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.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

Now, does this mean I can't have a detachment of (say) HERETIC ASTARTES and a detachment of CHAOS DAEMONS in the same matched play army anymore, since they only share the CHAOS keyword? Or is it saying I can't combine HERETIC ASTARTES and CHAOS DAEMONS in the same detachment, but can have them in different detachments?

It says it doesn't effect your army keyword, so don't worry about that.

You cant make any detachment where the only common keyword is chaos.

There are a few ways around this, such as using Heretic Astartes or Chaos God keywords instead.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Or is it saying I can't combine HERETIC ASTARTES and CHAOS DAEMONS in the same detachment, but can have them in different detachments?

That one.
The Chaos/Imperium/whatever keywords are still valid as common keywords for your army as a whole. So soup armies are still okay, but not soup detachments.

The rule forbids soup detachments. Soup armies are still legal.

Following the rule, Fallen (with only the CHAOS, IMPERIUM, and FALLEN) keywords can no longer be used unless 3 of them make a Vanguard with Cypher at the helm.

Sad.

The intent is very clear and if you play itc format you won’t be able to talk your way around this one bruh.

 Primark G wrote:
The intent is very clear and if you play itc format you won’t be able to talk your way around this one bruh.

I had hoped ITC would take a stand for what is right and refuse these dumb rules.

are you required to be battle forged for matched play?

 davou wrote:
are you required to be battle forged for matched play?

Yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
The intent is very clear and if you play itc format you won’t be able to talk your way around this one bruh.

I had hoped ITC would take a stand for what is right and refuse these dumb rules.

Tournament discussion for your feelings about Rules at tourneys is elsewhere. This is YMDC for how rules are interpreted and applied.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
The intent is very clear and if you play itc format you won’t be able to talk your way around this one bruh.

I had hoped ITC would take a stand for what is right and refuse these dumb rules.

Says the one claiming falsely he only plays 100% RAW...

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
The intent is very clear and if you play itc format you won’t be able to talk your way around this one bruh.

I had hoped ITC would take a stand for what is right and refuse these dumb rules.

Says the one claiming falsely he only plays 100% RAW...

Oh burrrrrn.

I love the Johnny vs BCB rivalry up in YMDC. It's the reason I read this section.

 hollow one wrote:
I love the Johnny vs BCB rivalry up in YMDC. It's the reason I read this section.

Its great isn't it. A better love story than Twilight.

In fact I might make up some "Team BaconCatBug" and "Team JohnnyHell" t-shirts and sell them.

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
The intent is very clear and if you play itc format you won’t be able to talk your way around this one bruh.

I had hoped ITC would take a stand for what is right and refuse these dumb rules.

Says the one claiming falsely he only plays 100% RAW...

Beta Rules are not mandatory by definition, and in this instance they are simply stupid and wrong. If (and by if I mean WHEN because GW) they become full proper rules, I'll begrudgingly play with them. If anyone I play with insists on using them, I'll insist on using the 100% strict RaW, hopefully winning by default, eh?

I don't understand what's stupid and wrong about this rule. It seems crystal clear.

"Imperium etc" as the shared keyword for an army? YES
"Imperium etc" as the shared keyword for a detachment? NO

That's all it is, surely?

 Silentz wrote:
I don't understand what's stupid and wrong about this rule. It seems crystal clear.

"Imperium etc" as the shared keyword for an army? YES
"Imperium etc" as the shared keyword for a detachment? NO

That's all it is, surely?

It totally mis understands what people had an issue with.
No one gave a toss about someone building a fluffy bunny army with no traits ot strategums.
People are fed up of dealing with
Alitoc Ynnari supper friends lists.
Custodes with IG CP battery battalion
BA with IG CP battery battalion
Nurgle, thousand sons, korn super friends lists.
This affects non of the things people wanted to see nerfed and instead punishes fluff bunnies who were already self harming.

Ice_can wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
I don't understand what's stupid and wrong about this rule. It seems crystal clear.

"Imperium etc" as the shared keyword for an army? YES
"Imperium etc" as the shared keyword for a detachment? NO

That's all it is, surely?

It totally mis understands what people had an issue with.
No one gave a toss about someone building a fluffy bunny army with no traits ot strategums.
People are fed up of dealing with
Alitoc Ynnari supper friends lists.
Custodes with IG CP battery battalion
BA with IG CP battery battalion
Nurgle, thousand sons, korn super friends lists.
This affects non of the things people wanted to see nerfed and instead punishes fluff bunnies who were already self harming.

Some people have issues with those things. GW obviously disagrees and intents for an army to have multiple detachments from different sources.
And no it wasn't used by just 'Fluff bunny's'. A Battalion of Celestine, an IG Commander and 3x5 SM scouts was not unusual for a competitive list. None of those units cared about traits & stratagems.

Ice_can wrote:

It totally mis understands what people had an issue with.
No one gave a toss about someone building a fluffy bunny army with no traits ot strategums.
People are fed up of dealing with
Alitoc Ynnari supper friends lists.
Custodes with IG CP battery battalion
BA with IG CP battery battalion
Nurgle, thousand sons, korn super friends lists.
This affects non of the things people wanted to see nerfed and instead punishes fluff bunnies who were already self harming.

