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.

Hi Folks,
Just a quick question regarding fortification detachments for Chaos in 9th: Is it possible to run a fortification detachment with a Noctilith Crown and one or more feculent gnarlmaws? I note that the Crown only has the 'Chaos' faction keyword, so I imagine that this would be disallowed in 8th, but does 9th open this possibility? This would be to play with a DG main force, if that matters.

Thanks in advance!

I don't see why not.

Sweet. Doesn't seem like a terrible combo for a move, sit, and survive meta. Just makes DG characters, infantry, and daemon engines all a better ability to do that.

We dont know all the rules yet. A day 1 FAQ may disallow it.

Note that a Fortification Network consisting of only Feculent Gnarlmaws will unlock Daemon stratagems - not important for the most part, but it will give you access to the Daemonic Possession stratagem. A cute way to threaten enemy Psykers out of nowhere.

 TonyH122 wrote:
Hi Folks,
Just a quick question regarding fortification detachments for Chaos in 9th: Is it possible to run a fortification detachment with a Noctilith Crown and one or more feculent gnarlmaws? I note that the Crown only has the 'Chaos' faction keyword, so I imagine that this would be disallowed in 8th, but does 9th open this possibility? This would be to play with a DG main force, if that matters.

Thanks in advance!

"In a battle-forged army, all units in your army-with the exception of those that are unaligned must have at least one faction keyword in common" by CORE-RULES so yes

but

It's been spoiled that for matched play (In the muster army section "all of the units in every detatchment in your battle-forged army must have atleast one faction keyword in common and that keyword cannot be CHAOS, imperium.....")

So the Noctolith Crown being Chaos as its only keyword cannot be taken in matched play

U02dah4 wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Hi Folks,
Just a quick question regarding fortification detachments for Chaos in 9th: Is it possible to run a fortification detachment with a Noctilith Crown and one or more feculent gnarlmaws? I note that the Crown only has the 'Chaos' faction keyword, so I imagine that this would be disallowed in 8th, but does 9th open this possibility? This would be to play with a DG main force, if that matters.

Thanks in advance!

"In a battle-forged army, all units in your army-with the exception of those that are unaligned must have at least one faction keyword in common" by CORE-RULES so yes

but

It's been spoiled that for matched play (In the muster army section "all of the units in every detatchment in your battle-forged army must have atleast one faction keyword in common and that keyword cannot be CHAOS, imperium.....")

So the Noctolith Crown being Chaos as its only keyword cannot be taken in matched play

Imperium and Chaos are the examples of Faction for your army faction, so this is very wrong.

It is in the Eternal War missions Pack where Detachment keywords cannot be Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynarri, or Tyranids; with the exception of Fortification networks, which do not have this rule applied.

Yes army faction is the only relevant restriction to faction in core rules - so not wrong unless you can supply additional relevant restrictions

I change my wording from matched play (8th) to eternal war mission pack (9th)# same thing

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes army faction is the only relevant restriction to faction in core rules - so not wrong unless you can supply additional relevant restrictions

I change my wording from matched play (8th) to eternal war mission pack (9th)# same thing

In that case:

finish reading the sentence(after the comma):

Eternal War Mission Pack, Muster Armies, the rest of the sentence:
", unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network (this has no effect on your Army Faction)."

The comma (,) opccurs immediately after Tyranids, continuing the subject of what is and is not a valid Army Faction for Detachments in the Eternal War missions pack.

Noctolith Crown is fully valid.

No i missed the exemption you are correct

But next time quote the exemption straight away

U02dah4 wrote:
No i missed the exemption you are correct

But next time quote the exemption straight away

To be fair, Muster Armies seems to use Detachment Faction and Army Faction interchangeably while also referring us back to the main rules(Army Faction being used in the portion immediately following, on Combat Patrol restrictions, and in the Fortification network exemption).

kind of a cluster-feth in wording.

But it seems in Incusion and above, your Army Faction can be Imperium, so long as the 2 detachments are at least consistent in sub-faction (for example 1 Knights and 1 Admech detachment)

Oh, and now the question still remains if the fortification network discussed here is CP-Free. Chaos is a shared Keyword between the 2 detachments, but whether you apply the warlord's detachment cannot be "Chaos" for the detachment shared keyword to the fortification benefits is a little iffy on some reads.

