Switch Theme:

Be'lakor advance and charge?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Yarium wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

The second means he has allegiance to four.


You’re right that there are two ways to read it. However, I think that since the rule was written when Be’Lakor had no god keywords, it’s pretty clear that the statement means the first option; allegiance to none. And this rule remains, meaning that the rule is “he has no allegiance”. This rule would remain even if the keywords changed, but the keywords changing doesn’t change the meaning of this rule. Thus; no loci.

Absolutely

There is no way where yiu can ever answer yes because it's not just about belakor and allegiance to slaanesh, but about how other units see Bs allegiance.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

You're reading an awful lot into the text that isn't written there.

Does Be'Lakor have allegiance to ONE god?
No.

Does Be'Lakor have allegiance to Slaanesh?
Yes.

Does nosferatu have an e in it?
Yes.

Is that last answer incomplete or lacking because nosferatu ALSO has an n, and an o, and all those other letters?
Same with Be'Lakor and his allegiance.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in be
Regular Dakkanaut




Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, so he clearly "has" allegiance.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Catulle wrote:
Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, so he clearly "has" allegiance.
Was that in an FAQ because it is not on his Dataslate from the Warzone Charadon Book of fire.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




JNA - again
Addres that the conventional parsing of the allegiance rule states belakor has no allegiance at all.

You've conspicuously failed to do so.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




 DeathReaper wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, so he clearly "has" allegiance.
Was that in an FAQ because it is not on his Dataslate from the Warzone Charadon Book of fire.

There are currently four allegiance keywords.
KHORNE
NURGLE
SLAANESH
TZEENTCH

The most current Be'lakor, from the War Zone supplement, has all four.

Is that something you dispute?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




That's not what was asked. The poster stated they have the "allegiance " keyword, as in the actual keyword.


Do you dispute that the actual book states he has no allegiance? Because that's one of two parsings, and the other doesn't help you either...
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

nosferatu1001 wrote:
JNA - again
Addres that the conventional parsing of the allegiance rule states belakor has no allegiance at all.

You've conspicuously failed to do so.
It doesn’t. It states he doesn’t have allegiance to ONE of them.

One could read that as “He has no allegiance at all,” but that’d be a misreading of what’s actually there.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




nosferatu1001 wrote:
JNA - again
Addres that the conventional parsing of the allegiance rule states belakor has no allegiance at all.

You've conspicuously failed to do so.

Since you keep bringing it up; saying something is convention does not make it so. Using that phrase does not give your argument more weight.
Everything you say is merely your own personal opinion.

The rule you refer to refers to Be'lakor as he appears the Codex. It's now mostly irrelevant because that version of Be'lakor is outdated and any player with access to the War Zone supplement has access to a newer datasheet for the model.

Another thing to note is that the first two sentences in the Allegiance definition give background and context to the rules in the sentences following. They paint a broad picture based on what daemons looked like at the time. Then time happened and Be'lakor changed.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
JNA - again
Addres that the conventional parsing of the allegiance rule states belakor has no allegiance at all.

You've conspicuously failed to do so.
It doesn’t. It states he doesn’t have allegiance to ONE of them.

One could read that as “He has no allegiance at all,” but that’d be a misreading of what’s actually there.

No, no it doesn't. You're making that up

"<ALLEGIANCE> With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."
Belakor is not stated as having any allegiance at all. You're making up - by inserting words - that he owes some level of allegiance greater than null.

Warped - prove it. Also, that rule is still live, it's still in the codex, and your argument is null.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




nosferatu1001 wrote:
That's not what was asked. The poster stated they have the "allegiance " keyword, as in the actual keyword.

I listed the allegiance keywords. When you see <ALLEGIANCE> specifically, it's shorthand for one of the four I listed, this literally is RAW on page 84 under the headline "KEYWORDS".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do you dispute that the actual book states he has no allegiance? Because that's one of two parsings, and the other doesn't help you either...

That depends.
The book gives context by saying that Be'lakor has no allegiance. That was true when the book was written. That is no longer true assuming you play with the new version of Be'lakor. A new book has literally changed how Be'lakor works. This is something that happens almost every time GW releases a new book.

The part about the supposed two parsing is a choice you've made. You have decided to parse it with "XOR" even though there is little to support that restrictive reading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Warped - prove it. Also, that rule is still live, it's still in the codex, and your argument is null.

No problem!

