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.

Remember the Ulumeathi Plasma Syphon and the Haemotrope Reactor, and how due to RAW, a weapon could be treated as a Plasma Weapon by the former and not necessarily the latter for interaction purposes?

Alas, certain Stratagems seem to show that GW hasn't truly appreciated this issue. For example, Bolter Drill works on any weapon with the word "Bolt" in it. And a separate FAQ was required to clarify that a Wolf Guard with Terminator Armor in a mixed squad has the Terminator Keyword.

So why not just separate keywords to have different "scopes" of interaction? Unit-level, (ex: A Deathwatch squad), Model-level (arguably less important unless you want to add a "Squad Leader" keyword), and wargear-level (so a model in Terminator Armor has the Terminator Keyword, or a Meltagun has the Melta keyword). "Passive" items like armor, badges, etc, affect the unit's type, but "use" items (weapons, medpacks, etc) only matter when the item in question is being used.

This would remove excess verbiage, make it easier to add/edit in future content without having massive FAQ repetition, and minimize edgecases. ("Is an Inferno Cannon a Melta Weapon?" "No, it's a Flame Weapon. You're thinking of an Inferno *Pistol*")