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.

I know this topic has already been discussed, but I can't find the discussion here.

Age of Sigmar has established rule, that keywords in the rules are bold, otherwise words are not keywords and are instead unit names or just have general meaning.
I took this as granted in 8ed 40k, BUT when my opponent asked to provide source for my common sense (he tried to use Hellbrute stratagem on hellforged deredeo dreadnought), I coulnd't find ANYTHING to back up position.

So, is there any rule in rulebook or FAQ which establishes this? Or as my opponent said units with Hellbrute can be activated by Hellbrute stratagem?

Fan67 wrote:
I know this topic has already been discussed, but I can't find the discussion here.

Age of Sigmar has established rule, that keywords in the rules are bold, otherwise words are not keywords and are instead unit names or just have general meaning.
I took this as granted in 8ed 40k, BUT when my opponent asked to provide source for my common sense (he tried to use Hellbrute stratagem on hellforged deredeo dreadnought), I coulnd't find ANYTHING to back up position.

So, is there any rule in rulebook or FAQ which establishes this? Or as my opponent said units with Hellbrute can be activated by Hellbrute stratagem?

If your stratagem asks for Hellbrute and the Deredeo has that keyword, it's a valid choice for whatever that stratagem does.you can derive that easily from Keywords, page 175.

I only have collector's edition and enhanced edition rulebooks with page numbers different from the normal rulebook, can you please clarify what page are you refering too? I can't find anything relevant via "keyword" search in the document.

All datasheets have a list of keywords,
sometimes separated into Faction
keywords and other keywords. The former
can be used as a guide to help decide
which models to include in your army,
but otherwise both sets of keywords are
functionally the same. Sometimes a rule
will say that it applies to models that have
a specific keyword. For example, a rule
might say that it applies to ‘all ADEPTUS
ASTARTES models’. This means it would
only apply to models that have the Adeptus
Astartes keyword on their datasheet
- Keywords

While it doesn't specifically state that keywords will always be Bold and Capitalized, the example used includes this Bold and Capitalized formatting to underline the Keyword in question. It isn't the only place where this very deliberate formatting choice is made, as every other case of a Keyword in the book also includes this Bold and Capitalized format. It is a deliberate choice by the Authors of this book that has a clear meaning, for even if it isn't defined within the Keyword definition itself every other case of a Keyword being refers to involves this Bold and Capitalized format. If your opponent doesn't believe Keywords are Bold and Capitalized by default, ask them why every other Keyword is formatted with this Bold and Capitalized format?

Authors have made their intent clear, Keywords are BOLD AND CAPITALIZED.
Your opponents 'best case' scenario is arguing that the Stratagem has a typo, that Helbrute was meant to be HELBRUTE....

And the Fire Frenzy stratagem says a Hellbrute not in bold caps so it's the unit name, not a keyword. So only normal Hellbrutes can use it.

Interesting discussion, but it's premised on the idea that GW editors are actually consistent in how they apply formatting across datasheets.

Aren't we really saying there's an unstated rule around unit names and keywords that's supposed to apply to every publication?

Forgive me if I am missing something, I only have the Indexes and Codex CSM. But, RAW, things like strategems seem to deal with keywords, as stated in @JinxDragon's post.

Antubis wrote:
And the Fire Frenzy stratagem says a Hellbrute not in bold caps so it's the unit name, not a keyword. So only normal Hellbrutes can use it.

Man))) This is exactly the question I was asked.
What makes you think that keyword has to be bold?

That what I was asked to find, and I failed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JinxDragon wrote:


Authors have made their intent clear, Keywords are BOLD AND CAPITALIZED.
Your opponents 'best case' scenario is arguing that the Stratagem has a typo, that Helbrute was meant to be HELBRUTE....

This is my logic, backed up by AoS FAQ, but my opponent is reasonably unwilling to extrapolate AoS rullings on 40k.
There must be actual rule about this, or else it is really editing preferences of given book authors and you just compare words in the rule with datasheet whether they're bold or not.

Fan67 wrote:
This is my logic, backed up by AoS FAQ, but my opponent is reasonably unwilling to extrapolate AoS rullings on 40k.
There must be actual rule about this, or else it is really editing preferences of given book authors and you just compare words in the rule with datasheet whether they're bold or not.

