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.

It's because people mistake “Hey look there is this unintended loophole” with “I want to use this loophole and force you to accept my army as legal”.
Which is completely wrong. Thanks SilverAlien for pointing that ridiculous and hilarious loophole it was really fun to discover .

It doesnt matter if they all have the same name, they're still subject to what the sub faction in the <insert here> is.

Naming them all <Cheese> doesnt make your forge world a craft world or marine chapter.

This is the worst kindof rules lawyering and deliberately misreading i've ever seen.

Jacksmiles wrote:
How are you putting Chaos and Imperium keyword units in the same battleforged army to begin with? After reading the OP, yes, you can do whatever with custom keywords and call your Legion Ultramarines, but that doesn't let you take Ultramarine units.

I fail to see the loophole. I see the post on this page from OP saying <keyword> is replaced entirely, which is true. But "Imperium" or "Chaos" is not. So unless you're doing this in a house-ruled environment (which if you are, you're creating the loophole), it doesn't make sense.

Chaos and Imperium units can be used in the same army if they share a keyword, the army only needs to have one keyword shared between all units. For example, the Fallen and Cypher have both the Imperium and Chaos keywords from the start.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
It doesnt matter if they all have the same name, they're still subject to what the sub faction in the <insert here> is.

Naming them all <Cheese> doesnt make your forge world a craft world or marine chapter.

This is the worst kindof rules lawyering and deliberately misreading i've ever seen.

This has been addressed 4 times in the thread. Once on the front page. Honestly I guess it's my fault for not editing it into my opening post at this point. See, look.

SilverAlien wrote:
From the indexes

if you were to include a chaos lord in your army, and you decided he was from the word bearers legion, his <legion> faction keyword is changed to Word Bearers and his Lord of Chaos ability would then read "You can re-roll hit rolls of one made for friendly Word Bearers units within 6" of this model"

if you were to include a captain in your army, and you decided he was from the blood ravens chapter, his <chapter> faction keyword is changed to Blood Ravens and his Rites of Battle ability would then read "You can re-roll hit rolls of one made for friendly Blood Ravens units within 6" of this model"

So your faction keyword isn't "word bearers legion" or "blood ravens chapter" it is explicitly called out as "Word bearers" and "Blood Ravens". It affects "Word Bearers" and "Blood Ravens", even if I decided some of my units are from the word bearers chapter... they still get the "Word Bearers" faction.

That doesnt matter if they're the same name, the keyword being replaced isnt similar

To see why your exploit doesnt work you dont even have to name them anything, if whatever word is inside the <> before you rename it doesnt match, they cant be in the same army for matched play.

You're hung up on the renaming, where the default keyword inside of the <> is already denying what you're trying to do

But by all means try it, but dont be surprised when no one wants to play a game against you

Actually if you read the <faction> keyword section, it explicitly states that the <faction> is from a chapter / forgeworld / clan whatever.
So its pretty obvious that its not a complete replacement, and that rules that refer to <faction> does actually call the original world.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Actually if you read the <faction> keyword section, it explicitly states that the <faction> is from a chapter / forgeworld / clan whatever.
So its pretty obvious that its not a complete replacement, and that rules that refer to <faction> does actually call the original world.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
That doesnt matter if they're the same name, the keyword being replaced isnt similar

To see why your exploit doesnt work you dont even have to name them anything, if whatever word is inside the <> before you rename it doesnt match, they cant be in the same army for matched play.

You're hung up on the renaming, where the default keyword inside of the <> is already denying what you're trying to do

But by all means try it, but dont be surprised when no one wants to play a game against you

Except what is in the <> doesn't matter. The rules never ever in any way indicate that they matter. In fact, as I've made clear multiple times, the rules don't function properly if <chapter> matters. Why? Because unique characters have their factions preassigned RG and Calgar are both "Ultramarines" and their ability effects "Ultramarines". The ability doesn't look for <chapter>. Neither character (nor any unique character but i'm using these as a specific example) mentions <chapter> anywhere on their sheet.

That's why, for unique characters to work, the <> keyword place holder has to be totally replaced. So the rules are still broken if we use your interpretation (even though the passage I quoted explicitly states that the ability only looks for the keyword such as "word bearers" or "blood ravens" and doesn't even once say it matters where the keyword originated).

Yes, what you are saying is how the rules should work and were likely intended to work. But they don't work like that. As soon as you declare you <chapter> or <legion>, you only have the new keyword, the origin does not matter, because <chapter> and <legion> is replaced totally. It no longer exists on the sheet, in the keywords. No unit you field will ever have <chapter> on it, it is merely a placeholder.

SilverAlien wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Actually if you read the <faction> keyword section, it explicitly states that the <faction> is from a chapter / forgeworld / clan whatever.
So its pretty obvious that its not a complete replacement, and that rules that refer to <faction> does actually call the original world.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
That doesnt matter if they're the same name, the keyword being replaced isnt similar

To see why your exploit doesnt work you dont even have to name them anything, if whatever word is inside the <> before you rename it doesnt match, they cant be in the same army for matched play.

You're hung up on the renaming, where the default keyword inside of the <> is already denying what you're trying to do

But by all means try it, but dont be surprised when no one wants to play a game against you

Except what is in the <> doesn't matter. The rules never ever in any way indicate that they matter. In fact, as I've made clear multiple times, the rules don't function properly if <chapter> matters. Why? Because unique characters have their factions preassigned RG and Calgar are both "Ultramarines" and their ability effects "Ultramarines". The ability doesn't look for <chapter>. Neither character (nor any unique character but i'm using these as a specific example) mentions <chapter> anywhere on their sheet.

That's why, for unique characters to work, the <> keyword place holder has to be totally replaced. So the rules are still broken if we use your interpretation (even though the passage I quoted explicitly states that the ability only looks for the keyword such as "word bearers" or "blood ravens" and doesn't even once say it matters where the keyword originated).

Yes, what you are saying is how the rules should work and were likely intended to work. But they don't work like that. As soon as you declare you <chapter> or <legion>, you only have the new keyword, the origin does not matter, because <chapter> and <legion> is replaced totally. It no longer exists on the sheet, in the keywords. No unit you field will ever have <chapter> on it, it is merely a placeholder.

Except it does because Ultramarines is quite clearly a chapter. Its a faction listed in the space marine section, where it was already stated that there are <chapters>,and lore wise Ultramarine is a chapter. Its really obvious how it works if you pay attention to context.

I can totally see how very few people are OK with this interpretation of RAW, but I think the butthurt in this thread is way more off the charts than it should be.

From a RAW position this totally works. 40k doesn't send its rules through a compiler before you get the final result. What you see is what you get.
The various chapters/legions/craftworlds etc are not chosen from a list. You put in whatever you want. The name of the temporary legion doesn't matter. It even says so: " These [bracketed keywords] are shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below." Except it never gives you a list to choose from, so necessarily you can put in whatever you want. You can even go further and use their example as proof if you want to be that guy. "Abaddon has the Black Legion keyword and so is from the black legion" as opposed to Abaddon is from the black legion and so has the black legion keyword, aka keyword defines legion and not the other way round. Only when you choose to use that unit in your army do you define what the keyword actually is. They are shorthand, not real keywords. So you can absolutely replace <Legion> with Blood Angels. Lore has no implications whatsoever on the rules, never has. Just ask a deathguard player lol.

On the one hand it's pretty obviously not intended from a RAI perspective, but on the other hand, it's perfect for fluffy lists.
Renegade guard, tau auxiliaries, fallen angels (as opposed to one whole unit ^_-), traitorous primaris which supposedly are already a thing, chaos touched orks, hell even gsc work better like that than with their own rule.
Those are all nice things, that we could have with that RAW interpretation. So even if lore did matter, this would be a case FOR intent , not against.

Ideally they would have made exceptions like the gsc rule for astra militarum for other armies as well.
Something like for every 2 detachments you may take a detachment of astra militarum and change the imperium keyword to tau or chaos or whatever. something along those lines.
But given the super duper stopgap nature of these index lists, I seriously don't see much of an issue if somebody "exploits" this to make a fluffy list.
I don't get the vast amount of hate that idea is getting here. Quite a few people aren't even bothering to get the indices because of how lame they are.
So what's the big deal in sprucing things up a bit? It would be a houserule, sure, but the indices are the codex equivalent of playing with unpainted paper cutouts so meh.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, he whole legion keyword thing is pretty badly thought out. Even just within the chaos dex we get things like world eaters noise marines, which is RAW and non-exploit no matter how you cut the cookie....
*I can't actually see the page number so that might not actually be a thing but that's really not my point lol.*

I see what's being said, and I'm actually okay with this in friendly games. Not competitive play. My armies jump across codexes and time periods like a cricket on coke, but I'd never randomly show to a game with an army drawn from Skitarii, Space Wolves and Genestealer Cults unless I was absolutely certain my opponent was cool with playing against it

If you're creating a keyword to break the game, you're just being a tool.

 Roknar wrote:
I can totally see how very few people are OK with this interpretation of RAW, but I think the butthurt in this thread is way more off the charts than it should be.

From a RAW position this totally works. 40k doesn't send its rules through a compiler before you get the final result. What you see is what you get.
The various chapters/legions/craftworlds etc are not chosen from a list. You put in whatever you want. The name of the temporary legion doesn't matter. It even says so: " These [bracketed keywords] are shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below." Except it never gives you a list to choose from, so necessarily you can put in whatever you want. You can even go further and use their example as proof if you want to be that guy. "Abaddon has the Black Legion keyword and so is from the black legion" as opposed to Abaddon is from the black legion and so has the black legion keyword, aka keyword defines legion and not the other way round. Only when you choose to use that unit in your army do you define what the keyword actually is. They are shorthand, not real keywords. So you can absolutely replace <Legion> with Blood Angels. Lore has no implications whatsoever on the rules, never has. Just ask a deathguard player lol.

On the one hand it's pretty obviously not intended from a RAI perspective, but on the other hand, it's perfect for fluffy lists.
Renegade guard, tau auxiliaries, fallen angels (as opposed to one whole unit ^_-), traitorous primaris which supposedly are already a thing, chaos touched orks, hell even gsc work better like that than with their own rule.
Those are all nice things, that we could have with that RAW interpretation. So even if lore did matter, this would be a case FOR intent , not against.

Ideally they would have made exceptions like the gsc rule for astra militarum for other armies as well.
Something like for every 2 detachments you may take a detachment of astra militarum and change the imperium keyword to tau or chaos or whatever. something along those lines.
But given the super duper stopgap nature of these index lists, I seriously don't see much of an issue if somebody "exploits" this to make a fluffy list.
I don't get the vast amount of hate that idea is getting here. Quite a few people aren't even bothering to get the indices because of how lame they are.
So what's the big deal in sprucing things up a bit? It would be a houserule, sure, but the indices are the codex equivalent of playing with unpainted paper cutouts so meh.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, he whole legion keyword thing is pretty badly thought out. Even just within the chaos dex we get things like world eaters noise marines, which is RAW and non-exploit no matter how you cut the cookie....
*I can't actually see the page number so that might not actually be a thing but that's really not my point lol.*

Alright, you do that and I'm playing my entire Skitarii army with the Forgeworld "Fly." Aerial assault Kataphrons, coming at you!

The only reason "exploiting" this would ever be ok with anyone, are such fluffy reasons that the same people would allow you to play it even if this didn't exist. The whole thing is a non-problem. You're never gonna be allowed to so blatantly misuse it in any situation where you don't have a mate that's totally cool with it, and since 40k is a board game, you and your friend can play it however you want. I can also play chess with my friend and we can agree that all the pawns move like bishops. It's not in any way breaking the game for anyone else, but it's clearly not really chess.

SilverAlien wrote:
This has been addressed 4 times in the thread. Once on the front page. Honestly I guess it's my fault for not editing it into my opening post at this point. See, look...

It doesn't matter how many times you 'addressed' the issue if you're still blatantly wrong and making up straw-grasping nonsense that anyone with any common sense would immediately recognize as absolute BS.

