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.

And your view, which I agree with, has been amply presented in this thread.

"I'm right, your wrong" back and forth for 20 more pages won't change that.

So what exactly is your point? That people have the freedom of giving incorrect rules advice on YMDC? Because I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

 Jidmah wrote:
So what exactly is your point? That people have the freedom of giving incorrect rules advice on YMDC? Because I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

I mean, its the internet, what are you going to do?
There are people who will consistently give incorrect advice. They may think it's correct, they may just be trollin', no real way to tell, just keep your mind open and work out whats nonsense so you can ignore it.

 Jidmah wrote:
Of the "two ways to look at it" one has clearly been proven incorrect, as it directly contradicts the Designer's Commentary, the very document used to construct this imaginary rules problem by interpreting two other FAQs from that document incorrectly - FAQs that don't even apply to Marks of Chaos and Allegiances.

Therefore, no, there are no two ways to look at it.

The only way to move forward constructively is to accept that any interpretation of a rule that directly contradicts examples given in the same document are wrong.

The rules are 100% clear on this. If you look at them "in another way" you are simply breaking the rules as written and as intended. Might as well tell your opponent all your ones are sixes because "there are two ways to look at it".

That's a lot to unpack. I disagree with what you have to say and believe the comparison you draw with dice in disingenuous.

Dice rolls are objectively true. Anyone can look at what was rolled and determine the value. There are no two ways to look at it.

The FAQ is clear that players cannot make up arbitrary names within faction keywords and use them to make detachments (i.e. no BLOOD ANGELS Guard and BLOOD ANGELS marines in the same detachment.)

The ambiguity is over established faction keywords - KHORNE, TZEENTCH, SLAANESH, and NURGLE - and whether these are subject to the FAQ. The FAQ specifically cites an example where someone is creating their own keywords, not one where they are applying keywords defined in both Codexes.

At best, this is a grey area that needs to be FAQed. Asserting that the rules are as clear as a dice role is dishonest.

Except the second FAQ element Jidmah posted answers that bit. The fallacious dice comparison is a bit of a shame... one only worthy of one of our other regular denizens.

As was pointed out, these words are in the same document on the same page:

Once the battle has begun, the distinction between keywords and Faction keywords no longer has any effect – both are used to interact with abilities identically. Imagine, then, that the Heretic Astartes Detachment contains a unit of Possessed (which does not have the Daemon Faction keyword, but does have the Daemon keyword), and I choose for them to replace their <Mark of Chaos> keyword with Khorne. If the Daemon Detachment contained a Herald of Khorne, his ability to ‘add 1 to the Strength characteristic of all Khorne Daemons’ would also apply to the unit of Possessed, as they have both the Khorne and Daemon keywords.

Right there in black and white is GW stating that <Mark of Chaos> Khorne and Khorne in Codex Chaos Daemons are the same.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Dice rolls are objectively true. Anyone can look at what was rolled and determine the value. There are no two ways to look at it.

Of course, that was hyperbole. Claiming a one is a six is objectively wrong. But so is claiming that Khrone from the CSM codex is different than Khorne from the daemons codex. Both are equally wrong.

The FAQ specifically cites an example where someone is creating their own keywords, not one where they are applying keywords defined in both Codexes.[/b]

So for what reason do you assume it applies at any other time?
If you do assume that FAQ applies when you are not creating your own keywords, why does it not apply to, say, Ultramarines? How do you know that the "Ultramarine" keyword on Guilliman, Chronus, Tigurius, Telion etc is the same as selecting "Ultramarine" for <Chapter>?

If you assume that keywords replacing a placeholder are only equal to keywords replacing the exact same placeholder, the example given in the FAQ does not work. According to that example, the herald of khorne affects units with the <Mark of Chaos> replaced with Khorne - unless you want to argue that the herald does not affect daemon princes with <Allegiance> replaced with Khorne, which contradicts the daemon codex.

So by simple logic:
As per page 84 of the daemon codex, the Khorne keyword on a datasheet of any unit in the codex is an Allegiance, not a Mark of Chaos.
=> Khorne = Khorne <Allegiance>
As per page 5 of the Designer's Commentary, the Khorne keyword on a datasheet of a Herald of Khorne affects possessed who had their <Mark of Chaos> replaced with "Khorne"
=> Khorne = Khorne <Mark of Chaos>
Therefore
=> Khorne <Allegiance = Khorne ><Mark of Chaos>

The only answer is that a keyword must always be considered identical if its the same keyword, no matter in what codex it appears and how it is gained.

At best, this is a grey area that needs to be FAQed. Asserting that the rules are as clear as a dice role is dishonest.