Most reads should just be that the faction restrictions only apply within detachment selections.

Their wording doesn't answer that question

I was looking in relation to the battle sanctum which atleast is adeptus ministorum

Your detatchment is either all valid factions simultaneously - then no CP

Or highest order eg. The one you write on your detatchment E.G. Ultramarines - then no - Further complicated by tourney rules packs often requireing you to state your detatchments faction

It needs an FAQ

This was an argument that came up in neich scenarios in 8th in several YMDC and ended up in circular arguments

reading, rereading, and then rereading again; Detachment Faction and Army Faction are absolutely separate, and in "Faction" where it discusses all units in the Detachment must be from the same Faction there does seem to be some hefty separation.

So the question is certainly not answered by looking at "Detachment Faction" (which is more of a distinction we create than an actual thing), which moves toward a more restrictive individual <keyword>; vs "Army Faction" (proper term, defined in rules), which is the least restrictive shared <keyword>.

How does this relate to the Warlord faction and the Fortification benefit when using the Eternal War mission Packs? We really do not know. The core rules do not actually give us any requirements for declaring a single <keyword> for the detachment, just a restriction that whatever shared keyword binds the detachment together(again just in those missions) not be the specified broad tiers.

Faction on page 245 uses the same "same faction" enforcement within a detachment, so it would seem that as long as the Fortification network shares the same <keyword> that the Warlord shares with the rest of his detachment, then the Fortification network is CP-free. With the addition of the exemption in "Muster Armies" for fortification networks, this should extend to the "Chaos" faction keyword in this case.

The above is mostly extrapolation from what the rules do say when applied together in context with each other, but not explicitly stated from the rules that we do have. To note: there is a Term Glossary that has a quick-rules bit in the back of the book we do not have leaked yet, along with a "rare rules" section. one of these might provide better clarification on this topic.

For the Battle Sanctum: you will absolutely have a faction keyword that is the same as your Sororiartis warlord in every case. Every unit in the Codex has the Adeptus Minisortum keyword, but it would only allow the sanctum in that fortification.

Yes ypu share a faction keyword but if you use the strictest interpretion adeptus ministorum is not bloody rose as far as cp go?

It would be permitted unaligned as they are exempt

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes ypu share a faction keyword but if you use the strictest interpretion adeptus ministorum is not bloody rose as far as cp go?

It would be permitted unaligned as they are exempt

Penitent Engines and Arcoflagellents are not order of the bloody rose either, but they are still Adeptus Ministorum.

They get to be part of an Adeptus Sororitas Detachment, which is only relevant for Order Convictions(looks like they technically lose Obsec though, weird).

The various "Faction Detachment" rules are kind of all over the place: An Adeptus Sororitas Detachment is also an Adeptus Ministorum Detachment and (If you only take Sisters units) an <Order> detachment, and (if Allied with other Detachments) an Imperium Detachment for the purposes of Army Faction. The First grants specific rules, the second is just further defined without any necessity (If you include a Penitent engine, for example, you are still an Adeptus Sororitas Detachment gaining Bloody Rose conviction; but would not be a Bloody Rose detachment), and the third allows you to run Guardsmen or admech in the same army.

You never really have a Single-Faction <keyword> detachment, unless all your models have the same single-faction <keyword>(basically just most Fortification networks); the rules just don't clearly state this.

Going with the most restrictive tier of keywords, means that you can only ever play as Mono-faction; down to the specific sub-faction that you have chosen, and this is clearly not what the rules are trying to say.

And the Terms glossary does go into this: https://youtu.be/S2Of0-rMybc 42:34, Keyword Detachment "A Keyword Detachment is a detachment in a Battle-forged army where every model in that detachment shares that keyword, not including any model that specifies that it does not prevent the detachment from gaining its detachment rules." So as above it is both an Adeptus Sororitas, Imperium, and Adeptus Minisotum detachment as all models share those keywords, or are on the specified list for allowance. It is still not a Bloody Rose Detachment.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes ypu share a faction keyword but if you use the strictest interpretion adeptus ministorum is not bloody rose as far as cp go?

It would be permitted unaligned as they are exempt

Penitent Engines and Arcoflagellents are not order of the bloody rose either, but they are still Adeptus Ministorum.

They get to be part of an Adeptus Sororitas Detachment, which is only relevant for Order Convictions(looks like they technically lose Obsec though, weird).

The various "Faction Detachment" rules are kind of all over the place: An Adeptus Sororitas Detachment is also an Adeptus Ministorum Detachment and (If you only take Sisters units) an <Order> detachment, and (if Allied with other Detachments) an Imperium Detachment for the purposes of Army Faction. The First grants specific rules, the second is just further defined without any necessity (If you include a Penitent engine, for example, you are still an Adeptus Sororitas Detachment gaining Bloody Rose conviction; but would not be a Bloody Rose detachment), and the third allows you to run Guardsmen or admech in the same army.

You never really have a Single-Faction <keyword> detachment, unless all your models have the same single-faction <keyword>(basically just most Fortification networks); the rules just don't clearly state this.

Going with the most restrictive tier of keywords, means that you can only ever play as Mono-faction; down to the specific sub-faction that you have chosen, and this is clearly not what the rules are trying to say.

And the Terms glossary does go into this: https://youtu.be/S2Of0-rMybc 42:34, Keyword Detachment "A Keyword Detachment is a detachment in a Battle-forged army where every model in that detachment shares that keyword, not including any model that specifies that it does not prevent the detachment from gaining its detachment rules." So as above it is both an Adeptus Sororitas, Imperium, and Adeptus Minisotum detachment as all models share those keywords, or are on the specified list for allowance. It is still not a Bloody Rose Detachment.

Penitent engines and arcoflagellents are still in the bloody rose detatchment and there is a specific exemption clause for their inclusion in the SoB rulebook that doesnt negate the rest of the detatchment from being bloody rose or adepta sororitas - there is no such clause covering fortifications


And yes you can say there are no bloody rose or cadian detatchments but im pretty sure the sisters in that are all bloody rose and on the tourney lists i write

Detatchment faction keyword: <Bloody Rose>

Not Detatchment faction keyword: <Bloody Rose> <adeptus ministorim> <imperium> <adepta sororitas>

Every model has the keyword bloody rose or is exempted therefore it is bloody rose by that definition

Conversely the fortifcation is adeptus ministorum

They are not the same combination of keywords

In order to not spend cp you must the same - not partially the same - otherwise what stops me taking a mechanicus fortification and claiming CP back because of the imperium keyword

And given by definition your whole army must share a keyword that would always be the case

You are going to need to provide some rules for your <bloody Rose> detachment ever being a thing when you have non- <bloody Rose> models within said detachment.

Also you seem to be under the assumption that <keyword> Detachment is the most restrictive Keyword within the detachment, or that you must declare a specific Keyword for the detachments. These are both erroneous. I provided a link and time-stamp, along with direct quote from the terms glossary(love that they finally put that in the book); Every rule in 8th and 9th simply require shared keywords, with <keyword> detachment codex rules only referring to specific benefits that are gained with some minor outside options for particular(and often less restrictive) keywords.

You are also conflating Same keyword as a requirement to share *all* keywords, this means that without some serious FAQ/Errata to every Fortification the Fortification Network rules mostly cannot function at all (No Faction Fortification includes all the sub-faction keywords; e.g. <Chapter>, <Order>, <Legion>, <Cult>, etc; other than the Mekboy shop, and gnarlmaw).

You tend to aire toward the most restrictive/cautious, and I do respect that; but it is not always the only way. As you said with your concerns: Currently(and in 9th) A Bloody Rose Warlord Battalion(and thus, Army) cannot take a Battle Sanctum; No order can, because they are not the same faction as they do not share all faction keywords.

no i acknowledge both definitions of most restrictive bloody rose and least restrictive imperium and i dont have a rules based way of seperateing the two