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.

Please re-read the thread, we've been over this before several times.

DEATH GUARD is a <LEGION> according to the rules of the game. IA says so. DEATH GUARD can't sometimes be a <LEGION> and sometimes not be a <LEGION>, that breaks the definition of what a keyword is. You can't have two versions of the same keyword with different rules impacts. RAW DEATH GUARD is absolutely a <LEGION> unless you want to break the whole keyword system.

IA said that Death Guard is a <Legion> purely for its own book. It probably made that decision so that it wouldn't need to reprint the exact same unit 3 times (1 CSM, 1DG and, 1 KSons). I would discount this use as a general rule due to this. Even with IA stating that Death Guard is a <Legion> the CSM codex says that it's not. For rules purposes the writing in one book about the contents of that same book take precedence over the writings of another book. IA can say that Death Guard all have a 1+ save and 20 wounds (and all of the Death Guard units would have that) but if the CSM codex said that a CSM trooper had a 3+ save and 1 wound that's all he would get. I believe that most people would take the stand that CSM codex rules apply to units in that book and IA rules apply to units in that book. If there was a conflict of rules consult the appropriate book for the "correct" rule to use.

I just checked IA and on page 115 under the heading The <Legion> keyword it states, "...otherwise it will have the <legion> keyword. This is a key word that you can select for yourself, following the guidance and restrictions detailed in Codex Chaos Space Marines."

Now please tell me where I can find that you can substitute Death Guard for <Legion> in the IA compendium. Otherwise your argument is a complete sham.

It's in the FAQ. It's been copied and pasted into this thread two or three times already. Please review the thread before coming back and accusing people of making sham arguments, it's such a waste of everyone's time even apart from how rude it is of you not to do your own diligence before hurling accusations at other people.

‘Many Chaos Space Marine units described in this section can be
fielded in Death Guard and Thousand Sons armies even though
you cannot normally replace the <Legion> keyword with either
Death Guard or Thousand Sons.
You can choose for any <Legion> Nurgle unit from the Imperial
Armour Compendium to be from the Death Guard Legion. If you do:
• Replace that unit’s <Legion> keyword with Death Guard.
• That unit gains the Bubonic Astartes keyword.
• That unit can be from one of the seven Plague Companies,
and so also gains the <Plague Company> keyword.
You can choose for any <Legion> Tzeentch unit from the
Imperial Armour Compendium to be from the Thousand Sons
Legion. If you do:
• Replace that unit’s <Legion> keyword with Thousand Sons.
• That unit gains the Arcana Astartes keyword.
• That unit can be from one of the nine Great Cults, and so also
gains the <Great Cult> keyword.’

You don't get to "discount" rules because you feel like it. That's not how rules work. Especially when the result is breaking the whole keyword system. DEATH GUARD can't sometimes be a <LEGION> and sometimes not be a <LEGION> depending on the unit and the book; a keyword has to mean the same thing every time or it isn't a keyword any more. This is exactly why the wording in Codex: CSM is as it is re: being unable to select DEATH GUARD as a <LEGION> for Codex: CSM units. It is carefully worded not to say that DEATH GUARD is not a <LEGION>, because it is.

But Death Guard units can’t access Dark Hereticus powers.

You don’t get to discount rules because you feel like it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But Death Guard units can’t access Dark Hereticus powers.

You don’t get to discount rules because you feel like it.

I would ask you to review the thread as well. That is what we have come down to as the issue: can Mortarion use the strat to access it, or not? If he can use the strat, the strat authorizes him to get a DH power even though he otherwise couldn't. If he can't use the strat, obviously he has no way to access it.

The FAQ in the old DG book says he can use the strat. That FAQ no longer exists because the book no longer exists. But the reasoning of the FAQ was generally applicable; it really should have been in the CSM book, not the DG book, because it is a rules question about the CSM book and it impacts CSM, DG and TSons. It also wasn't an errata, it was a FAQ, which means GW thought that's what the rules meant, without any need to change the language.

That language is still the same, suggesting there is no reason why DG and TSons can't still use CSM strats if you unlock them with a CSM detachment. And yet the FAQ that confirms that is no longer around. So what is the status of the rule?

Seems like an open question to me. Either you say the language in the CSM codex hasn't changed so you can still do it, or you say the fact that they didn't reprint the FAQ elsewhere when they replaced the old DG book with the new one means that now DG and TSons can't use CSM strats, even though the language is still exactly the same as it was before when they could. I don't know that there's a great way to resolve that question RAW, I think it's a genuine question you can make good arguments on both sides of.

But that is the question. Nothing about <LEGION>. It's about whether Morty can use the strat or not.

