is bolded, and for clarity that any reference to a specific unit is in italics.

Personally I think the latter is a good idea, both to discipline GW writers to very clearly think about what rules apply to what units, and to make it transparant to players that GW has actually thought about whether a strategem applies to only unit X or to all units with keyword X.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This thread could do without the straw man stuff. Argue your point, don't misrepresent others' positions.

What Kel claims is #1 is the RAW as I see it. Read the screenshot I posted and tell me that's not clear on how Keywords appear and are interpreted? It's specific by way of example. Please, rather than deriding others explain how that's in any way unclear?

Where? Where is it Written within the rules?

Given you reference FAQs etc in your posts you understand that the 40K Rules are compromised of many relevant publications - Core Rules, Advanced, Indexes, Codexes, Datasheets, FAQs, Designer's Commentary, Stepping Into A New Edition, etc. Quite a few documents that all are part of the rules of 40k.

The image I posted is from the start of the Index I mentioned. It or similar is in every publication that includes unit rules.

You cannot say it's not part of the rules. It is.

That section does not state, in any publication, that Keywords are only ever in bold and caps. It is an assumption made by an example. The same assumption-by-example can be shown as wrong by showing a child a picture of a python and instead of saying "snake" saying "python" then the child assuming every snake is a python.

But, anyway; as it bears repeating: GW DOES NOT write the rules with FW in mind. These strategems only have the 1 unit they are calling out in their respective codices; if you are using FW variants discuss the possible application with your opponents pre-game.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This thread could do without the straw man stuff. Argue your point, don't misrepresent others' positions.

What Kel claims is #1 is the RAW as I see it. Read the screenshot I posted and tell me that's not clear on how Keywords appear and are interpreted? It's specific by way of example. Please, rather than deriding others explain how that's in any way unclear?

Where? Where is it Written within the rules?

Given you reference FAQs etc in your posts you understand that the 40K Rules are compromised of many relevant publications - Core Rules, Advanced, Indexes, Codexes, Datasheets, FAQs, Designer's Commentary, Stepping Into A New Edition, etc. Quite a few documents that all are part of the rules of 40k.

The image I posted is from the start of the Index I mentioned. It or similar is in every publication that includes unit rules.

You cannot say it's not part of the rules. It is.

That section does not state, in any publication, that Keywords are only ever in bold and caps. It is an assumption made by an example. The same assumption-by-example can be shown as wrong by showing a child a picture of a python and instead of saying "snake" saying "python" then the child assuming every snake is a python.

But, anyway; as it bears repeating: GW DOES NOT write the rules with FW in mind. These strategems only have the 1 unit they are calling out in their respective codices; if you are using FW variants discuss the possible application with your opponents pre-game.

That example is completely irrelevant and doesn't remotely compare.

But I agree with you on the last paragraph.

It's an incorrect paragraph however given that GW took into account "FW" or other books at least when they gave Legion Traits to all HELBRUTE keyword units by default when there is only a single Helbrute in the Chaos Codex.

Clearly when writing the rules something was being considered beyond the codex as otherwise they'd have had no reason to bold and capitalize it for the Legion Traits. Which they also proceeded not to do in the follow up Death Guard. Hardly an error when the FAQ itself retained the bold and capitalized text and the FW FAQ made use of it when giving everything the keyword.

I don't think it's safe to say at all that GW isn't considering FW when writing the rules. Likewise, the Space Marine stratagem calls out all dreadnoughts for having multiple versions while the Chaos one calls out Helbrute specifically as the only valid target despite the Legion Traits entry CLEARLY being aware of possible other Helbrutes.

 Arkaine wrote:
It's an incorrect paragraph however given that GW took into account "FW" or other books at least when they gave Legion Traits to all HELBRUTE keyword units by default when there is only a single Helbrute in the Chaos Codex.

Clearly when writing the rules something was being considered beyond the codex as otherwise they'd have had no reason to bold and capitalize it for the Legion Traits. Which they also proceeded not to do in the follow up Death Guard. Hardly an error when the FAQ itself retained the bold and capitalized text and the FW FAQ made use of it when giving everything the keyword.

I don't think it's safe to say at all that GW isn't considering FW when writing the rules. Likewise, the Space Marine stratagem calls out all dreadnoughts for having multiple versions while the Chaos one calls out Helbrute specifically as the only valid target despite the Legion Traits entry CLEARLY being aware of possible other Helbrutes.

I honestly think that GW does not consider FW when writing their rules. There is just far too many examples in the past of this, and FW rule updates are always released well after GW releases a new codex or Edition.

