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.

Just wanted to confirm that you can still run Magnus as a LoW in a super heavy aux detachment with a Tzeentch demon batallion detachment using the army keyword Tzeentch. (Don't have the new Thousand Sons codex so not positive on Magnus' faction keywords since the index to codex change. Last I checked they were Heretic Astarte, Thousand Sons and Tzeentch. Also if this is possible, am I still allowed to take psychic powers from either the Disciplines of change or Tzeench? Thank you!

Why cannot?

They share Tzeentch keyword in addition to the Chaos keyword.

You are misunderstanding how the keywords work.

BATTLE BROTHERS:
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.

This means that each unit in a detachment has to share a keyword, with some exceptions, but each detachment can have different keywords. This allows me, for example, to take a detachment of space marines and a sperate detachment of Ad Mech if I choose. I can not have a unit of Skitarii Rangers in the Space Marine detachment however. For Magnus the issue is how his rules and spells effect models based on their keywords. If a rule says Thousand Son or Heretic Astartes they won't work on Daemons

Nixalys wrote:
Just wanted to confirm that you can still run Magnus as a LoW in a super heavy aux detachment with a Tzeentch demon batallion detachment using the army keyword Tzeentch. (Don't have the new Thousand Sons codex so not positive on Magnus' faction keywords since the index to codex change. Last I checked they were Heretic Astarte, Thousand Sons and Tzeentch. Also if this is possible, am I still allowed to take psychic powers from either the Disciplines of change or Tzeench? Thank you!

Due to the Designers Commentary you actually can't use Tzeentch like that, but it's a moot point because you can still use CHAOS. You can't use CHAOS within a detachment, but you can between detachments. An army with Magnus in one detachment and Tzeentch daemons in another is a perfectly legal CHAOS army.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Nixalys wrote:
Just wanted to confirm that you can still run Magnus as a LoW in a super heavy aux detachment with a Tzeentch demon batallion detachment using the army keyword Tzeentch. (Don't have the new Thousand Sons codex so not positive on Magnus' faction keywords since the index to codex change. Last I checked they were Heretic Astarte, Thousand Sons and Tzeentch. Also if this is possible, am I still allowed to take psychic powers from either the Disciplines of change or Tzeench? Thank you!

Due to the Designers Commentary you actually can't use Tzeentch like that, but it's a moot point because you can still use CHAOS. You can't use CHAOS within a detachment, but you can between detachments. An army with Magnus in one detachment and Tzeentch daemons in another is a perfectly legal CHAOS army.

Not this again. BCB, please stop asserting that the Designer's Commentary disallows using the Chaos gods as a common keyword - the section you claim disallows this doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

TZEENTCH is a perfectly legal faction keyword, and what the OP has asked about is legal as-is. You can even take a single Supreme Commnd detachment that includes Magnus and an LoC , using TZEENTCH as the common keyword.

Except the designers commentary does explicitly disallow keywords where you have a choice from circumventing detachment limitations. If you didn't want to start up this conversation again why point it out?

Probably because given that Magnus and about 95% of Tzeetch Demons don't get to pick their Keyword, making the argument you brought up inapplicable in the first place.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except the designers commentary does explicitly disallow keywords where you have a choice from circumventing detachment limitations. If you didn't want to start up this conversation again why point it out?

To call you out on spreading what is (at best) a nonstandard interpretation as RAW fact, exactly as I said.

Please note that in the scenario given, there isn't even a choice. Magnus and the Tzeentchian daemons have TZEENTCH as keywords, not <Mark of Chaos> or any other selectable keyword. So even under your interpretation of the rules it should be allowed.

text removed.

