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.

None of the rules were written by main-GW for FW units.

As someone else pointed out the onus is on FW to ensure the rules they write dovetail into GW rules, or are deliberately separate. Results may vary across the FW Indexes, it seems.

And there is still nothing that tells us that Keywords are only ever in Boldface caps.

Fallacy of the converse: we are told that A(boldface caps) = B(keyword usage); this does not mean that B is always A. It means that A is always B, but C or D can also be B.

So plugging in the Values: PREDATOR is always going to be Keyword:predator; but Predator could also be Keyword:predator(and, yes, it could not meam that at all).

The point is, dogmatic adherence to an unstated rule is never correct. All we have is proof that boldface caps is going to mean keyword. In other instances with the lack of A, an separate unit name from keyword has been used(chaos cultists); in these cases unit name and keyword are Identical, Dreadnaught has 3 separate unit entries in codex while Vindicator, Predator, and Hellbrute only have 1 entry in-codex, and once again: GW does not write with FW in mind, but FW at least pretends to try and write with GW in mind(meaning that even if B-is-always-A for GW; FW was likely intending the units to count-as GW units for rules purposes by adding the keyword)

Whilst that may be true... outright denial of a well established (if poorly defined) core rule mechanic is probably worse.

Which I did not do. The Established core Mechanic is that Boldface Caps is keyword; and I said just that.

I also said that something other than boldface caps could still be keyword if it is identical to keyword but formatted diferently.

JohnnyHell wrote:None of the rules were written by main-GW for FW units.

As someone else pointed out the onus is on FW to ensure the rules they write dovetail into GW rules, or are deliberately separate. Results may vary across the FW Indexes, it seems.

Correct. Much like the Predator Annihilator and Predator Destructor where placed under the same unit identification, any Predator variant that FW would introduce that would they would hope to receive any external benefits from Auras, etc, would have to be listed under the unit "Predator" and have it as equipment additions or replacements.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Which I did not do. The Established core Mechanic is that Boldface Caps is keyword; and I said just that.

I also said that something other than boldface caps could still be keyword if it is identical to keyword but formatted diferently.

It could be if we had instructions to consider those things as keywords.

If I had instructions telling me that Sonic Dreadnought are Helbrutes, with no Bold Capitalization or even mention of Keywords, how long till people tell me such instructions are nothing but 'fluff?'
That is very much a possibility that we can not discount; that the Authors could tell us to do something in plain English and we would encounter confusion because they forgot their little Bold-Capital formatting.

Then unless they errata such an occurrence you cannot just decide what is and isn't a Keyword. There's a system. It's clearly demonstrated. It's not confusion if a word is a unit name not a Keyword... people saying the word 'confusion' tend to be those to whom it would be advantageous if it were a Keyword. Not much confusion elsewhere. Confusion as to why some differ maybe, but not confusion over what is and isn't a Keyword.

Of course in a friendly you can house rule what you like, but not playing RAW.

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.

See how well that works with Vindicators. The Deimos Pattern Laser Destroyer does not even have a demolisher cannon to use with Linebreaker Bombardment yet there is "no reason" it cannot be used to nuke your troops to hell for free if you consider the stratagem applicable to all VINDICATOR keyword units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I also said that something other than boldface caps could still be keyword if it is identical to keyword but formatted diferently.

Know what else is identical to the keyword? The unit name. An even older precedence for referring to things.

You're simply playing the rules lawyer and deciding what refers to a keyword and what refers to a unit name with no supporting reason for it, even though the rules specify what a keyword is. To arbitrarily decide that a word not formatted that way is now a keyword as well is to disregard the fact that a much simpler term exists -- the name of the unit itself.

Legion traits were written with a mix of capitalized and uncapitalized words. There is only a SINGLE Helbrute in the entire Chaos Codex yet the Legion Traits still apply to HELBRUTE keywords. That alone blows up your theory, especially since it was maintained into the FAQ and altered in the Death Guard. If it was a legion trait thing, Death Guard would have had it too. If it was an error, GW would have fixed it in the FAQ. If it was intentional, all of this would actually make sense. But no, let's believe your theory instead that makes even less sense than acknowledging that there is in fact a distinction for a purpose.

Personally, I think the best evidence of intent of GW is in the Xenos II Faq. There they state: "Page 87 – Old One Eye, Alpha Leader
Change this ability to read:
‘You can add 1 to hit rolls in the Fight phase for friendly
<Hive Fleet> Carnifex units that are within 6" of
this model."

In the original Index, it was <Hive Fleet> Carnifex.

The fact that they changed/clarified/updated the rule by making Carnifex boldfaced, instead of just clarifying that Carnifex (non-boldfaced) also implied Old One Eye, to me clearly indicates that GW considers only Carnifex a Keyword.