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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

GW admittedly has a nasty habit of treating FAQ's as errata, so some of the casual nature of their answer is a bit grating. But really, this isn't exactly a puzzling case. Morty or Magnus deep striking would have been overly nasty, and they wanted to stop it.

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

Nothing there. The point is that there is no rule anywhere that says "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" would be different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes" AND there is no rule that says Stratagems would require the former. There is, however, a rule AND a designer's commentary that explicitly says the two are, quote, "functionally identical" (with the exception of forming battleforged detachment during list/army-building).

I might even agree with you that it would be "better" if things were at least handled clearer. As of yesterday at the very least, I can "Honour the Chapter" a unit of Space Wolves all day long as long as I have access to the Stratagem through a Vanilla-Marine Detachment.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

"It doesn't work, trust me on this!"

Nowhere in the marine codex does it say what you are saying.

Page 194 of mine, in the Space Marines Unit section. Actually mentions Wolves specifically.

 Polonius wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

GW admittedly has a nasty habit of treating FAQ's as errata, so some of the casual nature of their answer is a bit grating. But really, this isn't exactly a puzzling case. Morty or Magnus deep striking would have been overly nasty, and they wanted to stop it.

And while I don't like that they do it, I can accept it. But to be this inconsistent is unacceptable.

It's either all ok or none of it is. There cannot be a mix and match.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

GW admittedly has a nasty habit of treating FAQ's as errata, so some of the casual nature of their answer is a bit grating. But really, this isn't exactly a puzzling case. Morty or Magnus deep striking would have been overly nasty, and they wanted to stop it.

And while I don't like that they do it, I can accept it. But to be this inconsistent is unacceptable.

It's either all ok or none of it is. There cannot be a mix and match.

Why not? I mean, seriously, why not? What is the harm in saying that death guard (clearly a subfaction of CSM) can use CSM stratagems, but CSM or DG/TS cannot use Daemons (an allied, but distinct faction)?

What you are saying is that you don't like consistency, and that GW is putting balance ahead of consistency, which are fine opinions, but not objective truths.

The keywords in general was a good idea but they turned it into a huge clusterfeth. Too many, too many interactions, too many inconsistencies.

meleti wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

"It doesn't work, trust me on this!"

Nowhere in the marine codex does it say what you are saying.

Page 194 of mine, in the Space Marines Unit section. Actually mentions Wolves specifically.

Thanks. I don't have my codex in front of me but the rules are incredibly clear in this regard.

 Polonius wrote:
Why not? I mean, seriously, why not? What is the harm in saying that death guard (clearly a subfaction of CSM) can use CSM stratagems, but CSM or DG/TS cannot use Daemons (an allied, but distinct faction)?

What you are saying is that you don't like consistency, and that GW is putting balance ahead of consistency, which are fine opinions, but not objective truths.

Because they have stated that Faction keywords are not special in the context of playing the game itself, only list building.

They should have split daemon into DAEMON and DAEMONIC if they wanted to be consistent. It just grinds my gears that it's patchwork as to what two identical rules can and cannot do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stratagems are not rules. The Death Guard FAQ is clear we can use Stratagems on units not from the same book.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Death Guard are an outlying data point.

This specific update is exactly in line with what has happened before.

Except the RaW says you can use the Daemon ones on non-Faction Daemons. The FAQ is a special snowflake ignore the rules FAQ like the Pask Orders or the Red Grail not stacking.

GW admittedly has a nasty habit of treating FAQ's as errata, so some of the casual nature of their answer is a bit grating. But really, this isn't exactly a puzzling case. Morty or Magnus deep striking would have been overly nasty, and they wanted to stop it.

And while I don't like that they do it, I can accept it. But to be this inconsistent is unacceptable.

It's either all ok or none of it is. There cannot be a mix and match.

So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

They should have split daemon into DAEMON and DAEMONIC if they wanted to be consistent. It just grinds my gears that it's patchwork as to what two identical rules can and cannot do.

Yeah, it is pretty inelegant I will grant you that. But at the same time, you are going out of your way to find errors in GW's pretty error-filled rules, and then you are complaining loudly that they are releasing fixes, and releasing lots of them?

Wayniac wrote:
The keywords in general was a good idea but they turned it into a huge clusterfeth. Too many, too many interactions, too many inconsistencies.

Daemon being both a faction and a keyword is bad enough, but if you look at the CSM and DG faqs they actually swapped many units like Possessed and Obliterators between the two Daemon types. It's a total shitshow.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Incorrect, you cannot use Honor the Chapter with Space Wolves. This has been stated in the rules.

Really? Where?

In the marines codex. I don't have it at work, but it's in there in the beginning of the rules portion where it talks about what the factions are and how they work.

This is the point of "Faction: Adeptus Astartes" being wholly different from "Keyword: Adeptus Astartes."

"It doesn't work, trust me on this!"

Nowhere in the marine codex does it say what you are saying.

Also from the Designers Commentary:

Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are used when building an army; when Battle-forging an army, for instance, you will often only be able to include units in the same detachment if they share the same Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units in your entire army (with the exception of those that are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is no functional difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword.

This Chaos Daemons FAQ ignores the RaW and the Designers Commentary FAQ.

Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it from a fluff perspective. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

 andysonic1 wrote:
So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

To have a discussion on GW's incompetence? What is the "point" of any thread if not to discuss a topic?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

To have a discussion on GW's incompetence?

In other words, to have a complainfest in overdrive with no constructive outcome?

nekooni wrote:
Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

Being a game doesn't excuse sloppy writing. If MTG can write proper rules, so can Warhammer.

 andysonic1 wrote:
So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

Pretty sure someone's bummed out they can't deep strike CSM units with the Daemon keyword.

I'm just guessing though.

There's still plenty of cross-buffing shenanigans to go around. My lists were almost completely unaffected by the errata, but I was planning that the deep strike shenanigans was going away, so I planned accordingly.

What happened with Tyranids and GSC should have made it clear what the intention was for Chaos Daemons and CSM. Clearly GW wants to severely limit stratagem use across codices, but allow them to function within clearly derivative army sub-types, Space Marines Chapters/Chaos Space Marine Legions for example.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

Being a game doesn't excuse sloppy writing. If MTG can write proper rules, so can Warhammer.

*Glances at Humility*

meleti wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

Being a game doesn't excuse sloppy writing. If MTG can write proper rules, so can Warhammer.

*Glances at Humility*

*Throws Opalescence back at you.*

Still, the fact is the rules do account for all the nonsense Humility does in a controlled and consistent manner. GW wouldn't even try and just special snowflake FAQ it instead.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
So...what exactly is the point of this thread?

To have a discussion on GW's incompetence? What is the "point" of any thread if not to discuss a topic?

I think that's a topic with limited value. I'm not saying don't talk about it, but I think GW struggling to write tight rules is both commonly known and commonly accepted as the cost of doing business.

More to the point, once you start gaining a reputation for only having one real topic of conversation, and you keep endlessly make the same point, I think you're going to find that people are going to stop listening to you. You become one of "those guys," and if that's something you're comfortable with, go on with your bad self. But personally, I'd advise that you maybe keep starting new threads complaining about GW's poor rules to a dull roar. If other people want to talk about it, there will be a threat on it, I can assure you.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Well, I guess it does then. At least the way they laid it out now makes a ton of sense when you look at it. It's weird how GW is less focused on the specific wording of a rule and instead goes with what they meant in the first place, even if it goes against the rules as written (if read like a technical spec), isn't it? It's almost like it's a game, and not a technical spec.

Being a game doesn't excuse sloppy writing. If MTG can write proper rules, so can Warhammer.

Yeah, it is sloppy at times, but you'll find that all of the issues you hold so dear are non-issues at almost any actual table. I've never had any of the issues you proudly parade around in your signature come up at a table except for the re-rolling thing, and that's a case of me simply disagreeing with GWs way of doing re-rolls. The rule itself is clear and concise and was confirmed to be what they wanted.

And MTG had a gak-ton of broken cards and combos. They're just banning them from the tournaments is all.

So I guess the solution is to just ban any faction: Daemon unit thats not in the CD codex, right? Because that's what Magic does, so we can just ignore that these are different games and apply the same strategy here.

nekooni wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait what happened with horrors they need to update them?

They provided a new datasheet for them in the current errata. with fething faction keyword Daemons. You can't make that gak up.

I am of the potato, is the csm updated sheet different from the current daemon ones?

Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think that's true a lot of the time, but that's what players do. And don't confuse the actual tournament players with the people trying to break the game. Most of the fun loopholes are discovered by armchair theorists, not the guys winning GTs.

That said... there are demons outside of the demon codex. Deepstriking Morty isn't a tiny or obscured loophole, that's a pretty big oversight.

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think you got that backwards my dude, the majority or people playing this game are matched and competitive.

Also, we are not talking about things like the brimstone spam and taking one blue horror to cast so you can't loose a brim, that's blatent loophole stuff. What's more concerning is the incredibly obvious possibilities that GW somehow missed.

2 examples
Alpha legion + changling and oblits. Not sure how that slipped through.

Deep striking lords or war. That's really obvious, in fact as soon as I read that I thought. Huh, guess we were deep striking primarchs. GW makes these strats out of rule of cool but then forgets that keywords are a thing.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think you got that backwards my dude, the majority or people playing this game are matched and competitive.

Also, we are not talking about things like the brimstone spam and taking one blue horror to cast so you can't loose a brim, that's blatent loophole stuff. What's more concerning is the incredibly obvious possibilities that GW somehow missed.

2 examples
Alpha legion + changling and oblits. Not sure how that slipped through.

Deep striking lords or war. That's really obvious, in fact as soon as I read that I thought. Huh, guess we were deep striking primarchs. GW makes these strats out of rule of cool but then forgets that keywords are a thing.

Matched play? Sure. But competitive? I don't think so. Not the majority.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think you got that backwards my dude, the majority or people playing this game are matched and competitive.