Those are the faction keywords of Be'lakor from page 74 of the War Zone Act 2 supplement.
Be'lakor has changed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 22:52:59


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Prove the rule is "mostly irrelevant".
You've failed to do so

Prove he has allegiance when the rule, live, states he does not. (Rather, it states a null value for his allegiance value, and if you wish to change the written rule you can get to four allegiances, and that STILL DOES NOT HELP YOU because he does NOT have the same allegiance as a KoS. )


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I've not parsed with XOR. There's only two ways to parse that as written. If you wish to make up rules, cool, but that's not what the forum is main,y here for.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 22:57:18


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

The rule you quoted only stated that Be’Lakor does not have allegiance to ONE chaos god.

That’s all it does. You’re reading into it what’s not there.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




nosferatu1001 wrote:
Prove the rule is "mostly irrelevant".
You've failed to do so

I can't read your mind, you didn't specify what you objected to.
The words "mostly irrelevant" signify an opinion. If you want to know what I base that on I can elaborate of course, although I have already said why in other places. I base it on the fact that Be'lakor has newer rules that modify what allegiances he has. He's gone from none to all four, again page 74 of the War Zone supplement, which are the newer rules which replace the old.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Prove he has allegiance when the rule, live, states he does not. (Rather, it states a null value for his allegiance value, and if you wish to change the written rule you can get to four allegiances, and that STILL DOES NOT HELP YOU because he does NOT have the same allegiance as a KoS. )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I've not parsed with XOR. There's only two ways to parse that as written. If you wish to make up rules, cool, but that's not what the forum is main,y here for.

Please stop shouting.
Again, page 74 of the War Zone supplement. The god names in his faction keywordlist are there for a reason. They signify allegiance. Is your argument that old rules overrule newer rules? That would certainly be an interesting interpretation. Can you prove that is the correct way to do it? It would probably change 40K as we know it if it you can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So if you ask - does a KoS owe allegiance to the same god as belakor? you're required to answer either:
1) No, because he owes allegiance to no gods
Or
2) No, because he owes allegiance to {K, N, T, S}

Option 2 looks pretty XOR to me. Change to an OR and it suddenly works fine.
You are making rules up in order to make it XOR.

When verifying if something qualifies for a specific Loci you compare if the two entities share a specific allegiance. Nothing more is going on. You compare them and if they share the same god, they get a pass.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

warped wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, so he clearly "has" allegiance.
Was that in an FAQ because it is not on his Dataslate from the Warzone Charadon Book of fire.

There are currently four allegiance keywords.
KHORNE
NURGLE
SLAANESH
TZEENTCH

The most current Be'lakor, from the War Zone supplement, has all four.

Is that something you dispute?
I know Be'lakor, from the War Zone supplement, has KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH, and TZEENTCH keywords, but that is not what Catulle was talking about.

Catulle claimed that "Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword" I was asking him to show that rule, since I could not find it.

KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword. He claimed that Be'lakor has the ALLEGIANCE keyword, which he needs to prove since I cant find that rule anywhere.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

Time to pull out the entire rule:
<Allegiance>
With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
So the statement holds true both both versions of the Be'lakor datasheet
  • Codex Chaos Daemons: Be'lakor has none of the allegiance keyword and thus does not have allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.
  • Warzone Charadon: Act II – Book of Fire: Be'lakor has all 4 of the allegiance keywords and thus does not have allegiance to 1 of the four Chaos Gods. He has allegiance to all 4 of them!

  • Now finally we go down to the FAQ Question and Answer:
    Q: If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.
    This is still correct. He does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God because he has allegiance to all four of them. So the answer is still completely correct, if not for the same rules reason. This does expand upon the wording of Daemonic Loci detachment rule, but doesn't contradict it. Damn you Spirit of the Rule written into FAQ! You don't get a Daemonic Loci if Be'lakor is in your detachment.

    This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/19 03:49:30


     
       
    Made in gb
    Decrepit Dakkanaut




     JNAProductions wrote:
    The rule you quoted only stated that Be’Lakor does not have allegiance to ONE chaos god.

    That’s all it does. You’re reading into it what’s not there.

    No it doesn't, it states a null value for belakor allegiance, or the set of the real line excluding 1. You're literally making up rules here, as the value of belakor allegiance is never stated in this rule. All you know is it isn't 1.