I've just gone through my Space Marine stratagems:

The Dreadnought Stragegem calls for a Dreadnought.
The Chaptermaster one calls for a Captain.
The Scout Bike one calls for a Scout Bike Squad.
The Predator one calls for 3 Predators.
The Vindicator one calls for 3 Vindicators.
The Sternguard one calls for a Sternguard Veteran Squad.
The Telemetry one calls for a Whirlwind and a Land Speeder. So far my favourite, doing this - consistency is for loosers, eh?
The TFC one calls for a Thunderfire Cannon.

The only thing I can see is whether or not GW (ignoring FW totally) knows whether or not there's another unit like that.
Land Speeders - could be a normal or Storm.
Dreadnought - could be a regular, Redemptor, Ironclad or Contemptor.
Captain - there are a ton of Captain datasheets

So for the ones that are in bold, they made sure any variant of the unit is a valid choice - e.g. any Dreadnought, as all of them have that keyword.

The ones not in bold have one singular thing in common: There is no other unit in the Codex that would fit. There are no other Predators, Vindicators, Scout Bikes, Sternguard, Whirlwinds or Thunderfire Cannons.

Now FW comes in and adds a ton of Dreadnought models that are valid choices for the Dreadnought stratagem. Then they add a Predator variant that - strictly speaking - isn't just a "Predator", but it has the Predator keyword. Then they add units with Whirlwind and Land Speeder units.

So far, that's just the facts.


HIWPI:
From all of this I think two things are clear:
1) GW wanted to include all units of a type within a codex to work with a given, fitting stratagem.
2) And they didn't look at what FW offers at all.

Yes, that's idiotic, and there's no excuse for them to not have used keywords on ALL stratagems - but I think the intent is to simply treat e.g. "a Predator" as a shy keyword, and just imagine it was bolder and thus a proper keyword.

Very good research.
So they bold only keywords which have more than one datasheet with them in the codex?

For fear of this turning into an echo chamber..

All Keywords are bold and capital.

If its not, its just a unit name.

This is abundantly clear from the description of keywords, and every example in every index and codex.

Yes this sometimes means some FW units don't have synergy they should.

The Datasheets have a Keyword section

When Keywords are referenced in the rules they use a special typeface and are bold.

It's not hard to spot a Keyword...

Captyn_Bob wrote:For fear of this turning into an echo chamber..

All Keywords are bold and capital.

If its not, its just a unit name.

This is abundantly clear from the description of keywords, and every example in every index and codex.

Yes this sometimes means some FW units don't have synergy they should.

JohnnyHell wrote:The Datasheets have a Keyword section

When Keywords are referenced in the rules they use a special typeface and are bold.

It's not hard to spot a Keyword...

Guys, it's all good, but do you have any hard data to support your position? Imagine you are at the tournament (my situation) and your opponent asks to show the rule.
May be there is a Facebook post concerning this issue?

What you are writing is common sense, I agree, but it's not how this game works.

I would agree that we should be basing these things off the idea that Keywords should be Bold and CAP.

But GW isn't consistent in their use. There was a big issue in the indexes about OOEs aura and Carnifex vs CARNIFEX.

We cannot count on them to be consistent. So all you can do is guess at RAI.

Went through all the stratagems in Codex: Chaos Space Marines. This agrees with what @nekooni says.

Here are the ones in bold:



Here are the ones not in bold:



While I agree with the points @nekooni makes about the intent of keywords, there are some further complications to assuming how they apply. One of the stratagems applies to units with <Legion> Chaos Predator. The Predator variant in IA Index: Forces of Chaos has keyword HELLFORGED PREDATOR. So it doesn't have a common keyword to go off.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Interesting discussion, but it's premised on the idea that GW editors are actually consistent in how they apply formatting across datasheets.

Aren't we really saying there's an unstated rule around unit names and keywords that's supposed to apply to every publication?

Forgive me if I am missing something, I only have the Indexes and Codex CSM. But, RAW, things like strategems seem to deal with keywords, as stated in @JinxDragon's post.

GW seems pretty consistent in how they format things. For example, in the Chaos Codex they allowed HELBRUTE to get the legion traits. Yet they only allow Helbrute to get the legion trait in Death Guard. So the first one was keyword intentional, as Forge World FAQ even supports, yet the second one is specifically for the Helbrute only (because FW Death Guard would be OP otherwise).

They also seem pretty consistent as far as stratagems go. The Vindicator stratagem only applies to the Vindicator model, not Forge World units that have the VINDICATOR keyword because some of them don't even have demolisher cannon required for the stratagem to work without defying logic. The Daemon Prince is unbolded in both the FAQ for legion traits and the spots that reference him in stratagems. This is because DAEMON PRINCE keyword units like Be'lakor or the Forge World ones do not benefit from these stratagems and rules. It's not like GW was unaware that future rules might call for applying to certain keywords because the Vindicator, Daemon Prince, and Chaos Cultists keywords do exist. The Stratagems simply don't reference them yet. It's possible that a future stratagem may or some other thing that revolves around keywords and so they made sure the core rules were in place for that day.

Until GW says otherwise, I think we can safely assume that the fact that some things are keyword font and some things aren't means there is a distinction. Especially when they could have carried over the Helbrute keyword font to the Death Guard legion traits yet they did not. Because a relentless HELBRUTE with guns better than a lascannon would just be nuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
HIWPI:
From all of this I think two things are clear:
1) GW wanted to include all units of a type within a codex to work with a given, fitting stratagem.
2) And they didn't look at what FW offers at all.

Yes, that's idiotic, and there's no excuse for them to not have used keywords on ALL stratagems - but I think the intent is to simply treat e.g. "a Predator" as a shy keyword, and just imagine it was bolder and thus a proper keyword.

I think the intent is the opposite. They wanted to keep the stratagems from being keywords because they knew future units may exist with these properties. The stratagems are only balanced around what exists in the codex. Once FW comes in, it throws the balance off and so they kept some of the keywords from functioning with units that haven't been considered yet to function with these stratagems.

With the Vindicator for example, the Linebreaker Bombardment stratagem operates off denying the Vindicators the ability to fire their demolisher cannons in exchange for a super bombardment. Yet there are Forgeworld models with the VINDICATOR keyword that don't even HAVE a Demolisher Cannon. How exactly are these units lending their support to bombarding an enemy unit? Can I take three of them and use them with the stratagem at no penalty while still firing all their other guns?

Fan67 wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:For fear of this turning into an echo chamber..

All Keywords are bold and capital.

If its not, its just a unit name.

This is abundantly clear from the description of keywords, and every example in every index and codex.

Yes this sometimes means some FW units don't have synergy they should.

JohnnyHell wrote:The Datasheets have a Keyword section

When Keywords are referenced in the rules they use a special typeface and are bold.

It's not hard to spot a Keyword...

Guys, it's all good, but do you have any hard data to support your position? Imagine you are at the tournament (my situation) and your opponent asks to show the rule.
May be there is a Facebook post concerning this issue?

What you are writing is common sense, I agree, but it's not how this game works.

I do. This from the front of Index Imperium 2. Every book with units in has something similar.



Clearly demonstrates the formatting of keywords to look for, and the intended usage.

Re: inconsistencies - a few errors and typos don't change that their intent is to be consistent, nor does that make the whole system fall over or not be there. They simply fall down for the rule or unit in question until errata'd. Sometimes they're intentionally not using a Keyword, and using a unit name instead. Again, that isn't inconsistent, it's a functional choice and consistent between unit name uses.

Nekooni,
Very nice Research, while conclusion point 2 is the issue here your point 1 was a good touch.

One would think, after so many years of rolling Forge-World into the standard game, that Game Workshop would at least cross-reference datasheets before they send a new Codex off to print. Hell, any competent editor would have simply Bold and Capitalized these 'shy keywords' (I like that) on the belief that the Author made a simple mistake anyway... I would have. The Keyword system is the core of their new Rule-interaction system after all, so every chance to utilize it should have been embraced. Naming a particular Units instead of their defining Keyword, even if it is the only Unit in the Codex with that Keyword, is very sloppy.

I am going to give more weight to people claiming Hebrute is a 'typo of sorts,' when I encounter it in the future.

Except Nekooni is wrong because he used the Space Marines codex to research instead of the Chaos Codex.