 Karoline Dianne wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
This has been addressed 4 times in the thread. Once on the front page. Honestly I guess it's my fault for not editing it into my opening post at this point. See, look...

It doesn't matter how many times you 'addressed' the issue if you're still blatantly wrong and making up straw-grasping nonsense that anyone with any common sense would immediately recognize as absolute BS.

I've shown passages from the book where the rules work exactly as I've explained. I've explained how the characters don't work properly if the alternative version (which takes <legion> or <chapter> into account) is used. I've gotten zero evidence taken from the rules in response, just people mentioning fluff, and zero explanation for how the character issue would be addressed. I've yet to see any evidence that <chapter> or <legion> are considered after they are replaced, zero people responding to how they effect a model when they are quite literally not considered to be on the datasheet for any unit once you assign the chapter/legion by RAW.

You can't just say 'You are wrong" one of you would actually have to refute it using the rules. If someone can do it, please do. That was why I originally made thee thread. I'm going to be happy if someone can close this loophole using the rules as written. But no one has.

Here's the 'refute':

If anyone actually tries pulling this nonsense, they get laughed at, then kicked out of the shop. They get no opponents, they're banned from tournaments, and their entire involvement with the hobby forever barred from continuing.

It doesn't matter how much bending and twisting and reaching you do with semantics and rules lawyering. If you try to put a Carnifex in an Ultramarines army and say it gets the benefits from the Captain, you're deliberately breaking the game and no one is going to play with you.

So there isn't a 'loophole' and nothing needs to be 'fixed', because the answer is obvious to anyone with any common sense. If dingbats decide to try and finagle the wording to justify nonsense like this, it's time to find the nearest oldschool full-metal chaos dreadnought and chuck it at their head.

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
Here's the 'refute':

If anyone actually tries pulling this nonsense, they get laughed at, then kicked out of the shop. They get no opponents, they're banned from tournaments, and their entire involvement with the hobby forever barred from continuing.

It doesn't matter how much bending and twisting and reaching you do with semantics and rules lawyering. If you try to put a Carnifex in an Ultramarines army and say it gets the benefits from the Captain, you're deliberately breaking the game and no one is going to play with you.

So there isn't a 'loophole' and nothing needs to be 'fixed', because the answer is obvious to anyone with any common sense. If dingbats decide to try and finagle the wording to justify nonsense like this, it's time to find the nearest oldschool full-metal chaos dreadnought and chuck it at their head.

Yes, clearly this is a non issue that doesn't need to be addressed given that people are literally threatening to physically assault people for trying to use it. It is almost like something like that prompts that sort of reaction probably should be addressed to avoid such issues. I've heard people make the same argument for units that were far too effective for cost, annoying tactics like death stars, etc. It is really odd how people seem to treat rules issues as some non issue while getting extremely angry about the possibility of anyone ever abusing said issue.

If your argument is "it won't matter because I just won't play with anyone who uses it" then you don't have an argument. You've admitted the rule in question is absolutely broken and needs to be fixed, one of the main reasons I made the thread.

Good god you all have some major anger issues you need serious help with. /tg/ is more civil than alot of you.

To be honest I was raring to go to jump into this arguement and all, but instead of me doing that, first let's take a peek at what the actual Rules Writers mention about those Keywords (jump to 5:40 where they start talking about keywords):



So those keywords were to allow people to put a label on their collection and to ensure that "the correct models are interecting with the correct units". Which would mean that it,s not so you can CSM and Dark Angels together in a single detachment.

HOWEVER, I do want to note that there are no ally restrictions which means any army can pair up with any other through the use of multiple detachments. So Genestealer Cult Marine Chapters could be a thing if you so wish.

No.In Matched play you need to have at least one common keyword in all of your detachments.

You can't ally Chaos and Imperium for example.

I don't think anyone is arguing intent. We all know what they intended of course. They just didn't do a good job translating that intent into written rules it seems.

Also matched play does require the entire army to share a keyword.

 Galas wrote:
No.In Matched play you need to have at least one common keyword in all of your detachments.

You can't ally Chaos and Imperium for example.

I stand corrected on that point. Teach me to be too busy thinkingnaout narrative play I guess.

So for tourney players. You don't even get that.

Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.

This isn't a case of 'oh no this is an awful exploit that is super broken and bad', this is a case of 'whoever thought this was even allowed is fooling themselves because it's outright cheating and not a viable exploit at all to begin with.'

Putting Mephiston, Dante, and every other named Blood Angels character into a single Death Company Deathstar unit of ultimate unbeatable power was an awful exploit that was super broken and bad. That was a legal thing that the rules allowed that was an unfathomable abomination. This? This is just nonsense, and makes about as much sense as back when dingbats would deliberately misinterpret the rules for wound allocation and give 50 Ork Boyz a 2+ save with Ghazgul at the front, then Look Out Sir! all the wounds after the armor saves already failed. It's just plain wrong.

SilverAlien wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing intent. We all know what they intended of course. They just didn't do a good job translating that intent into written rules it seems.

Also matched play does require the entire army to share a keyword.

We have the answer right out of their mouths which is as good as having a FAQ to fix it. They said what it,s supposed to be used for, which kills any counter arguement that because the rules don't say you can't do someting that it's legal. The rules don't say I can't field an army of empty based and call them stealth suits, but we all know that doesn't fly. Likewise, this arguement doesn't fly due to the social contract that is drawn from between players.

Now if you invent a house rule that overrules the intent of the game, that's different, but the designers have spoken in video on what it,s for, and that is basically the highest authority you can get on this topic.

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal. It's just plain wrong.

It's legal by the rules, until someone can show me anything that disproves my points I'll keep insisting on that. It is abusive, clearly not intended, and I don't expect most people would try to abuse it. You don't have to play with anyone who does and can get as angry about it as you like. None of those change the fact that's how the rules work and it needs to be fixed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
We have the answer right out of their mouths which is as good as having a FAQ to fix it. They said what it,s supposed to be used for, which kills any counter arguement that because the rules don't say you can't do someting that it's legal. The rules don't say I can't field an army of empty based and call them stealth suits, but we all know that doesn't fly. Likewise, this arguement doesn't fly due to the social contract that is drawn from between players.

Now if you invent a house rule that overrules the intent of the game, that's different, but the designers have spoken in video on what it,s for, and that is basically the highest authority you can get on this topic.

I don't think you understand what a rule is. A vague description of the intent of keywords is not a rule, because people can and will make the case that their units "should" be able to interact. Again, this is back to things like imperial guard used as tau militia.

So no, this isn't a FAQ, it doesn't actually fix the problem.

I swear to god some of you are driving me up the wall trying to illustrate why a clearly broken rule is somehow a non issue. It's a broken rule. It needs an actual official binding FAQ/errata. I doubt it'll be the only thing, just the first and most obvious. Let it go,

SilverAlien wrote:

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal. It's just plain wrong.

It's legal by the rules, until someone can show me anything that disproves my points I'll keep insisting on that. It is abusive, clearly not intended, and I don't expect most people would try to abuse it. You don't have to play with anyone who does and can get as angry about it as you like. None of those change the fact that's how the rules work and it needs to be fixed.

Here's the thing, if you,re pushing for a FAQ, that is just the designers explaining their intent, which we already have.

If you,re pushing for a rule to magically appear then I don't what you want. When replacing the bracketted keywords they still have an origin. If I replace <Chapter> with Black Legion, even if it's allowed, the rules that refer to <Chapter> will continue to refer to <Chapter> and not Black Legion. Which means the keyword is still going to be <Chapter> you just get permission to read it as <Black Legion> for the purpose of making units work together correctly. Twisting the designer's explict intent because it wasn't written down in black and white isn't a sign of cleverness. It's being a knob. And only a knob would throw out a designer's statement on how something works just because they want to stick to the false arguement of "the rules don't say I can't so that means I can".

40k is a permissive ruleset, if they rules don't say you can treat different subfactions as the same faction by giving them the same name, then you don't have permission to do so and thus can't.

So how about instead of us showing you where it says you can't you show us where it says that subfactions given the same name act as the same subfaction regardless of origin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal. It's just plain wrong.