There already is a FAQ about it. I've quoted it multiple times. It is maddening that people are still claiming this is unclear.

Claiming this issue is unclear is objectively wrong.

So by that logic I can choose ULTRAMARINES for my <REGIMENT> and buff my Balislisks with Gulliman.

You can't have it both ways. Either you follow the Special Snowflake FAQ or you follow the RaW. Which is it?

 Jidmah wrote:
So what exactly is your point? That people have the freedom of giving incorrect rules advice on YMDC? Because I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

Admittedly tho I'm in favour of banning users who repeatedly spam meaningless gibberish for the purpose of causing arguments.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic I can choose ULTRAMARINES for my <REGIMENT> and buff my Balislisks with Gulliman.

You can't have it both ways. Either you follow the Special Snowflake FAQ or you follow the RaW. Which is it?

You keep misrepresenting that FAQ. Jidmah posted all you need to know.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic I can choose ULTRAMARINES for my <REGIMENT> and buff my Balislisks with Gulliman.

You can't have it both ways. Either you follow the Special Snowflake FAQ or you follow the RaW. Which is it?

You keep misrepresenting that FAQ. Jidmah posted all you need to know.

And I disagree with his interpretation. It's almost like GW need to fix their broken FAQ or something.

Tell me, why are you so opposed of GW just re-doing the FAQ so it is totally and completely unambiguous? Surely that is in the benefit of everyone.

Unambiguous?

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

I'm not seeing any ambiguity. The Answer specifically speaks about items "of your own creation". It therefore does not apply to choices given by GW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

And I disagree with his interpretation. It's almost like GW need to fix their broken FAQ or something.

There is no "interpretation" to disagree with. What you are disagreeing with is GW's FAQ, because you refuse to read it properly. The FAQ's in question clearly reference creating your own faction names or attempting to use existing faction names from other codex lists as replacements in an attempt to abuse the system. Neither applies to keywords such as <Mark of Chaos> because you are replacing that keyword with another keyword that has to come from an established list that is given for that specific purpose.

It's almost like anything can be broken if you purposely ignore text and take things out of context. GW does not need to fix something that has already been covered just because someone willfully misreads what they have already written fairly clearly. I would much rather GW spend their time addressing things that they have not already actually clarified.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic I can choose ULTRAMARINES for my <REGIMENT> and buff my Balislisks with Gulliman.

You can't have it both ways. Either you follow the Special Snowflake FAQ or you follow the RaW. Which is it?

You keep misrepresenting that FAQ. Jidmah posted all you need to know.

And I disagree with his interpretation. It's almost like GW need to fix their broken FAQ or something.

Tell me, why are you so opposed of GW just re-doing the FAQ so it is totally and completely unambiguous? Surely that is in the benefit of everyone.

I don’t believe I made such a statement so kindly don’t put words in my mouth. Nice attempt at distraction but let’s not, eh? What do you say about “gotchas”...?

That you don’t like the RAW doesn’t make it ambiguous. The two sections together are not in the slightest ambiguous. Given you often berate others for being disingenuous when they’re simply discussing, how about a little less disingenuous from you please?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ikeulhu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

And I disagree with his interpretation. It's almost like GW need to fix their broken FAQ or something.

There is no "interpretation" to disagree with. What you are disagreeing with is GW's FAQ, because you refuse to read it properly. The FAQ's in question clearly reference creating your own faction names or attempting to use existing faction names from other codex lists as replacements in an attempt to abuse the system. Neither applies to keywords such as <Mark of Chaos> because you are replacing that keyword with another keyword that has to come from an established list that is given for that specific purpose.

It's almost like anything can be broken if you purposely ignore text and take things out of context. GW does not need to fix something that has already been covered just because someone willfully misreads what they have already written fairly clearly. I would much rather GW spend their time addressing things that they have not already actually clarified.

Hear, hear.

 alextroy wrote:
Unambiguous?

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

I'm not seeing any ambiguity. The Answer specifically speaks about items "of your own creation". It therefore does not apply to choices given by GW.

In my opinion, selecting from a pre-made list is making a keyword of your own creation. You are taking the keyword that is there, <MARK OF CHAOS> and replacing it with one of your choosing, thus creating a new keyword.

If GW actually spent time making their rules properly instead of relying on Special Snowflake FAQs to fix loopholes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So your opinion is that choosing from pre-set options is the same as inventing your own keywords? Mmkay. Not really a valid line of thinking dude. Being intractable on this one won’t ever make that erroneous logic correct.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Unambiguous?

Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

I'm not seeing any ambiguity. The Answer specifically speaks about items "of your own creation". It therefore does not apply to choices given by GW.

In my opinion, selecting from a pre-made list is making a keyword of your own creation. You are taking the keyword that is there, <MARK OF CHAOS> and replacing it with one of your choosing, thus creating a new keyword.

If GW actually spent time making their rules properly instead of relying on Special Snowflake FAQs to fix loopholes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So by your reading of the rules, whenever you make a Keyword replacement you have a different Keyword that that of a unit that is assigned the same Keyword.
* Guilliman, Calgar, and Tigerius are a different chapter that <ULTRAMARINES>
* Khan is not a <WHITE SCARS>
* Kantor is not a <CRIMSON FIST>
and so on.

Right

I think it is safe to say your option on this is pretty tortured by any standard.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In my opinion, selecting from a pre-made list is making a keyword of your own creation. You are taking the keyword that is there, <MARK OF CHAOS> and replacing it with one of your choosing, thus creating a new keyword.

If GW actually spent time making their rules properly instead of relying on Special Snowflake FAQs to fix loopholes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Both codices explicitly tell you to replace <Mark of Chaos> or <Allegiance> with one of the four keywords KHORNE, NURGLE, TZEENCH or SLANESH. No creation of keywords involved whatsoever, just replacing one with another.

Also, since your "opinion" directly contradicts the FAQ you have no backing by the RAW whatsoever.

So far you have yet to provide a single rule to prove that identical keywords should ever not be treated as identical.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In my opinion, selecting from a pre-made list is making a keyword of your own creation. You are taking the keyword that is there, <MARK OF CHAOS> and replacing it with one of your choosing, thus creating a new keyword.

If GW actually spent time making their rules properly instead of relying on Special Snowflake FAQs to fix loopholes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Both codices explicitly tell you to replace <Mark of Chaos> or <Allegiance> with one of the four keywords KHORNE, NURGLE, TZEENCH or SLANESH. No creation of keywords involved whatsoever, just replacing one with another.

Also, since your "opinion" directly contradicts the FAQ you have no backing by the RAW whatsoever.

So far you have yet to provide a single rule to prove that identical keywords should ever not be treated as identical.

And can you provide a single rule that says I can't name my <REGIMENT> ULTRAMARINES and buff them with Gulliman? No, because it's all done by Special Snowflake FAQ

 Jidmah wrote:
So, the FAQs in question.

Q: If I can choose a keyword for a
unit, such as <Regiment> for Astra
Militarum, could I choose that keyword
to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’?
A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter
of the Adeptus Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a
Legion of the Heretic Astartes – neither of which
are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.

So I've quoted myself quoting the rule. How about you start providing as much as a single back-upped argument? You know, like you're required to do in this forum?

You just keep repeating "special snowflake" as your argument like it means anything. I'm inclined to build a chrome add-on that replaces "special snowflake FAQ" with "FAQ I am unable to understand properly" on web pages.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic I can choose ULTRAMARINES for my <REGIMENT> and buff my Balislisks with Gulliman.

You can't have it both ways. Either you follow the Special Snowflake FAQ or you follow the RaW. Which is it?

<Ultramarines> is not one of the specific <Regiment> option in the AM codex, so by choosing it you are "creating your own" keyword and thus the FAQ applies.
Selecting <Ultramarines> in the Marine codex IS one of the options in that book and therefore is NOT "create your own" and the FAQ DOES NOT apply.

That is the distinction you seem to be missing: you are either given the Keyword as an option or not

As we are talking about Chaos Keywords in which the options ARE given by the relevant codices, they cannot be treated as "create your own".
Khorne = Khorne, whether it is obtained via <Mark> or <Allegiance>.

Now if you want to create your own <Regiment> that is named <Khorne>, then, and only then, does the FAQ apply.

-

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic I can choose ULTRAMARINES for my <REGIMENT> and buff my Balislisks with Gulliman.

You can't have it both ways. Either you follow the Special Snowflake FAQ or you follow the RaW. Which is it?

Not by that logic at all. For Mark of Chaos and for Allegiance you are forced to choose between one of four options. You are not given the option of making up a name for either one, they way you can choose a name for a regiment. The FAQ statement about not getting to name a regiment Ultramares is completely irrelevant to this, and it's poor form for you to be misrepresenting the FAQ statement like that, trying to misapply it to this situation. The FAQ question and answer about naming regiments has as much to do with this situation as the FAQ answer about whether a dice roll can be modified to less than 1 - zero relevance whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In my opinion, selecting from a pre-made list is making a keyword of your own creation.

Ah, so that means there's no problem with taking Mark of Chaos or Allegiance to VOLTRON or MY LITTLE PONY? If there's no difference then it should be okay.