Based on what? Seeing forum users are tiny minority that's hard claim. Then factor in most games are home games makes it even harder. You would need to go to people playing at home asking what they play. Here's funny note. Tournaments and leagues represent only tiny faction of games. How you know how people play outside those which covers majority of games? Idea of asking forum users is even worse proposition.

pismakron wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

They should have split daemon into DAEMON and DAEMONIC if they wanted to be consistent. It just grinds my gears that it's patchwork as to what two identical rules can and cannot do.

Yeah, it is pretty inelegant I will grant you that. But at the same time, you are going out of your way to find errors in GW's pretty error-filled rules, and then you are complaining loudly that they are releasing fixes, and releasing lots of them?

Because this feels less like a proper fix then it does just wall papering over them.

They haven't fixed anything about the broken keyword system, instead they simply keep saying you can't do X or Y despite the rules 100% letting you do X or Y, and without changing any of the actual rules.

If they at least acknowledged they were adding wholly new rules and using errata properly to indicate that, it'd be one thing. But they keep addressing these issues in a FAQ, making t seem like these are clarifications rather than the introduction of entirely new rules that simply do not exist in any form before hand. It may sound petty, but it bothers me. Because it reeks of failing to acknowledge what an awful job they did writing the keyword and faction rules.

Imagine if they fixed the Magnus problem by adding a FAQ that his old invulnerable save reroll aura didn't effect himself, without actually adding an errata to change the wording of his aura, and without changing the way auras as a whole worked so that every other aura still effected the unit with it. That's what annoys me, it clearly contradicts the way the rules work in other cases without their being an actual rule reason given for it, or even change to the wording of the rules/abilities in question to indicate it operates differently. It is so sloppy.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Q: When a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Daemons uses the Daemon keyword, can it be used to affect any unit with the Daemon keyword, or only units with the Daemon Faction keyword?
A: These Stratagems can only affect units with the Daemon Faction keyword.

A lot of threads have been dedicated to this topic and it looks like Chaos Daemon Stratagems work differently to any other armies.

Isn't that the way all other factions work though?

My Ork stratagems don't work on my Eldar teammate's units?
His Craftworld stratagems don't work on another pal's Drukhari forces?
Tyranid stratagems don't work on Genestealer Cults' units etc etc etc

Death Guard FAQ

Q: Is it possible to use a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Space
Marines to target a unit from Codex: Death Guard? For
example, can I use the Tide of Traitors Stratagem on a unit of
Cultists from a Death Guard Detachment if I have an Alpha
Legion Detachment and a Death Guard Detachment in a single
Battle-forged army?
A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you
have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on
any permitted target: they do not need to be from
that Detachment. In your example, the Alpha Legion
Detachment gives access to the Chaos Space Marine
Stratagems, and Tide of Traitors can be used on any
Chaos Cultists – this would include any Chaos Cultists
from the Death Guard Detachment.

Suddenly Chaos Daemons disallow it. I can use Codex: Space Marines stratagem Orbital Bombardment if I have a SPACE WOLF warlord because the stratagem only looks for an ADEPTUS ASTARTES warlord. So if I have a Patrol of <CHAPTER> I can use the stratagem.

Death Guard are the same faction keyword as CSM.....

People seem to want to forget that faction keywords are different than keywords....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

I think you got that backwards my dude, the majority or people playing this game are matched and competitive.

Also, we are not talking about things like the brimstone spam and taking one blue horror to cast so you can't loose a brim, that's blatent loophole stuff. What's more concerning is the incredibly obvious possibilities that GW somehow missed.

2 examples
Alpha legion + changling and oblits. Not sure how that slipped through.

Deep striking lords or war. That's really obvious, in fact as soon as I read that I thought. Huh, guess we were deep striking primarchs. GW makes these strats out of rule of cool but then forgets that keywords are a thing.

They didn't forget, they are blatantly different faction keywords and everyone is raging for no reason.

You keep saying different faction keywords, but that doesn't matter in any other example. If you had the proper keyword you were good to go, so yes if it said heretic astartes it worked for any flavor, just like if it said demon it worked for any demon.

They changed that in this single case, while leaving everything else working the same.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is exactly how it's been with *every* army.

Adeptus Astartes stratagems don't work for Blood Angels, Grey Knights, et al.

Tyranids stratagems don't work for GSC.

IG stratagems don't work for GSC /w Guard Allies.

This is literally par for the course. Anyone surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.

Sorry, but the Death Guard FAQ says otherwise.

And there are Codex:SM stratagems that work on Blood Angels units just fine, so long as you unlock them with a Codex:SM Detachment.

This Daemons FAQ is a contradiction of the RaW and FAQ precedent, and just another example of GW rules writing incompetence.

"The FAQs directly contradict themselves!"

"Let's rolloff."

"I spend a Command Point to reroll the rolloff."

"You can't do that."

"Show me the RAW that says that..."

"...fine. We will rolloff to see if we can use Command Points to rolloff, and I will use a Command Point to reroll to see if we can use Command Points to rolloff."

And thus 40k falls apart in a RAW paradox.