It's legal by the rules, until someone can show me anything that disproves my points I'll keep insisting on that. It is abusive, clearly not intended, and I don't expect most people would try to abuse it. You don't have to play with anyone who does and can get as angry about it as you like. None of those change the fact that's how the rules work and it needs to be fixed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
We have the answer right out of their mouths which is as good as having a FAQ to fix it. They said what it,s supposed to be used for, which kills any counter arguement that because the rules don't say you can't do someting that it's legal. The rules don't say I can't field an army of empty based and call them stealth suits, but we all know that doesn't fly. Likewise, this arguement doesn't fly due to the social contract that is drawn from between players.

Now if you invent a house rule that overrules the intent of the game, that's different, but the designers have spoken in video on what it,s for, and that is basically the highest authority you can get on this topic.

I don't think you understand what a rule is. A vague description of the intent of keywords is not a rule, because people can and will make the case that their units "should" be able to interact. Again, this is back to things like imperial guard used as tau militia.

So no, this isn't a FAQ, it doesn't actually fix the problem.

I swear to god some of you are driving me up the wall trying to illustrate why a clearly broken rule is somehow a non issue. It's a broken rule. It needs an actual official binding FAQ/errata. I doubt it'll be the only thing, just the first and most obvious. Let it go,

If you were any more obtuse you'd be a sphere.

Here's the deal: 40k,s rules work by giving you permission to do things, they describe how stuff works and what interacts with what. No where in the rules does it say that two bracketed keywords can confer to each other if they're both given the same replacement word (example: Replacing both <Legion> and <Chapter> with "Dark Angels"). Since there is no rule that says they can confer this way, it means you don,t have permission. Snce you don't have permission you can't do it, therefore it's a broken rule, but a borken understanding about how the rules work that is the problem.

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.

This isn't a case of 'oh no this is an awful exploit that is super broken and bad', this is a case of 'whoever thought this was even allowed is fooling themselves because it's outright cheating and not a viable exploit at all to begin with.'

Putting Mephiston, Dante, and every other named Blood Angels character into a single Death Company Deathstar unit of ultimate unbeatable power was an awful exploit that was super broken and bad. That was a legal thing that the rules allowed that was an unfathomable abomination. This? This is just nonsense, and makes about as much sense as back when dingbats would deliberately misinterpret the rules for wound allocation and give 50 Ork Boyz a 2+ save with Ghazgul at the front, then Look Out Sir! all the wounds after the armor saves already failed. It's just plain wrong.

While I do agree with you that it's not the intention, and only someone intent on not having anyone to play with would abuse the system in such a way... That doesn't make him wrong. The rules are actually quite clear on this, as far as I can tell. You replace whatever is in the <> completely. It's not a matter of bending or breaking the rules, it's a matter of the rules being poorly written. But changing as little as a few words they could have made it very clear that it retains what is in the <> by making it so that instead of having, for example, Salamanders, Vulkan has Chapter:Salamanders. There, problem solved. Instead they went with what they did, and left a giant, gaping hole in the rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So how about instead of us showing you where it says you can't you show us where it says that subfactions given the same name act as the same subfaction regardless of origin.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Here's the deal: 40k,s rules work by giving you permission to do things, they describe how stuff works and what interacts with what. No where in the rules does it say that two bracketed keywords can confer to each other if they're both given the same replacement word (example: Replacing both <Legion> and <Chapter> with "Dark Angels"). Since there is no rule that says they can confer this way, it means you don,t have permission. Snce you don't have permission you can't do it, therefore it's a broken rule, but a borken understanding about how the rules work that is the problem.

Okay, I want you to actually show me the point this confuses you.

1. I am allowed to fill any word in for <legion> or <hive fleet>, by the rules. They tell you to use whatever you want.

2. That unit then has the keyword I chose. I chose Ultramarines. Again, I am given permission to use my own keyword, the only specified limitation being I am not allowed to use "fallen" in <legion>

3. That unit now has <legion> or <hivefleet> replaced by ultramarines. It no longer has <legion> or <hivefleet> on its datasheet, merely ultramarines.

4. RG gives a buff to any unit with the "ultramarines" keyword in range. His datasheet has no mention of <chapter>, not even one that has been replaced.