You keep glossing over that he cannot. He cannot. You need to find a way of specifically allowing him.
That means a rule saying despite us saying DG CANNOT MAKE USE OF the abilities, actually they can.

He cannot use, or have the strat used on, him. The faq is not relevant to 9th, it doesn't exist.
Even if you break the rules and use the strat on him, he then has an ability - a DH power - that he explicitly cannot use.

You have two hurdles to overcome, you've in 4 pages failed to even acknowledge them, let alone overcome them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and we know sometimes daemon wasn't good enough compare to another daemon. You couldn't use codex daemon strats on csm daemon units in 8th. So the idea that DG isn't a <legion> always isn't far fetched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Cannot make use of..." is pretty clear, even for GW

Morty, to swap to a DH power, is required to USE the strat. Expect he cannot

Morty, to use a DH power, is required to use a rule or ability he is forbidden from using

Two hurdles. Overcome both. Page and graph. Fourth time

yukishiro1 wrote:

I would ask you to review the thread as well. That is what we have come down to as the issue: can Mortarion use the strat to access it, or not? If he can use the strat, the strat authorizes him to get a DH power even though he otherwise couldn't. If he can't use the strat, obviously he has no way to access it.

The FAQ in the old DG book says he can use the strat. That FAQ no longer exists because the book no longer exists. But the reasoning of the FAQ was generally applicable; it really should have been in the CSM book, not the DG book, because it is a rules question about the CSM book and it impacts CSM, DG and TSons. It also wasn't an errata, it was a FAQ, which means GW thought that's what the rules meant, without any need to change the language.

That language is still the same, suggesting there is no reason why DG and TSons can't still use CSM strats if you unlock them with a CSM detachment. And yet the FAQ that confirms that is no longer around. So what is the status of the rule?

Sometimes a FAQ entry gets deleted from one version of a FAQ to the next. The wording in the codex didn't change, but the FAQ entry gets deleted. You know what the result is: That FAQ entry is no longer valid because it no longer exists, whether or not you want to argue about what the rules authors "thought" the rules meant.

It doesn't make any difference that it was a FAQ entry for Book A that referenced Book B.

Disclaimer: FAQ vs. errata is a useless distinction. Because it's the difference because what the distinction is is really:
- Is there a simple change that we're willing to send through typesetting, translation, and incorporate into future printings of this product? That's an errata.
- Is it something that potentially requires a whole paragraph to explain? That's a FAQ.
And anything in between is Editor's Choice. There's no other Hallowed Be Thy Rules Nature.

Erratas aren't fixed in future printings either these days as far as I know. It is the difference between them saying "change the wording of X to Y" via PDF or just answering a question at the end of the document. It is a relevant difference.

The point is that although the FAQ no longer exists, the language that resulted in them answering the question as they did is the same. If that language allowed using strats on DG and TSons before, which we know was the case, is there any reason to think it doesn't now? It's the exact same language it was before. Nothing has changed.

I'm not saying it necessarily does - I was the one who brought up the FAQ no longer being current, nobody else in the thread had even noticed! But I don't think the fact that the FAQ is no longer current necessarily means we should read the original rule text differently when that text itself hasn't changed. GW clearly read the prohibition on DG and TSons using strats from the CSM Codex as only applying if you didn't unlock that section of the rules using a CSM detachment, and that if you did, you could then access the strats (which in turn gives you access to a DH power). Is there any reason to assume their intent on that point has changed simply by the fact that they didn't carry over the FAQ question and answer into the new DG book? All the relevant rules text is exactly the same as it was before.

I.e. if you have a complex mathematical equation and GW tells you the answer is 47 via FAQ, and then the edition changes so the document with the answer in it is no longer current...isn't the answer still 47 in the new edition too, assuming the equation itself is still the same?

Yes, the reason to think is, they removed that answer. So you're back to the written rule which says they cannot use any ability in that section.

Fun facts SITW both worked on embarked Psyker and didn't in 5th. Literal yes to no change in the faq.



Intent changes. We don't even know they intended this specific combo to work previously. Law of unintended consequences and all that

But we know, for sure, that
- morty is explicitly forbidden from using the strat
- he is explicitly forbidden from using any DH power regardless of how he gets it.

Do you accept this? It's there to be read, and hard to argue any other way.

Well, GW itself clearly read it otherwise, since they specifically told us that language didn't stop you from using those strats on DG and TSons units as long as you unlocked them via a CSM detachment. So the way GW read it was not an absolute prohibition, simply a requirement that you unlock the rules with a CSM detachment, and that DG and TSons being unable to use them was if you didn't take a CSM detachment first.

