Really bad keyword exploit

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.

**Pink Horror**

The first thing I thought when I read how the keywords work was a <craftworld> Ultramarine, but I wouldn't actually try to use an army designed with a loophole like that.

I think it's obvious enough that a <craftworld> and a <chapter> are different, even if they happen to have the same letters written in the same order in their keywords. The hint that this isn't allowed in that the different custom keyword slots have different names.

If a group of Orks thought "Imperium" was a cool name for their clan, they wouldn't suddenly have Vindicare assassins and Imperial Knights joining the Waaagh.

**spiralingcadaver**

It's a pretty massive oversight that they didn't write it "<chapter> means you can call your guys 'Blood Angels Chapter' " etc.

I don't think anyone would play that way, but as soon as you start getting into not playing "as intended," you get into some pretty shaky territory with GW.

**MagicJuggler**

Speaking of exploits:

Rhinos cannot carry models with the Terminator Keyword. Taking a Wolf Guard in your Grey Hunters and giving him Terminator Armor does not add the Terminator keyword. Enjoy.

**Lord Kragan**

MagicJuggler wrote:
Speaking of exploits:

Rhinos cannot carry models with the Terminator Keyword. Taking a Wolf Guard in your Grey Hunters and giving him Terminator Armor does not add the Terminator keyword. Enjoy.

7

*Guys, I can't fit in!*

*BROTHER ENFJORD PUSH! YOU ARE NOT MAKING US LEG IT!*

*YOU fething RASCALS IF I SEE YOU SCRATCH MY DAYSY'S PAINTJOB-!"

**Roknar**

....DIGGANOBZ !!

**Purifier**

SilverAlien wrote:
Are you talking about both 8th and AoS? Because a few armies in 8th explicitly give the choice to make your own craftworld, regiment, etc. Plus their is no list to draw from for the others (unless it's somewhere in the core rulebook's fluff section, which is possible).

Purifier wrote:
SilverAlien wrote:
Purifier wrote:
I'm all for clarifying where there is even the smallest chance that it could be another way... but this is clearly just insane.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea badly written rules are fine because we should all understand the intent.

Me neither. This is bloody mental though. This is as far as it can be taken. This is the extreme and it deserves to be ridiculed.

The problem is the rules don't even hint this shouldn't be allowed. The closest I've seen was explicitly disallowing the usage of "fallen" as a CSM legion keyword... but not for loyalist chapters etc. It is written like there is a rule in place disallowing certain keywords from moving across army lists, without evidence of any such rule existing.

That's like forgetting to include the rule that only infantry can be embarked in transports. Yes we know anyone trying to argue you can embark a chimera in a different chimera is just causing trouble, but what if someone tries embarking idk chaos spawn in the rhino? Or the wolves that follow around the SW? You wouldn't have as nearly clear a consensus.

Odinsgrandson gave a good rundown above, but there is a lot of stuff you can justify. I mean, imperial guard given a tau sept or legion keyword is one that is really hard to say shouldn't be allowed, as the lore explicitly mentions such forces existing.

No, it's not a good rundown. All of them mention creating different things. Legions, Craftworlds, Chapters. The RAI is beyond clear. You're arguing in the same manner that hacking software is done. You try to find logical inconsistencies that are clearly not intended.
I have always been on the "this RAI isn't 100% clear and everything should be clarified"-side, but this is just silly. I can see where the argument comes from in a binary logical way, but it's absolutely crazy. But you know what? I don't care. I don't know anyone that is crazy enough to try this, and if I did meet anyone that tried it, I'd walk away. It's just too stupid.

**gummyofallbears**

is there any counter argument to this? I pointed it out to a guy at my shop, and I forgot what he mentioned as counter evidence, but he seemed to have people supporting him. It doesn't bother me as I probably won't be playing 8th ed, but I am just curious.

**CthuluIsSpy**

gummyofallbears wrote:
is there any counter argument to this? I pointed it out to a guy at my shop, and I forgot what he mentioned as counter evidence, but he seemed to have people supporting him. It doesn't bother me as I probably won't be playing 8th ed, but I am just curious.

Yes. To start with, there is clearly meant to be a different between <dynasty>, <chapter> and so on, and the fact that you can fill it in does that change that difference, as its clearly "chapter / whatever known as this"

To try to put it in computer speech, the rule will call "dynasty". One can define "dynasty" as another term, but the rule does not care what you, a human called it, its still "dynasty"
Even if "chapter" has been called the same thing, it does not work because the rule doesn't care about "chapter", it cares about dynasty.
Its like...assigning a value to a cell in excel, to try to put it simply. Cell A1 has a value of 10, and cell B1 has a value of 10. However, if the calculation uses cell A1, it will only use cell A1, even though it has the same value.

There is a second, even simpler reason : don't be a dick, and try to create a very flimsy loophole based on a forced misinterpretation of a rule that has a clear intent

**SilverAlien**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yes. To start with, there is clearly meant to be a different between <dynasty>, <chapter> and so on, and the fact that you can fill it in does that change that difference, as its clearly "chapter / whatever known as this"

To try to put it in computer speech, the rule will call "dynasty". One can define "dynasty" as another term, but the rule does not care what you, a human called it, its still "dynasty"
Even if "chapter" has been called the same thing, it does not work because the rule doesn't care about "chapter", it cares about dynasty.
Its like...assigning a value to a cell in excel, to try to put it simply. Cell A1 has a value of 10, and cell B1 has a value of 10. However, if the calculation uses cell A1, it will only use cell A1, even though it has the same value.

I've already addressed this twice now, it is still wrong, could people read the thread? Or the rules in question?

They explicitly say "keyword" totally replaces any mention of <chapter> or <legion> etc. All rules are explicitly stated to only look for keyword. Read any of the opening sections which talk about the keywords.

The moment <chapter> has a keyword assigned, it stops being <chapter> and is simply "keyword". Nothing even implies that <chapter> still matters. In fact, I've pointed out multiple times that all the unique characters only work if the abilities ignore <chapter>, as all of them have pre assigned "keyword" and only look for "keyword". The rules are very clear on this.

To use an awful middle school programming comparison, keywords is an array, <chapter> is a an initial placeholder for one of the array's values, your specific "keyword" is the new value which overwrites <chapter>, and abilities look to see if any value in the array matches "keyword". That's how this is actually working.

Seriously, if you have an actual, non debunked reason, then comment. If not, the thread can die.

**Greenizbest**

This is the most asinine rules lawyering I've ever seen. The intent of the rule is crystal clear.

**Miradorm**

Someone mentioned this to me last night while I was looking through the stores copies of the Indices reading the part under Asta Militarum it gives an example of regiment name and goes even further using the name Tempestus Scions. Now if I remember correctly, had a few to many drinks afterwards so memory is kinda fuzzy about it, it goes on to state the AM units do not gain any benefit from separate Scion detachment rules and the Scion detachment gains nothing from AM rules.

**flamingkillamajig**

Roknar wrote:
....DIGGANOBZ !!

Hehehe i wasn't aware you knew about 'if the emperor had a text to speech device'. It's a great series i need to get back to.

**Genesaika**

I read this as a specific variable. So the keywords <Legion> and <Chapter> could have the same name, say "Blood Ravens" , but they would be two separate keywords. So a unit with the keyword <Legion> that is using "Blood Ravens" would only be effected by other units of the same keyword, <Legion> . If a Chapter is also named " Blood Ravens" it would not be effected by units with the <Legion> keyword because it is a specific keyword that only targets Legions.

**stratigo**

I can't beleive people are stressing over this. It almost makes me think they want to be told "Sure, whatever, do what you want" so they can rock their riptides with their scat packs and farseers again.

No tournament is going to allow this. No store is going to allow this. A club might if the runner is an donkey-cave, but why would you want to go there in that case?

**odinsgrandson**

Actually, I think that every last one of you would allow this, depending on the circumstances.

If your opponent has a masterfully converted force that clearly addresses the alliance he's using with fluff, then I think all of us would allow it. Especially if he didn't include units in his force that were allowed by the rules but don't fit with his fluff.

That's the case with the Tau Auxiliary Imperial Guardsmen, for example. If your opponent actually did all of the conversions it would require (every imperial guardsman was wearing tau armor) and the force looked beautiful painted up in the Tau khaki colors, I don't see any one of you actually refusing to play.

I'm really wondering how much it could go the other way. What if a renegade Ord Xenos inquisitor were using various alien species in his personal force?

Tournaments might be another matter- but they'll likely make their ruling clear beforehand. They might even have to have a list printed as to which keywords are "Chapters" and which keywords are "Clans" etc.

**SilverAlien**

Genesaika wrote:
I read this as a specific variable. So the keywords <Legion> and <Chapter> could have the same name, say "Blood Ravens" , but they would be two separate keywords. So a unit with the keyword <Legion> that is using "Blood Ravens" would only be effected by other units of the same keyword, <Legion> . If a Chapter is also named " Blood Ravens" it would not be effected by units with the <Legion> keyword because it is a specific keyword that only targets Legions.

If that were the case none of the unique characters would work, because none of the unique characters ever specify legion, chapter, etc. It also more or less calls out it doesn't work like that.

Now, it probably should work like this, but the rules currently do not have it work like this.

**odinsgrandson**

We are literally only left to your common sense to know that Ahriman's Thousand Sons keyword is a <Legion> keyword and not a <Clan> or <Chapter> or <Craftworld> or other such nonsense.

Do the rules work for Successor Chapters? Is i possible to play the Angels Encarmine and still have a Death Company? To me, it seems a bigger oversight if that's not allowed.

Minijack wrote:
Rippy wrote:
I am pretty sure this same thing came up when AoS was launched?

No..it didnt ...

These are permissive rulesets,no were in either ruleset does it give permission to "create" a keyword...there are several instances were keywords can be "chosen" though.

Yeah- the AOS core rules just didn't have any rules for Faction at all. You could unambiguously mix and match whatever minis you owned.

Players may explicitly invent a Craftworld Keyword, and the fact that we're "choosing" keywords without an existing list of available keyewords at least implies that we're supposed to make them up. But if we're using common sense to dictate game mechanics (always risky business), then the fact that in every edition of the game, and hundreds of articles in White Dwarf openly admonish us to create our own Chapters/Clans/Legions/etc. is a fairly strong advocacy towards making them up ourselves.

**Earth127**

odinsgrandson wrote:
Actually, I think that every last one of you would allow this, depending on the circumstances.

If your opponent has a masterfully converted force that clearly addresses the alliance he's using with fluff, then I think all of us would allow it.

That's the case with the Tau Auxiliary Imperial Guardsmen, for example. If your opponent actually did all of the conversions it would require (every imperial guardsman was wearing tau armor) and the force looked beautiful painted up in the Tau khaki colors, I don't see any one of you actually refusing to play.

Tournaments might be another matter- but they'll likely make their ruling clear beforehand.

I would allow that, but he wouldn't get any bonuses from that faction keyword matching other then the fact is army is allowed on the table top.

fictious example because I don't know the actual rules:
My tau commander gives everyone that shares his sept keyword a +1 to BS that wouldn't translate to your Lemann russ battle tank also getting it.

Also there is a difference between RaW allowing creative unintended loopholes and straight up exploiting/cheating using an error. The line is in a very unclear place and shouldn't exist but hell this is way over it in the exploit category.

**EnTyme**

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

**Brotherjanus**

All you have to do is add in the line" after the game begins your <chapter> keyword becomes the chapter of your choice". Problem solved.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Galas wrote:
Sonic Keyboard wrote:
What if my Legion is called Fly?
Can they shoot after falling back?

Winner of the thread

Exactly what I was planning to say.
(It doesn't work though, because <Legion> is a faction keyword and not a model keyword. But I love it nonetheless

.)

**Brotherjanus**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Galas wrote:
Sonic Keyboard wrote:
What if my Legion is called Fly?
Can they shoot after falling back?

Winner of the thread

Exactly what I was planning to say.
(It doesn't work though, because <Legion> is a faction keyword and not a model keyword. But I love it nonetheless .)

Side note for this, Fly as an ability keyword gives the extra benefit. Fly as a faction keyword does not however it would allow weapons and other abilities that get a bonus for targeting the Fly keyword to get their bonuses.

**Dionysodorus**

odinsgrandson wrote:
Actually, I think that every last one of you would allow this, depending on the circumstances.

If your opponent has a masterfully converted force that clearly addresses the alliance he's using with fluff, then I think all of us would allow it. Especially if he didn't include units in his force that were allowed by the rules but don't fit with his fluff.

That's the case with the Tau Auxiliary Imperial Guardsmen, for example. If your opponent actually did all of the conversions it would require (every imperial guardsman was wearing tau armor) and the force looked beautiful painted up in the Tau khaki colors, I don't see any one of you actually refusing to play.

I'm really wondering how much it could go the other way. What if a renegade Ord Xenos inquisitor were using various alien species in his personal force?

Tournaments might be another matter- but they'll likely make their ruling clear beforehand. They might even have to have a list printed as to which keywords are "Chapters" and which keywords are "Clans" etc.

I don't understand what this is supposed to prove. Yes, I'll let someone bend the rules in a friendly game if they're obviously not doing so for advantage but because they're wanting to do something neat. If someone's converted a wholly-illegal model and come up with rules for it that they really want to use, most people are going to let them as long as it doesn't look abusive. That doesn't make them hypocrites when they nevertheless insist that this is in general against the rules and when they reserve the right to refuse to play someone who's trying to be abusive.

That said, yeah, I haven't seen a plausible RAW argument against this. And it's obviously totally unintended and it's totally reasonable to refuse to play with someone who's insisting on using this loophole. It doesn't seem like a big deal. It's a mildly amusing oversight in how the rules were written, and it is probably good for TOs to be aware of it just so they can make things 100% clear, but the average player's response should really just be "huh."