The HELBRUTE keyword is listed under the Legion Traits. Why? There is only one Helbrute in the Codex. Nekooni's entire theory hinges on Games Workshop ignoring keywords if there is only a single unit that benefits from them. Yet there is only a single Helbrute. Why do Legion Traits apply to all HELBRUTE keyword units then?

It's not a shy keyword at all. It was intentionally capitalized in the Legion Traits and intentionally not capitalized in the Stratagem. Just as Death Guard intentionally did not capitalize it in their Legion Trait to keep FW Helbrutes from making use of the run-and-gun with heavy weapons tactics.

The Space Marines book has multiple Dreadnoughts so the keyword appearing wasn't unusual. But there is only a single Helbrute, so having it be a keyword is very unusual.

Unless it was JUST AS PLANNED and Games Workshop really does mean to indicate a separation of the two.

Arkaine,
I was toying with future proofing but coming to the other conclusion, using Keywords consistently makes it easier for Authors to write Rules in the future. Not only would it get rid of hours of research, as new Authors would have to know how old Authors wrote Rule X compared to Rule Y, it is far more simpler to deny Models access to previous Rules. Should the Author want 'Helbrute version X' to be disallowed access to Helbrute specific Rules such as this Stratagem then they simply do not give it the Helbrute Keyword. Instead they make a completely new and unique Keyword which they start giving to these specific Models, in the same way we now have Primas Space Marines.

I then threw it all out for a simple reason:
When Game Workshop create a new Helbrute Units they will likely be selling us a new Codex to go along with them... the entire Strategem will be rewritten by that point!


Added:
Great, now I have to look through the books myself and come to my own conclusion once more... and I was doing something far more interesting then reading dozens of pages of Rules. I took Nekooni at their word as it looked like they did all the Research and found plenty of cases where 'shy Keywords' could be flagged. If you are claiming, as per the Legion Traits, that there are clear examples that are being overlooked by Nekooni then the entire conclusion is very much put into doubt. Thus, I will have to go back to listening to 'it is a form of typo' with the same degree of skepticism I originally had.

The twisted thing is, the only Unit that I care about isn't affected by this thanks to a oversight by Forge World....


There is a very simple solution to this:
Add the word Model to the Stratagem!

 Arkaine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
HIWPI:
Yes, that's idiotic, and there's no excuse for them to not have used keywords on ALL stratagems - but I think the intent is to simply treat e.g. "a Predator" as a shy keyword, and just imagine it was bolder and thus a proper keyword.

I think the intent is the opposite. They wanted to keep the stratagems from being keywords because they knew future units may exist with these properties. The stratagems are only balanced around what exists in the codex. Once FW comes in, it throws the balance off and so they kept some of the keywords from functioning with units that haven't been considered yet to function with these stratagems.

With the Vindicator for example, the Linebreaker Bombardment stratagem operates off denying the Vindicators the ability to fire their demolisher cannons in exchange for a super bombardment. Yet there are Forgeworld models with the VINDICATOR keyword that don't even HAVE a Demolisher Cannon. How exactly are these units lending their support to bombarding an enemy unit? Can I take three of them and use them with the stratagem at no penalty while still firing all their other guns?

That's a really good point! The Dreadnought Stratagem doesn't directly affect the model, but most of the others do, although it's not as bad as with the Linebreaker one. Is this similar to how the Chaos ones are set up? Then I'd agree that bold means keyword and where it's not bold it was NOT a keyword for a reason.

I'm glad you agree that, as the image I posted makes it abundantly clear that those are the rules!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I'm glad you agree that, as the image I posted makes it abundantly clear that those are the rules!

You do remember the board rules, do you? There's something in there about being polite to each other.

I'm pretty sure I clearly labelled my interpretation as HIWPI, and provided an explanation.
Someone much more polite than you explained where my argument was flawed and convinced me.

I really don't need you to come back in condescending as feth to tell me that it was "abundantly clear that those are the rules"(as written) , when what I wrote was talking about the authors intention, not the rules as written. I even said so, so it should have been abundantly clear for you. You do know what the acronym HIWPI means, do you? If not, please go ahead and hover your cursor over it, the board will tell you what it means. You're welcome.

The rules still do not say that words written in bold and all caps are keywords. It's logical to assume it, but it's not stated anywhere. That's why we were evaluating what the author(s) might have intended.

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I'm glad you agree that, as the image I posted makes it abundantly clear that those are the rules!