Reds8n

FYI, to the OP, what BCB is referring to is that the rules in the applicable codexes that describe "mark of chaos" and "allegiance of chaos" tell you about the Khorne, Nurgle, Slannesh, and Tzeentch keywords, and BCB believes that the relevant <<Keyword>> on the dataslates are not equivalent. BCB posits that <<mark of chaos>>=Khorne is not equivalent to <<allegiance of chaos>>=Khorne during army construction. He believes this to be the case because the Designer's Commentary states that when you can choose your own name for things, such as with <<Chapter>> or <<Regiment>>, you cannot choose names of things that already exist for the purpose of gaining benefits, such as naming your <<Regiment>> "Ultramarines" in order to benefit from the re-rolls given by an Ultramarine Captain. The counter that the majority of players and TO's have taken to this argument is that, unlike naming your own <<Chapter>> or <<Regiment>>, mark of chaos and allegiance of chaos give you a restrictive option of keywords, rather than open-ended keywords, and so once something is Khorne chosen from the restrictive choices, it is Khorne for anything and everything that comes up, includes army creation. To my knowledge, all TO's I have asked have sided with you being able to use Magnus in a Daemons detachment where all the units in the detachment share the Tzeentch keyword, regardless of how they gained that keyword.

I hope this tells you that, generally, this is fine, but you should still seek TO approval before bringing this to a tournament.

It's not I who posits it, but GW themselves. RaW they are the same keyword and all is dandy, but GW decided to muddy the waters because they wanted to prevent Wu-Tang-Clan style shenanigans while keeping "custom" keywords, and botched it horrifically.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not I who posits it, but GW themselves. RaW they are the same keyword and all is dandy, but GW decided to muddy the waters because they wanted to prevent Wu-Tang-Clan style shenanigans while keeping "custom" keywords, and botched it horrifically.

Can you at least agree that in the specific instance given - that of Magnus being in a separate detachment entirely, and where all datasheets involved (Magnus and Daemons of Tzeentch) have a faction keyword of TZEENTCH explicitly written in - it's allowed?

Even if your interpretation of the Designer's Commentary was correct - which, as previously stated, is heavily disputed - that rule would still only apply to single detachments where there are keywords you need to select involved, neither of which apply in this instance. So I have no idea why you would think this specific situation was disallowed.

EDIT: Rather than clogging up this thread with the same argument, I wouod recommend you check out this thread for a fairly in-depth discussion of the wider question.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not I who posits it, but GW themselves. RaW they are the same keyword and all is dandy, but GW decided to muddy the waters because they wanted to prevent Wu-Tang-Clan style shenanigans while keeping "custom" keywords, and botched it horrifically.

Actually it IS you who posits it, at least when it comes to trying to differentiate between <Mark of Chaos>=Khorne and <Allegiance> = Khorne as opposed to Khorne = Khorne. If you take the Thousand Sons Codex, you come up with units that just say TZEENCH, not <Mark of Chaos> or <Allegiance>, and you can't prove from that codex that there's a difference. Of course then you have to deal with whether TZEENCH is different from <Mark of Chaos>=TZEENCH and <Allegiance>= TZEENCH, which does seem very unlikely that there are 3 flavors of TZEENCH that are mutually incompatible keywords when you end up with all of them only saying TZEENCH when you've substituted in the chaos faction as you are told to do. Please don't deny your culpability in trying to make this an issue; your "it's not me, it's them!" protestation rings hollow.

But, as you say, he can always have different detachments linked by Chaos even if we are going to pretend that TZEENCH does not equal TZEENCH.

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not I who posits it, but GW themselves. RaW they are the same keyword and all is dandy, but GW decided to muddy the waters because they wanted to prevent Wu-Tang-Clan style shenanigans while keeping "custom" keywords, and botched it horrifically.

Can you at least agree that in the specific instance given - that of Magnus being in a separate detachment entirely, and where all datasheets involved (Magnus and Daemons of Tzeentch) have a faction keyword of TZEENTCH explicitly written in - it's allowed?

Even if your interpretation of the Designer's Commentary was correct - which, as previously stated, is heavily disputed - that rule would still only apply to single detachments where there are keywords you need to select involved, neither of which apply in this instance. So I have no idea why you would think this specific situation was disallowed.

Actually, the "hard coded" keywords are still <ALLEGIANCE> for Chaos Daemons and <MARK OF CHAOS> for Heretic Astartes, while for Thousand Sons it's just plain old TZEENTCH, neither <ALLEGIANCE> or <MARK OF CHAOS>. This is because of the rules found on page 84 of Codex: Chaos Daemons and page 116 of Codex: Heretic Astartes Chaos Space Marines 2: Electric Boogaloo the Squeakquel explicitly state that those keywords are <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> even though they are hard coded in. Codex: Heretic Astartes Thousand Sons doesn't have any such rule, thus their faction keyword is just plain, simple Garak TZEENTCH.