    Warped - a keeper of secrets checks "do I have the same allegiance as belakor?". The rule, that is still live and is not "old" as you claim without substantiation (if you claim that rule is obsolete, how many gods does a keeper of secrets owe allegiance to? What about a daemon Prince? The rule telling you this is "old" in your mind, and not reality, and so has to be removed, so you can no longer answer this. Whoops) gives us two possible and probable values for belakor s allegiance : null, because you're given no information at all on how to determine allegiance for belakor - and this is how it parses, I note you've yet to make up any other value - or, at best, you can shoe horn 4 in. So belakor has allegiance at best for your rules breaking interpretation, FOUR allegiances. Meaning the answer is simultaneously yes and no. As there is no unequivocal yes here, from the perspective of the KoS, you dont share the same allegiance. No loci

    The faq continues to apply, as it is still completely true

    So that's three hurdles for you to,overcome. So far you've got.....nothing.
       
    Made in gb
    Lord of the Fleet






    London

    Isn't this a prime example of "just roll a D6 to determine" rather than 3+ pages of circular arguing?

       
    Made in gb
    Decrepit Dakkanaut




    Not really - there are three strong reasons , including a faq that is as valid now as it was before, why belakor means the army loses loci effects.

    In counter we have posters making up rules and arbitrarily deciding a rule is "old" and so does not apply.
       
    Made in us
    Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




    Is there any source in existence that either side of this debate would accept as proof that they are currently wrong? What about a 40kGT official? Surely one of those has to exist here. If they make a ruling, would both sides accept it?
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    The way I see it, the Codex: Chaos Daemons Errata and FAQ only apply to Be'lakor if you are using the datasheet from that codex, and not the newer rules from War Zone Charadon Act II: The Book of Fire, which has its own Errata/FAQ.
    Q: If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes
    its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit
    from the Daemonic Loci ability?
    A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God

    doesn't apply any more than
    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    A: Be’lakor can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait from the
    Warhammer 40,000 Core Book.
    from the same errata/FAQ.

    Be'lakor has the Shadow Lord Warlord Trait, not the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 11:23:21


     
       
    Made in de
    Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






    Germany

    Belakors datasheet from book of fire replaces the datasheet from the daemon codex, it says so his datasheet. Can isnt must. He can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, but he doesnt have to. Question is, can he have a warlord trait from codex daemons ? He is a CHARACTER with all four chaos god keywords.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/19 11:51:38


     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     p5freak wrote:
    Belakors datasheet from book of fire replaces the datasheet from the daemon codex, it says so his datasheet. Can isnt must. He can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, but he doesnt have to. Question is, can he have a warlord trait from codex daemons ? He is a CHARACTER with all four chaos god keywords.


    Except that he can't have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, the rules clearly state that:
    If Be'lakor is your warlord, he must have the Warlord Trait SHADOW LORD...
    (emphasis mine)
    In addition, the wording of the FAQ is:
    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    (emphasis of the plural is mine)

    So the question is asking in plural and the answer is singular, implying that Inspiring Leader is the only Warlord Trait Be'lakor can have.

       
    Made in de
    Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






    Germany

    Aash wrote:
     p5freak wrote:
    Belakors datasheet from book of fire replaces the datasheet from the daemon codex, it says so his datasheet. Can isnt must. He can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, but he doesnt have to. Question is, can he have a warlord trait from codex daemons ? He is a CHARACTER with all four chaos god keywords.


    Except that he can't have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, the rules clearly state that:
    If Be'lakor is your warlord, he must have the Warlord Trait SHADOW LORD...
    (emphasis mine)
    In addition, the wording of the FAQ is:
    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    (emphasis of the plural is mine)

    So the question is asking in plural and the answer is singular, implying that Inspiring Leader is the only Warlord Trait Be'lakor can have.



    Except that he must only have the shadow lord warlord trait when he is the warlord of his disciples of belakor army. He can be included in a slaanesh/khorne/nurgle/tzeentch chaos daemon detachment, which isnt disciples of belakor.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/19 15:55:39


     
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     p5freak wrote:
    Aash wrote:
     p5freak wrote:
    Belakors datasheet from book of fire replaces the datasheet from the daemon codex, it says so his datasheet. Can isnt must. He can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, but he doesnt have to. Question is, can he have a warlord trait from codex daemons ? He is a CHARACTER with all four chaos god keywords.


    Except that he can't have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, the rules clearly state that:
    If Be'lakor is your warlord, he must have the Warlord Trait SHADOW LORD...
    (emphasis mine)
    In addition, the wording of the FAQ is:
    Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
    (emphasis of the plural is mine)

    So the question is asking in plural and the answer is singular, implying that Inspiring Leader is the only Warlord Trait Be'lakor can have.