However, now that Keywords are a thing, FW needs to be considering those things when writing their rules and profiles. If FW intends a unit to be included as part of all Helbrutes by another unit, then they will put the HELBRUTE keyword in the profile. It really is that simple.

 Charistoph wrote:
I honestly think that GW does not consider FW when writing their rules. There is just far too many examples in the past of this, and FW rule updates are always released well after GW releases a new codex or Edition.

However, now that Keywords are a thing, FW needs to be considering those things when writing their rules and profiles. If FW intends a unit to be included as part of all Helbrutes by another unit, then they will put the HELBRUTE keyword in the profile. It really is that simple.

The thing is that that doesn't work properly when it comes to e.g. Stratagems. FW can't slap the PREDATOR keyword onto a Deimos Predator (which they did) and have it work with the Predator specific Stratagem, since that stratagem asks for a 3 <CHAPTER> Predators, not 3 <CHAPTER> PREDATORS.
FW would have to somehow allow a Deimos Predator to sub in for a regular Predator, and do that explicitly. I think it'd be easier for them to just say "feth it, here's >Relic Killshot<: if you have 3 <CHAPTER> PREDATOR vehicles...". Neither is a good solution, and all of it is just happening because GW is apparently not able to use their own keyword system.
If they'd just went with PREDATOR on the stratagem and told FW to only assign the PREDATOR keyword to something that is supposed to sub in as a Predator, it'd been fine. The Deimos Pred didn't require the PREDATOR keyword, it could just as well survive with just the DEIMOS PATTERN RELIC PREDATOR one. It has both right now for whatever reason.

* Note that all of the above simply assumes FW had the intention of allowing FW preds to sub in as normal preds. It's not what I think they wanted to do, it's just used as an example.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I honestly think that GW does not consider FW when writing their rules. There is just far too many examples in the past of this, and FW rule updates are always released well after GW releases a new codex or Edition.

However, now that Keywords are a thing, FW needs to be considering those things when writing their rules and profiles. If FW intends a unit to be included as part of all Helbrutes by another unit, then they will put the HELBRUTE keyword in the profile. It really is that simple.

The thing is that that doesn't work properly when it comes to e.g. Stratagems. FW can't slap the PREDATOR keyword onto a Deimos Predator (which they did) and have it work with the Predator specific Stratagem, since that stratagem asks for a 3 <CHAPTER> Predators, not 3 <CHAPTER> PREDATORS.
FW would have to somehow allow a Deimos Predator to sub in for a regular Predator, and do that explicitly. I think it'd be easier for them to just say "feth it, here's >Relic Killshot<: if you have 3 <CHAPTER> PREDATOR vehicles...". Neither is a good solution, and all of it is just happening because GW is apparently not able to use their own keyword system.
If they'd just went with PREDATOR on the stratagem and told FW to only assign the PREDATOR keyword to something that is supposed to sub in as a Predator, it'd been fine. The Deimos Pred didn't require the PREDATOR keyword, it could just as well survive with just the DEIMOS PATTERN RELIC PREDATOR one. It has both right now for whatever reason.

* Note that all of the above simply assumes FW had the intention of allowing FW preds to sub in as normal preds. It's not what I think they wanted to do, it's just used as an example.

Do you have an example of something that ISN'T a 30K that they are just ham-fisting in to 40K due to customer demand?

And it is quite possible in those 30K examples that the internal differences between the relic patterns and current patterns are sufficiently different that they couldn't be exercised the same way. For an example, consider some of the things you can do with the German tank, Leopard 2, that you can't do with a Leopard 1 or the WWII prototype.

Why is it so hard for people to understand Key words, or any simple rule in 8th. Example if a stratagem say a predator and you have a variant predator from forgeworld but it still has the word predator then that stratagem still works on it. If its in the keyword section of the profile then it still counts. Doesn't matter what else it says, why is this so hard to understand.

shadowl1980 wrote:
Why is it so hard for people to understand Key words, or any simple rule in 8th. Example if a stratagem say a predator and you have a variant predator from forgeworld but it still has the word predator then that stratagem still works on it. If its in the keyword section of the profile then it still counts. Doesn't matter what else it says, why is this so hard to understand.

Because that isn't what the stratagem says at all.

Try reading it. It says Predator (a unit name) not PREDATOR (a keyword).

Saying a FW Predator Variant can use it has as much rules basis as saying a Whirlwind or Land Raider can use it (i.e. none).