If it were Magnus in one detachment and Thousand Sons in the other, then yes, you'd be correct you could use TZEENTCH as your Army Faction. Nevertheless the point is entirely moot as you can use CHAOS as your army faction still.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not I who posits it, but GW themselves. RaW they are the same keyword and all is dandy, but GW decided to muddy the waters because they wanted to prevent Wu-Tang-Clan style shenanigans while keeping "custom" keywords, and botched it horrifically.

Can you at least agree that in the specific instance given - that of Magnus being in a separate detachment entirely, and where all datasheets involved (Magnus and Daemons of Tzeentch) have a faction keyword of TZEENTCH explicitly written in - it's allowed?

Even if your interpretation of the Designer's Commentary was correct - which, as previously stated, is heavily disputed - that rule would still only apply to single detachments where there are keywords you need to select involved, neither of which apply in this instance. So I have no idea why you would think this specific situation was disallowed.

Actually, the "hard coded" keywords are still <ALLEGIANCE> for Chaos Daemons and <MARK OF CHAOS> for Heretic Astartes, while for Thousand Sons it's just plain old TZEENTCH, neither <ALLEGIANCE> or <MARK OF CHAOS>. This is because of the rules found on page 84 of Codex: Chaos Daemons and page 116 of Codex: Heretic Astartes Chaos Space Marines 2: Electric Boogaloo the Squeakquel explicitly state that those keywords are <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> even though they are hard coded in. Codex: Heretic Astartes Thousand Sons doesn't have any such rule, thus their faction keyword is just plain, simple Garak TZEENTCH.

If it were Magnus in one detachment and Thousand Sons in the other, then yes, you'd be correct you could use TZEENTCH as your Army Faction. Nevertheless the point is entirely moot as you can use CHAOS as your army faction still.

Of course, that ignores the fact that when you are told to replace <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> with, for example, TZEENTCH, it doesn't have <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> any more as the keyword, only TZEENTCH.

To the OP, sorry that this got derailed.

 doctortom wrote:
Of course, that ignores the fact that when you are told to replace <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> with, for example, TZEENTCH, it doesn't have <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> any more as the keyword, only TZEENTCH.

To the OP, sorry that this got derailed.

And why is it not the same for <CHAPTER> and <REGIMENT>? Could I not replace both of those with EXAMPLE? The FAQ forbids you from bypassing detachment restrictions (but not Auras or other rules) by doing so, and it's the same situation for <MARK OF CHAOS> and <ALLEGIANCE>. You can't have it both ways, either it's all OK or none of it is. The FAQ says none of it is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Of course, that ignores the fact that when you are told to replace <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> with, for example, TZEENTCH, it doesn't have <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> any more as the keyword, only TZEENTCH.

To the OP, sorry that this got derailed.

And why is it not the same for <CHAPTER> and <REGIMENT>? Could I not replace both of those with EXAMPLE? The FAQ forbids you from bypassing detachment restrictions (but not Auras or other rules) by doing so, and it's the same situation for <MARK OF CHAOS> and <ALLEGIANCE>. You can't have it both ways, either it's all OK or none of it is. The FAQ says none of it is.

The FAQ is addressing naming your own regiment or Chapter. It is not dealing with a "Choose one of the following" type situation that you have with Mark of Chaos and Allegiance. Since it's not dealing with a "choose one of the following" situation, it does not apply to that situation.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Of course, that ignores the fact that when you are told to replace <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> with, for example, TZEENTCH, it doesn't have <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> any more as the keyword, only TZEENTCH.

To the OP, sorry that this got derailed.

And why is it not the same for <CHAPTER> and <REGIMENT>? Could I not replace both of those with EXAMPLE? The FAQ forbids you from bypassing detachment restrictions (but not Auras or other rules) by doing so, and it's the same situation for <MARK OF CHAOS> and <ALLEGIANCE>. You can't have it both ways, either it's all OK or none of it is. The FAQ says none of it is.