    Except that he must only have the shadow lord warlord trait when he is the warlord of his disciples of belakor army. He can be included in a slaanesh/khorne/nurgle/tzeentch chaos daemon detachment, which isnt disciples of belakor.


    The rule says that he must have the shadow lord warlord trait if he is your warlord, irrespective of what type of detachment he is in, and if he isn’t the warlord I’m not aware of a rule that allows you to give him a different warlord trait as he is a named character. So he still cannot have the Inspiring Leader warlord trait, which demonstrates that the FAQ is wrong, out of date and doesn’t apply to the Be’lakor data sheet in the Book of Fire.
       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     Valkyrie wrote:
    Isn't this a prime example of "just roll a D6 to determine" rather than 3+ pages of circular arguing?


    Hey Valkyrie,

    While a lot of these arguments may feel overly, um, semantic, it does have a real purpose. Rolling a D6 to determine the outcome is fine and DANDY for finishing out a game when this kind of thing happens during a game, but it's really helpful to have a firm answer for all those times that you're not in a game. That way, if it ever comes up again later, you have an answer at the ready that everyone should be able to agree upon.

    But this specific argument is more important, since it is very distinctly about list construction. If you play like Be'lakor can gain a Loci ability, you might put him into a list for this intent. That means this argument will come up EVERY game - not just once in a while. Having your list "work" or "not work" based on a 50% dice roll isn't just a risky play, it's inherently unfair that a rule you are investing in has a random outcome each game. This is especially true for tournament organizers, where players may be submitting you questions before the event asking what your ruling will be on these kinds of things before bringing them.

     Galef wrote:
    If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
     
       
    Made in gb
    Fresh-Faced New User




     DeathReaper wrote:

    KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword.


    Page 84 of the Codex under the headline KEYWORDS, second sentence:
    This is shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below:

    Not treated different in the rules.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    Is there any source in existence that either side of this debate would accept as proof that they are currently wrong? What about a 40kGT official? Surely one of those has to exist here. If they make a ruling, would both sides accept it?

    Great question, let's see...

     alextroy wrote:
    So the statement holds true both both versions of the Be'lakor datasheet
  • Codex Chaos Daemons: Be'lakor has none of the allegiance keyword and thus does not have allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.
  • Warzone Charadon: Act II – Book of Fire: Be'lakor has all 4 of the allegiance keywords and thus does not have allegiance to 1 of the four Chaos Gods. He has allegiance to all 4 of them!

  • I keep seeing this argument from various people and I see it as a lynchpin to the whole debacle for the side that thinks that Be'lakor breaks the Loci, among other things.

    Their core argument appears to be that since the allegiance keywords don't match exactly (Be'lakor has all 4, a KoS has only 1), they are not the same and thus having Be'lakor stops you from getting a Daemonic Loci bonus.

    Have you looked in the BRB page 245, where it specifically deals with how you should read rules like the ones for Daemonic Loci that ask you to look if things match in some way?
    Here's a snippet from the page in question:
    BRB page 245, headline FACTIONS, summery box wrote:
    Faction: Described by Faction keywords on a unit's datasheet.
    If Detachment requires all units to be from the same Faction, they must all share at least one Faction keyword.

    So, since a KoS and Be'lakor from the War Zone supplement both share at least one Faction keyword, SLAANESH, they fulfil the requirement.

    If you still think keywords must all match exactly to qualify, back that up with references to the rules that supports your interpretation.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 17:42:46


     
       
    Made in us
    Captain of the Forlorn Hope





    Chicago, IL

    warped wrote:
     DeathReaper wrote:

    KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword.
    Page 84 of the Codex under the headline KEYWORDS, second sentence:
    This is shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below:

    Not treated different in the rules.
    For the Be'lakor dataslate, which is what we were talking about, it does not let you get a keyword of your own choosing at all. So they are treated different in the rules for the situation we are discussing.

    "Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

    I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

    We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
     
       
    Made in us
    Confessor Of Sins




    Tacoma, WA, USA

    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    No. It does not. The SLAANESH keyword is the SLAANESH keyword whether it is on the datasheet or selected via <Allegiance>.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 00:54:49


     
       
    Made in us
    Captain of the Forlorn Hope





    Chicago, IL

     alextroy wrote:
    <Allegiance>
    With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH.
    No. It does not. The SLAANESH keyword is the SLAANESH keyword whether it is on the datasheet or selected via <Allegiance>.
    No what does not? What are you talking about?

    "Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

    I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

    We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
     
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
    Go to: