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.

So it just came to my attention that, thanks to GW's last FAQ stating that names that were bolded were keywords while names that aren't bolded are unit names, the Hammerstrike Force in the new Stormcast book can never be used.

The Hammerstrike Force requires:
2x units of PALADINS (bolded)
1x unit of Prosecutors (not bolded)

By the FAQ, you need to field an actual unit named "Prosecutors", with precisely that name as "Prosecutors" is a specific unit name, not a keyword since it is not in bold. There are "Prosecutors with Celestial Hammers" and "Prosecutors with Stormcall Javelins" but nothing called simply "Prosecutors". Ergo, this battalion cannot actually be fielded because you can never meet the requirements since there is no unit called "Prosecutors" to satisfy it.

Now, of course, I am not saying this is even remotely sane and I would expect any reasonable person to allow it, but RAW this new battalion, after the FAQ in question, can never be fielded.

There's more than one instance of things that have an extremely obvious RAI but on a technical level don't work at all RAW (see the 'Bonds of Hate' rule from Celestial Vindicators), though I find this one particularly humorous.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There's more than one instance of things that have an extremely obvious RAI but on a technical level don't work at all RAW (see the 'Bonds of Hate' rule from Celestial Vindicators), though I find this one particularly humorous.

Indeed. It just goes to show that GW can barely remember their own rules, or simply chooses to ignore them.

Wayniac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There's more than one instance of things that have an extremely obvious RAI but on a technical level don't work at all RAW (see the 'Bonds of Hate' rule from Celestial Vindicators), though I find this one particularly humorous.

Indeed. It just goes to show that GW can barely remember their own rules, or simply chooses to ignore them.

Eh, I don't think its a huge deal as long as they keep up with FAQs. I couldn't even see a tournament ruling that Prosecutors couldn't be used here, for example.

Prosecutors are formatted in this manner in their warscroll

PROSECUTORS
with whatever weapon

So I think that's why they think those pass.

aquietfrog wrote:
Prosecutors are formatted in this manner in their warscroll

PROSECUTORS
with whatever weapon

So I think that's why they think those pass.

Yeah, this is probably it. But, I think its more than that; GW change the FAQ concerning keywords in battalion in December, which is not a long time when we talk about the writing of army books. I think this a transition error that will become better down the line - Tzeentch and Stormcast came too close to be perfect in this regard.

The change GW did in their FAQ was a really good change, now they just need to FAQ Tzeentch and Stormcast, and get this right with the steamheads

aquietfrog wrote:
Prosecutors are formatted in this manner in their warscroll

PROSECUTORS
with whatever weapon

So I think that's why they think those pass.

Probably right but the inconsistencies are weird. And GW generally doesn't remember their own FAQs but that is another argument.

The counter I see to this is that the weapon type is still part of the unit name, so it doesn't count because weapon choices are in one of the boxes below, not the name. So:

PROSECUTORS
WITH CELESTIAL HAMMERS

is still not the same thing as just "Prosecutors". however the person I am arguing with on another forum over this is adamant about the fact it MUST match exactly ("The options are referred in the box in the warscroll, but "with..." it's still part of the name of the unit") or you can't use it, because that's what the rules say and if you disagree, you need to change the rules you can't just pretend it's the same thing or you're cheating. I get the impression he's not saying you can't do that, but that instead you need to house rule it (the example he keeps giving is that a tournament needs to explicitly state it's okay, or else it isn't) and is arguing tooth and nail that the default is, in fact, that the battalion isn't usable because there is no such unit called just "Prosecutors". It might be a language thing (he's Italian I think) as well.

Even though it might not be possible RAW, I cannot imagine a judge at an event agreeing to this.

I have judged many events and I would laugh at the guy that tries to win or invalidate an opponents list with that argument. I cannot imagine any judge doing it otherwise.

Going RAI and the subparagraph with whatever weapon explicitly acknowledging the intention makes it hard to judge otherwise.

Definitely. It's why i find this guy's argument so crazy, he is arguing vehemently that it's exactly this way, and any other way is not using the rules (which he acknowledges at least as being a thing)

Wayniac wrote:
Definitely. It's why i find this guy's argument so crazy, he is arguing vehemently that it's exactly this way, and any other way is not using the rules (which he acknowledges at least as being a thing)

I think he is simply pointing out technical flaws in rule design rather than suggesting anyone would actually play that way.