The FAQ is addressing naming your own regiment or Chapter. It is not dealing with a "Choose one of the following" type situation that you have with Mark of Chaos and Allegiance. Since it's not dealing with a "choose one of the following" situation, it does not apply to that situation.

Agreed. the FAQ BCB keeps referring to is specifically referring to "Create your own" keywords, which TZEENTCH, KHORNE, etc are NOT when it comes to <Mark of Chaos> and <Allegiance>

Same goes for ULTRAMARINES. For <Chapter Tactics> UM is a valid choice from a list you can pick from.
For <Regiment> UM is NOT and thus falls into the "Create your own" category, which is when the Designer's Commentary FAQ comes into play

-

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not I who posits it, but GW themselves. RaW they are the same keyword and all is dandy, but GW decided to muddy the waters because they wanted to prevent Wu-Tang-Clan style shenanigans while keeping "custom" keywords, and botched it horrifically.

Can you at least agree that in the specific instance given - that of Magnus being in a separate detachment entirely, and where all datasheets involved (Magnus and Daemons of Tzeentch) have a faction keyword of TZEENTCH explicitly written in - it's allowed?

Even if your interpretation of the Designer's Commentary was correct - which, as previously stated, is heavily disputed - that rule would still only apply to single detachments where there are keywords you need to select involved, neither of which apply in this instance. So I have no idea why you would think this specific situation was disallowed.

Actually, the "hard coded" keywords are still <ALLEGIANCE> for Chaos Daemons and <MARK OF CHAOS> for Heretic Astartes, while for Thousand Sons it's just plain old TZEENTCH, neither <ALLEGIANCE> or <MARK OF CHAOS>. This is because of the rules found on page 84 of Codex: Chaos Daemons and page 116 of Codex: Heretic Astartes Chaos Space Marines 2: Electric Boogaloo the Squeakquel explicitly state that those keywords are <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> even though they are hard coded in. Codex: Heretic Astartes Thousand Sons doesn't have any such rule, thus their faction keyword is just plain, simple Garak TZEENTCH.

If it were Magnus in one detachment and Thousand Sons in the other, then yes, you'd be correct you could use TZEENTCH as your Army Faction. Nevertheless the point is entirely moot as you can use CHAOS as your army faction still.

Actually, this is not what it says. To be more precise, it says (emphasis mine):

Codex: Chaos Daemons wrote:most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to... If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword... 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.

That's not quite the same thing. It states that most datasheets have the small-font allegiance already, then tells you what to do with <ALLEGIANCE> for those cases where they do not. If you're going to argue about exact definitions of things, it's best to be clear what the rules actually say, rather than making assumptions.

For the record, here is the question in the designer's commentary which BCB states applies to the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword options:

Designer's Commentary wrote:Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

It has been pointed out that the options for <ALLEGIANCE> are explicitly listed and that this question is talking about creating your own keywords, but BCB has not accepted this argument because... reasons.

I interpret "of your own creation" to also include picking from a list. I admit there is an argument to be made the other way, I simply think it doesn't hold water. In any case, my final word on the subject is to confirm to the OP that, yes, you can run Magnus with a Tzeench Daemon army because of CHAOS.

Edit: It's not my fault GW make FAQs that screw up their game with unintended side effects. I accept that ignoring the RaW via FAQ is something we just have to live with, but if GW are going to do it then I am going to hold their feet to the fire when it goes wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I interpret "of your own creation" to also include picking from a list. I admit there is an argument to be made the other way, I simply think it doesn't hold water. In any case, my final word on the subject is to confirm to the OP that, yes, you can run Magnus with a Tzeench Daemon army because of CHAOS.

Cool, glad to see you've finally accepted that this is just your interpretation.

And yes, it's been confirmed for a while that the OP can take Magnus in one detachment and Tzeentch Daemons in another detachment. I like how you choose to use the passive-aggressive "because of CHAOS" at the end instead of trying to formulate a response to my demonstration that the TZEENTCH in the Daemon datasheets is not actually a different printed, hard-coded TZEENTCH to that of Magnus.

I'd be interested to hear your response to that, because it affects the ability to take Magnus in the same detachment as Tzeentch Daemons - it's not exactly the same as the original question, but it's hardly off-topic since it's closely related.