You do remember the board rules, do you? There's something in there about being polite to each other.

I'm pretty sure I clearly labelled my interpretation as HIWPI, and provided an explanation.
Someone much more polite than you explained where my argument was flawed and convinced me.

I really don't need you to come back in condescending as feth to tell me that it was "abundantly clear that those are the rules"(as written) , when what I wrote was talking about the authors intention, not the rules as written. I even said so, so it should have been abundantly clear for you. You do know what the acronym HIWPI means, do you? If not, please go ahead and hover your cursor over it, the board will tell you what it means. You're welcome.

The rules still do not say that words written in bold and all caps are keywords. It's logical to assume it, but it's not stated anywhere. That's why we were evaluating what the author(s) might have intended.

I was being sarcastic but if you took offense apologies. Still, report and move on, please don't essay me, eh?

The rules *demonstrate* exactly how keywords appear, and ergo do specify keyword format. It's apparent to most people. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time going along with this? It's obvious from the section I posted how the developers want it played - they're not ambiguous.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I was being sarcastic but if you took offense apologies. Still, report and move on, please don't essay me, eh?

Oh, sure, if it's sarcastic it's polite. Obviously. I simply have no idea of what sarcasm might look like, therefore I took offense on being applauded. Obviously.

This thread is great.

There are 3 things involved here:

1) Zealous adherence to a trend with no rule backing.

2) complaints of a FW unit not sharing a name, but a keyword to a GW unit unique in the GW book with the GW strategem that falls under #1.

3) Ignoring the fact that GW is inconsistent in rules writing and some strategems that do not fall under #1 are completely unusable if #1 applies to you.

Lets skip straight to #3, because you all should understand #2 by now(but I should know better than to expect that): Techsoldaten listed some of the non-bolded strategems and completely failed to use the proper "#1 doesn't work"; There are no units called "Chaos Space Marine Characters", there are no units called "Chaos Space Marine Daemon Vehicle", and there are no units called "Heretic Astartes Psyker". If you want to apply #1; then these strategems are useless.

You've got that wrong I think
It's
Chaos Space Marine CHARACTER
Chaos Space Marine DAEMON VEHICLE

Chaos Space Marine is a specific term defined in the opening section.

I'm not seeing heretic astartes psykers unbolded anywhere

Yeah, went and looked at the actual book after I posted. The only strategem/ rules that don't follow #1 completely is Chaos Boon table entries with "this character"; so the actual results do nothing with #1.

At any rate, HIWPI, is with #2 and designer's notes: Fire Frenzy can work on FW HELLBRUTEs, and linebreaker/killshot can work with FW variants but cannot then fire non-demolisher main guns(as the whatever other main gun is adding to the linebreaker shot), it seems fair as long as the player is not trying to add to the strategem and then firing the main gun since it is "not a Demolisher"(basically a FW vindicator either is adding its big gun to the combined attack, or the combined attack cannot be carried out at all, never both)

Fw helbrutes are pretty deverstating for just 1cp does seem like thats right to me

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
This thread is great.

There are 3 things involved here:

1) Zealous adherence to a trend with no rule backing.

2) complaints of a FW unit not sharing a name, but a keyword to a GW unit unique in the GW book with the GW strategem that falls under #1.

3) Ignoring the fact that GW is inconsistent in rules writing and some strategems that do not fall under #1 are completely unusable if #1 applies to you.

Lets skip straight to #3, because you all should understand #2 by now(but I should know better than to expect that): Techsoldaten listed some of the non-bolded strategems and completely failed to use the proper "#1 doesn't work"; There are no units called "Chaos Space Marine Characters", there are no units called "Chaos Space Marine Daemon Vehicle", and there are no units called "Heretic Astartes Psyker". If you want to apply #1; then these strategems are useless.

Thank you for adding the missing 4th thing:

4) inventing rules and assuming GW is inconsistent rather than writing things intentionally repeatedly.

I think I'll stick with what the rulebooks say rather than these other interpretations regarding HIWPI. The rule backing exist supporting that yet nothing exists supporting the concept of non-keywords being suddenly applicable to keywords.

Arkaine: that is just a variant of #1 with an add-on of true and supportable #3 with a twist of an ineffective attack at dissenters to your holy-writ of things that don't exist.