5. The rules as written also specify that abilities only look to see if the keyword is present. It specifically tells you have permission to use the ability on any unit with the matching keyword. I do not then need special permission for it if the origin of the keywords is different, because the rule gave blanket permission for that case when it gave permission for any case where the keywords matched. So <legion> and <hive fleet> given the same keyword confer abilities on each other, because they fall under the blanket permission.

I was given permission to use whatever keyword I chose. Restrictions can be replaced on the original permission (the fallen example), but I have permission now for anything not explicitly prohibited. That's how a permissive rule set actually works. I was never explicitly given permission to use red corsairs, and they are an existing faction. Can I not use red corsairs, making huron rather pointless? What you are saying makes no logical sense and is arguably a far more broken interpretation of the rules, as a number of things simply cease to function.

Having shown where I am given permission to use my own keyword, and having shown I have permission to use abilities so long as the keywords match, you'd need a rule restricting the usage of keywords if the origin doesn't match to prevent this. Otherwise, the rule that I can use keywords so long as they match takes precedent, as that is giving me global permission to do it in every situation.

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
Forgive me for having zero tolerance for nonsense that only a madman would think is legal.

This isn't a case of 'oh no this is an awful exploit that is super broken and bad', this is a case of 'whoever thought this was even allowed is fooling themselves because it's outright cheating and not a viable exploit at all to begin with.'

Putting Mephiston, Dante, and every other named Blood Angels character into a single Death Company Deathstar unit of ultimate unbeatable power was an awful exploit that was super broken and bad. That was a legal thing that the rules allowed that was an unfathomable abomination. This? This is just nonsense, and makes about as much sense as back when dingbats would deliberately misinterpret the rules for wound allocation and give 50 Ork Boyz a 2+ save with Ghazgul at the front, then Look Out Sir! all the wounds after the armor saves already failed. It's just plain wrong.

Honestly I think it is crazy that people think, ostracizing and harassing players is far less a issue than taking a potentuly flawed rule at face value.
The only thing that should be done is to ask GW to fix a loophole, You even suggested a violent threat over it.
Its Childish and kinda sad how some of the community reacts at such things, only shows how much a failure GW has been over there rules in the passed.

Get it right now so the future additions have something firm to stand on is better for everyone.

Here's the thing. If you draw the logic of each step to its extreme, then yes. It allows you to make your entire army flyers by adding the Fly keyword. I can see why this is considered broken. But it's when you say "it needs fixing" that I take offense. It's too silly to need fixing. It's like if you just leaned over the table and spit your opponent in the face, claiming that the rules allow it in some reading. While I'm wiping your spit off my face, I don't give a single flying duck about your explanation on why it's allowed.

Trying to use this is so insulting to everyone that no one in their right mind would try it. So it doesn't need fixing.

The degree to which people will defend and even applaud bad writing continues to baffle me.

 Purifier wrote:
Here's the thing. If you draw the logic of each step to its extreme, then yes. It allows you to make your entire army flyers by adding the Fly keyword. I can see why this is considered broken. But it's when you say "it needs fixing" that I take offense. It's too silly to need fixing. It's like if you just leaned over the table and spit your opponent in the face, claiming that the rules allow it in some reading. While I'm wiping your spit off my face, I don't give a single flying duck about your explanation on why it's allowed.

Trying to use this is so insulting to everyone that no one in their right mind would try it. So it doesn't need fixing.

Why not fix it ? Why not go in and fix an exploit. trying to make people the bad guy for using something in the rules is Insulting, and shows this community has no respect at all.
Its not particularly silly really, Rules are rules. Trying to justify Some of the BS some people are saying is actually kinda funny, and some of it is nasty stuff.

I do not think this will apply that often, It wont for me. But Rules will be built on these rules, Its best that they start off on the best basis they can be, Or we will just end up with 7th again.
The devs are not perfect, but why just brush away exploits, and how far do we just ignore issues in the rules. I do not want to See the Raw vs Rai Debates again, i want a decent game to play.