This, so much this. The rule fails to address what the real problem was, and mainly just hurts those interested in fluffy combinations that were already taking a hit by losing faction traits.

A lot of people are reading this the wrong way.

You can have an army with Detachment A: Chaos Daemons and Detachment B: Chaos Space Marines. The army keyword is Chaos, and each detachment has a keyword other than the army keyword.

You can not have an army with Detachment A: some Chaos Space Marines / some Daemons. The army keyword is Chaos, but the units in the detachment only share the Chaos faction keyword.

Notice the rule does allow other faction keywords to be mixed. There are a lot of Chaos units with Dark Mechanicum, for instance, which may someday become a full army.

To be clear, the rule affects the units that go into detachments, not armies. You are still fine to use detachments from multiple Codexes as long as they share a faction keyword.

 Ordana wrote:
Some people have issues with those things. GW obviously disagrees and intents for an army to have multiple detachments from different sources.
And no it wasn't used by just 'Fluff bunny's'. A Battalion of Celestine, an IG Commander and 3x5 SM scouts was not unusual for a competitive list. None of those units cared about traits & stratagems.

Was not aware of the commonality of that particular mixed detachment, and I can see why preventing that sort of combination would be worthwhile. Seems like there could have been a better way to achieve it, however.

 Silentz wrote:

 hollow one wrote:
I love the Johnny vs BCB rivalry up in YMDC. It's the reason I read this section.

Its great isn't it. A better love story than Twilight.

In fact I might make up some "Team BaconCatBug" and "Team JohnnyHell" t-shirts and sell them.

Let me know if you actually get around making them.

 skchsan wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

 hollow one wrote:
I love the Johnny vs BCB rivalry up in YMDC. It's the reason I read this section.

Its great isn't it. A better love story than Twilight.

In fact I might make up some "Team BaconCatBug" and "Team JohnnyHell" t-shirts and sell them.

Let me know if you actually get around making them.

Or if you schedule a steel cage match.

 doctortom wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

 hollow one wrote:
I love the Johnny vs BCB rivalry up in YMDC. It's the reason I read this section.

Its great isn't it. A better love story than Twilight.

In fact I might make up some "Team BaconCatBug" and "Team JohnnyHell" t-shirts and sell them.

Let me know if you actually get around making them.

Or if you schedule a steel cage match.

I was thinking a wedding when they finally realise their true feelings.

He’s actually my sockpuppet account. Yeah I got issues.


(Note to mods HE ISN’T HONESTLY!!!)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
He’s actually my sockpuppet account. Yeah I got issues.


(Note to mods HE ISN’T HONESTLY!!!)

Are you HIS puppet though?

*edit* technically you didn't exclude that, so it's technically correct. Which is BCBs kind of correct, isn't it? It's all coming together now.

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
He’s actually my sockpuppet account. Yeah I got issues.


(Note to mods HE ISN’T HONESTLY!!!)

Are you HIS puppet though?

*edit* technically you didn't exclude that, so it's technically correct. Which is BCBs kind of correct, isn't it? It's all coming together now.

By that logic my Space Marines have W90 and we’re all socks and NO-ONE IS PLAYING BY THE RULES.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
He’s actually my sockpuppet account. Yeah I got issues.


(Note to mods HE ISN’T HONESTLY!!!)

Are you HIS puppet though?

*edit* technically you didn't exclude that, so it's technically correct. Which is BCBs kind of correct, isn't it? It's all coming together now.

By that logic my Space Marines have W90 and we’re all socks and NO-ONE IS PLAYING BY THE RULES.

Isn't that exactly BCBs logic ? Or should I say YOUR LOGIC, MISTER BCB!?

*edit* cant decide what song to use when exiting the stage - nyancat or master of puppets?

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
He’s actually my sockpuppet account. Yeah I got issues.


(Note to mods HE ISN’T HONESTLY!!!)

Are you HIS puppet though?

*edit* technically you didn't exclude that, so it's technically correct. Which is BCBs kind of correct, isn't it? It's all coming together now.

By that logic my Space Marines have W90 and we’re all socks and NO-ONE IS PLAYING BY THE RULES.

Isn't that exactly BCBs logic ? Or should I say YOUR LOGIC, MISTER BCB!?

So busted.

Can i just point out that the Battle-forged rules as stated, no longer allow Ynnari at all for matched play?

You cannot use YNNARI or AELDARI as the keyowrd for a detachment.
Yvraine, Yncarne, and Visarch only have 2 faction keyowrds - YNNARI and AELDARI.

Therefore they cannot be in a detahcment and cannot be your Warlord, and you can no longer make a Ynnari army.

 Happyjew wrote:
Can i just point out that the Battle-forged rules as stated, no longer allow Ynnari at all for matched play?

You cannot use YNNARI or AELDARI as the keyowrd for a detachment.
Yvraine, Yncarne, and Visarch only have 2 faction keyowrds - YNNARI and AELDARI.

Therefore they cannot be in a detahcment and cannot be your Warlord, and you can no longer make a Ynnari army.

Sure they can, you just have to take all 3 in a Supreme Command Detachment and take... err, nothing else.

That means you can take another detachment of ASURYANI or DRUKHARI and then give them the YNNARI keyword? You won't be able to mix and match ASURYANI YNNARI and DRUKHARI YNNARI anymore.