**odinsgrandson**

Oooh, I can just imagine the ork clan "The Monstrous Creatures."

Bit alas- separating out the kinds of keywords kept that one under wraps.

**spiralingcadaver**

Dionysodorus wrote:

I don't understand what this is supposed to prove. Yes, I'll let someone bend the rules in a friendly game if they're obviously not doing so for advantage but because they're wanting to do something neat. If someone's converted a wholly-illegal model and come up with rules for it that they really want to use, most people are going to let them as long as it doesn't look abusive. That doesn't make them hypocrites when they nevertheless insist that this is in general against the rules and when they reserve the right to refuse to play someone who's trying to be abusive.

That said, yeah, I haven't seen a plausible RAW argument against this. And it's obviously totally unintended and it's totally reasonable to refuse to play with someone who's insisting on using this loophole. It doesn't seem like a big deal. It's a mildly amusing oversight in how the rules were written, and it is probably good for TOs to be aware of it just so they can make things 100% clear, but the average player's response should really just be "huh."

+1

In a friendly environment, there's a ton of rules bending, from "I'll give you that quarter inch rather than arguing about it" to "yeah, that's a pretty good approximation of an older army list" to "eh, yeah, a homebrew unit/scenario would mix it up." That isn't an argument about rules validity, and I sure as hell wouldn't be convinced to allow someone to field someone due to a stupid loophole-- in fact, their use would probably make me reject it when I might have otherwise said "sure, that's fluffy and as long as you're not abusing my laxity with something stupid", because I wouldn't want to encourage them to argue other bad GW rules to the letter.

And yeah, intent is obvious; RAW is also so far obvious, and different.

**PlaguedOne**

I'm just glad I play at a friend's place and if anyone in the group actually tried this we'd laugh them out of the game room.

**Karoline Dianne**

Is this SilverAlien guy for real?

This is the most absurd and nonsensical case of straw-grasping mental gymnastics I've ever seen to try and justify something that's completely out of the question wrong. Seriously, if anyone tries this insanity they need to be kicked out of the game store and banned.

**Silentz**

Karoline Dianne wrote:
Is this SilverAlien guy for real?

This is the most absurd and nonsensical case of straw-grasping mental gymnastics I've ever seen to try and justify something that's completely out of the question wrong. Seriously, if anyone tries this insanity they need to be kicked out of the game store and banned.

Agreed. Thread is a total Facepalm.

Hey guys! I just found an amazing loophole! The 8th rule book says you have to roll d6... but it doesn't specifically say how many TIMES it needs to roll. What you can do is place the dice on any side except the 1 and roll it once step in any direction. You will always get a six!

If anyone can show me explicitly where it says you can't do this then close the thread. Otherwise I think we need to add a new ruling that bla bla bla bla

Bore off. This is supposed to be fun.

**SilverAlien**

Shockingly, they did bother to include rules about how die rolls work and how many die to roll. Because that's the point of having a ruleset, to explain how things work. If they had an attack characteristic but never explained what it was, we'd all probably know, but it'd still be an absurdly idiotic oversight.

Karoline Dianne wrote:
Is this SilverAlien guy for real?

This is the most absurd and nonsensical case of straw-grasping mental gymnastics I've ever seen to try and justify something that's completely out of the question wrong. Seriously, if anyone tries this insanity they need to be kicked out of the game store and banned.

Yes, I am pointing at a real and massive loophole in the game.

Also, what's interesting to me is that I've seen many cases where rules were a lot less clear and people didn't get this emotional about it. Yet in this case there is really no argument as to how the rule ends up working... and people almost take it personally. Certainly been flinging a lot of insults at me for pointing out how the rules work.

Is it because this is a particularly big exploit, because people actually expected 8e's minimal ruleset to not have major exploits (this is just the most obvious one I'm sure), or because this one clearly doesn't work as intended and there isn't any way to even interpret them in such a way as to work properly?

**Jacksmiles**

How are you putting Chaos and Imperium keyword units in the same battleforged army to begin with? After reading the OP, yes, you can do whatever with custom keywords and call your Legion Ultramarines, but that doesn't let you take Ultramarine units.

I fail to see the loophole. I see the post on this page from OP saying <keyword> is replaced entirely, which is true. But "Imperium" or "Chaos" is not. So unless you're doing this in a house-ruled environment (which if you are, you're creating the loophole), it doesn't make sense.

Edit: Oh, I see. You're also arguing that Imperium units that use different keywords could also take advantage of it by saying <Regiment> of Ultramarines and <Chapter> of Ultramarines. Except the rules call out the origin word when you utilize an ability. I see what you're saying now that I've looked at the <Chapter> rule text again but this is still ridiculous.