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I honestly think that GW does not consider FW when writing their rules. There is just far too many examples in the past of this, and FW rule updates are always released well after GW releases a new codex or Edition.

However, now that Keywords are a thing, FW needs to be considering those things when writing their rules and profiles. If FW intends a unit to be included as part of all Helbrutes by another unit, then they will put the HELBRUTE keyword in the profile. It really is that simple.

The thing is that that doesn't work properly when it comes to e.g. Stratagems. FW can't slap the PREDATOR keyword onto a Deimos Predator (which they did) and have it work with the Predator specific Stratagem, since that stratagem asks for a 3 <CHAPTER> Predators, not 3 <CHAPTER> PREDATORS.
FW would have to somehow allow a Deimos Predator to sub in for a regular Predator, and do that explicitly. I think it'd be easier for them to just say "feth it, here's >Relic Killshot<: if you have 3 <CHAPTER> PREDATOR vehicles...". Neither is a good solution, and all of it is just happening because GW is apparently not able to use their own keyword system.
If they'd just went with PREDATOR on the stratagem and told FW to only assign the PREDATOR keyword to something that is supposed to sub in as a Predator, it'd been fine. The Deimos Pred didn't require the PREDATOR keyword, it could just as well survive with just the DEIMOS PATTERN RELIC PREDATOR one. It has both right now for whatever reason.

* Note that all of the above simply assumes FW had the intention of allowing FW preds to sub in as normal preds. It's not what I think they wanted to do, it's just used as an example.

Do you have an example of something that ISN'T a 30K that they are just ham-fisting in to 40K due to customer demand?

And it is quite possible in those 30K examples that the internal differences between the relic patterns and current patterns are sufficiently different that they couldn't be exercised the same way. For an example, consider some of the things you can do with the German tank, Leopard 2, that you can't do with a Leopard 1 or the WWII prototype.

Why? I just told you I used it just as an example and that I'm not arguing that Deimos preds should or are affected. It's just to demonstrate the issue with GWs way of doing stuff. Your entire argument revolves around the unit instead of how the rules are written.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I honestly think that GW does not consider FW when writing their rules. There is just far too many examples in the past of this, and FW rule updates are always released well after GW releases a new codex or Edition.

However, now that Keywords are a thing, FW needs to be considering those things when writing their rules and profiles. If FW intends a unit to be included as part of all Helbrutes by another unit, then they will put the HELBRUTE keyword in the profile. It really is that simple.

The thing is that that doesn't work properly when it comes to e.g. Stratagems. FW can't slap the PREDATOR keyword onto a Deimos Predator (which they did) and have it work with the Predator specific Stratagem, since that stratagem asks for a 3 <CHAPTER> Predators, not 3 <CHAPTER> PREDATORS.
FW would have to somehow allow a Deimos Predator to sub in for a regular Predator, and do that explicitly. I think it'd be easier for them to just say "feth it, here's >Relic Killshot<: if you have 3 <CHAPTER> PREDATOR vehicles...". Neither is a good solution, and all of it is just happening because GW is apparently not able to use their own keyword system.
If they'd just went with PREDATOR on the stratagem and told FW to only assign the PREDATOR keyword to something that is supposed to sub in as a Predator, it'd been fine. The Deimos Pred didn't require the PREDATOR keyword, it could just as well survive with just the DEIMOS PATTERN RELIC PREDATOR one. It has both right now for whatever reason.

* Note that all of the above simply assumes FW had the intention of allowing FW preds to sub in as normal preds. It's not what I think they wanted to do, it's just used as an example.

Do you have an example of something that ISN'T a 30K that they are just ham-fisting in to 40K due to customer demand?

And it is quite possible in those 30K examples that the internal differences between the relic patterns and current patterns are sufficiently different that they couldn't be exercised the same way. For an example, consider some of the things you can do with the German tank, Leopard 2, that you can't do with a Leopard 1 or the WWII prototype.

Why? I just told you I used it just as an example and that I'm not arguing that Deimos preds should or are affected. It's just to demonstrate the issue with GWs way of doing stuff. Your entire argument revolves around the unit instead of how the rules are written.

Because it helps to have a pertinent example before going off. As I said, there are fluff reasons why a 30K Relic Tank may not be affected by the same things that the more modern 40K standard Tank would be because they are built and shaped differently.

Yes, but my point is that if they introduced a new 40k predator variant at FW, it would be hard to make it work with Killshot. That's my whole point, it's not about the fluff of a Deimos Predator, and I thought I said clearly enough that it's not about the Deimos fluff or that specific unit. Apparently not clear enough, apologies for that.