TZEENTCH is the same as TZEENTCH and don’t let some random guy on the internet tell you otherwise.

Especially if they’re mispurposing an FAQ to force their interpretation to fit. Which BCB is doing. He’s wrong, has been shown to be wrong by many on many threads, but won’t let that stop him posting his hot take again.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
TZEENTCH is the same as TZEENTCH and don’t let some random guy on the internet tell you otherwise.

Especially if they’re mispurposing an FAQ to force their interpretation to fit. Which BCB is doing. He’s wrong, has been shown to be wrong by many on many threads, but won’t let that stop him posting his hot take again.

Wait but if that's the case are you saying there is nothing preventing you from souping inside a detachment all of the chaos codexes so long as they serve the same god? That doesn't seem right. (Sorry about asking in this thread but i'm genuinely confused)

Kaneda88 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
TZEENTCH is the same as TZEENTCH and don’t let some random guy on the internet tell you otherwise.

Especially if they’re mispurposing an FAQ to force their interpretation to fit. Which BCB is doing. He’s wrong, has been shown to be wrong by many on many threads, but won’t let that stop him posting his hot take again.

Wait but if that's the case are you saying there is nothing preventing you from souping inside a detachment all of the chaos codexes so long as they serve the same god? That doesn't seem right. (Sorry about asking in this thread but i'm genuinely confused)

You can indeed "soup" a detachment using just TZEENTCH, but you won't get faction-specific traits unless the detachment also shares the same <Legion> or Daemon equivalent. So while, legal, it's not worth doing if you want special rules/stratagems

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I interpret "of your own creation" to also include picking from a list.

Ah, that makes sense if that is how you interpret it. I still think you're wrong, but at least I can finally see why you think this.
ULTRAMARINES is an approved <Chapter Tactic> that give you bonuses, because GW created it for you
ULTRAMARINES is not a approved <Regiment> and thus does not and is treated as a "Create your own"

ULTRAMARINES =/= ULTRAMARINES in this case.
But TZEENTCH = TZEENTCH in both instances of <Mark> and <Allegiance>
Chapter TZEENTCH =/= either TZEENTCH above, however

-

Hmm alright, i believe I understand (side note this is just a 2v2 game planned for next sunday with buddies, imperium vs chaos 1500 pts per person so they wont care too much). I just wanted to make sure my list was considered legit though. I planned to bring a batallion of tzeentch demons, and in order to bring magnus, a super heavy aux deatachment as well. If im allowed to use the keyword chaos, then your "army faction keyword" doesnt have to be a faction keyword specificaly? My original post was under the assumption that magnus got the chaos faction keyword removed and put in just keywords in his profile during transition from index to TS codex but i dont have my copy of dex yet so just wanted to confirm. If im allowed to use the keyword chaos then im totally down for that haha. Update: Nvm, I just reread everything and yeah, the mark of chaos, and allegience options are not option for the models im using, they simply all have the faction keyword and keywords of Tzeentch

Yeah, BCB is 100% wrong in this thread; he’s claiming he’s writing RAW, but he’s actually doing RAIBBCB (rules as interpreted by BaconCatBug). It’s literally everyone telling him he’s wrong, but he won’t accept it (he’s right on plenty of stuff, but this isn’t one of those times). You’re cool to put Maggy with Tzeentch Daemons. Hell, he has the Chaos, Daemon AND Tzeentch keywords. You’re beyond golden in the matter.

I don't have the Codex, but I'm pretty sure Magnus does not have the Daemon Faction Keyword. Therefore, you can put him in a Tzeentch Faction Detachment, but not in a Daemon Faction Detachment.

 alextroy wrote:
I don't have the Codex, but I'm pretty sure Magnus does not have the Daemon Faction Keyword. Therefore, you can put him in a Tzeentch Faction Detachment, but not in a Daemon Faction Detachment.

Correct. He has the DAEMON keyword, but not DAEMON faction keyword.

Stop beating up on BCB. There's no reason to make this personal.

He's wrong on this one, we know he's wrong on this one, and that should be it.

I still believe there still should be some moderator action for intentionally misleading everyone who asks this question.