So you are arguing that the way GW read their own rule cannot possibly be right. Does that really seem like a convincing argument?

If the strats are unlocked, the strat unlocks DH. I very much disagree with you that it could be the case that Morty could use the strat, get Warptime, and then not be allowed to cast it, or that Morty could be allowed to use the strat but then somehow prohibited from getting Warptime even though the strat specifically allows it. If the strat works, the strat authorizes the use of the DH power, in the same way that if a CSM detachment unlocks the strats, you can then use them on DG or TSons.

It all comes back to whether you can use the strat. Which comes back to how you read the text. And we know for a fact that GW read the text to allow it, the exact same text that we're now talking about and you are now claiming unambiguously does not allow it.

I gave you an example where GW literally flip flopped! It's not the only one, and has no nuance to it at all.

The rules are damned

How does the strat authorise use of the power? In no way does it do so, it relies entairely on the basic rules for powers. In no way shape or form csn that be said to even come CLOSE to overriding the specific denial of using any abilities or rules you have here.


No it does not come back t8 that. And I've proven, four times now, that you've got two hurdles and your argument passes neither. No amount of hand waving from you gets around that.

RAW you are not correct. Twice over. Go change the rules with that faq,,and then removed the faq for 9th. A whole edition ago you were right. Now? Not. Not even close.

You can't really argue RAI, Yuki, when it sure seems like the intent of changing Warptime to need a Legion was to stop Morty from using it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can't really argue RAI, Yuki, when it sure seems like the intent of changing Warptime to need a Legion was to stop Morty from using it.

I'm not arguing RAI. This isn't a place to argue RAI. I'm saying that GW told us what the RAW meaning of that text is, and what they told us was that as long as you unlock the rules using a CSM detachment, the strats can be used on DG and TSons.

The document GW used to tell us what that text means is no longer current, but the text itself still is. Do we really want to just pretend like GW never told us what that text means?

What GW told us is that "DG and TSons cannot make use of these rules" means they cannot make use the rules unless you have a CSM detachment to unlock the rules. Are we really saying that reading can't possibly be right, even though GW actually told us it is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I gave you an example where GW literally flip flopped! It's not the only one, and has no nuance to it at all.

The rules are damned

How does the strat authorise use of the power? In no way does it do so, it relies entairely on the basic rules for powers. In no way shape or form csn that be said to even come CLOSE to overriding the specific denial of using any abilities or rules you have here.


No it does not come back t8 that. And I've proven, four times now, that you've got two hurdles and your argument passes neither. No amount of hand waving from you gets around that.

RAW you are not correct. Twice over. Go change the rules with that faq,,and then removed the faq for 9th. A whole edition ago you were right. Now? Not. Not even close.

The funny thing about this is you yourself said it was legal just a month ago, when the situation was exactly the same as it is now re: what the rules text says (adding <LEGION> has no impact on this discussion we're having now, it's about the stuff at the start of the CSM rules section). What changed in your mind? Were you just totally wrong then? Honestly curious. You're presenting this as this totally obvious and inarguable thing, despite it directly contradicting what you said last time the topic came up. Literally every single person in this thread thought it was totally fine a month ago.

If you want the full inflexibility of RAW...

CSM and Deathguard Codex do not have have <Legion> Deathguard. CSM says that Death Guard are so divergent from other CSM they have their own set of rules, thus no <Legion> Deathguard in CSM Codex. Deathguard have no <Legion> formats.

You have to infer it from IA Compendium FAQ that allows a specific use case swap to allow units in IA to be fielded in Death Guard and Thousand Sons .And since when does GW allow a ruling on one FAQ to apply to all other FAQs? Never.

That's the inflexibility of RAW... it doesn't say yes in this case.

DEATH GUARD is a <LEGION>, it can't be a <LEGION> in some cases and not a <LEGION> in other cases, GW affirmatively says it is a <LEGION> in one book, and nowhere in any book anywhere does it say it isn't a <LEGION>. Codex CSM says you can't select it as a <LEGION> for Codex: CSM units, which only makes sense if it is a <LEGION> generally, otherwise it'd be like saying you can't select ULTRAMARINES as your legion. There'd be no reason to say it.

I'm not going back to the <LEGION> argument at this point more than that, everybody's moved on from that because it's an obvious loser of an argument. The question is whether he can use the strat, not whether you can replace <LEGION> if he can use the strat. If you want to continue to think Morty gets a version of Warptime that just says <LEGION> it's your right to have that opinion, that argument has been well and truly exhausted and everyone's laid out their positions.

It does not appear that this particular argument is going to be resolved here in this thread