Apple fox wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Here's the thing. If you draw the logic of each step to its extreme, then yes. It allows you to make your entire army flyers by adding the Fly keyword. I can see why this is considered broken. But it's when you say "it needs fixing" that I take offense. It's too silly to need fixing. It's like if you just leaned over the table and spit your opponent in the face, claiming that the rules allow it in some reading. While I'm wiping your spit off my face, I don't give a single flying duck about your explanation on why it's allowed.

Trying to use this is so insulting to everyone that no one in their right mind would try it. So it doesn't need fixing.

Why not fix it ? Why not go in and fix an exploit. trying to make people the bad guy for using something in the rules is Insulting, and shows this community has no respect at all.
Its not particularly silly really, Rules are rules. Trying to justify Some of the BS some people are saying is actually kinda funny, and some of it is nasty stuff.

I do not think this will apply that often, It wont for me. But Rules will be built on these rules, Its best that they start off on the best basis they can be, Or we will just end up with 7th again.
The devs are not perfect, but why just brush away exploits, and how far do we just ignore issues in the rules. I do not want to See the Raw vs Rai Debates again, i want a decent game to play.

There's no debate here. The reading, while it can be lawyered as "legal" is so up the walls crazy that you have to break every social contract to enforce it. Anyone that would try this is clearly not an enjoyable person to play, and I would simply not play them. You can debate your face blue, I would never play you again, and neither would most people. The RAI isn't in question here at all. Even the most adamant of people that think this is a problem are still painfully aware of the RAI. When the RAI is even slightly in question, I understand these debates. This whole argument is just an insult to everyone's intelligence. It is throwing human logic under the bus to rely only on binary logic. Have at it though. If anyone will play you with this blatant rules bending, have fun with each other.

Most people won't need a fix, because we already understand the rule.

 Purifier wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Here's the thing. If you draw the logic of each step to its extreme, then yes. It allows you to make your entire army flyers by adding the Fly keyword. I can see why this is considered broken. But it's when you say "it needs fixing" that I take offense. It's too silly to need fixing. It's like if you just leaned over the table and spit your opponent in the face, claiming that the rules allow it in some reading. While I'm wiping your spit off my face, I don't give a single flying duck about your explanation on why it's allowed.

Trying to use this is so insulting to everyone that no one in their right mind would try it. So it doesn't need fixing.

Why not fix it ? Why not go in and fix an exploit. trying to make people the bad guy for using something in the rules is Insulting, and shows this community has no respect at all.
Its not particularly silly really, Rules are rules. Trying to justify Some of the BS some people are saying is actually kinda funny, and some of it is nasty stuff.

I do not think this will apply that often, It wont for me. But Rules will be built on these rules, Its best that they start off on the best basis they can be, Or we will just end up with 7th again.
The devs are not perfect, but why just brush away exploits, and how far do we just ignore issues in the rules. I do not want to See the Raw vs Rai Debates again, i want a decent game to play.

There's no debate here. The reading, while it can be lawyered as "legal" is so up the walls crazy that you have to break every social contract to enforce it. Anyone that would try this is clearly not an enjoyable person to play, and I would simply not play them. You can debate your face blue, I would never play you again, and neither would most people. The RAI isn't in question here at all. Even the most adamant of people that think this is a problem are still painfully aware of the RAI. When the RAI is even slightly in question, I understand these debates. This whole argument is just an insult to everyone's intelligence. It is throwing human logic under the bus to rely only on binary logic. Have at it though. If anyone will play you with this blatant rules bending, have fun with each other.

Most people won't need a fix, because we already understand the rule.

No one cares what RAI is outside of 40k so much You are doing a lot to belittle the argument, and others who disagree with you.
I even said i do not care about it, and it wont effect me at all. But that does not mean its not important, the Rules should be written well and there is no real reason not to have them written so other rules can be layered on top without as much issue.
Its easy enough for GW to FIx it, But the constant oh, this is what they mean just lets them get away with all the junk we got last time.

This person is not fun, and You should kick them out since they Disagree with me BS.. They may enjoy that and if the rules do not follow though with being rules then Stuff em, GW can do better. Hold them up to it. Or fall back on the old arguments that lead to Them putting out junk rules and help the general erosion of the community.