Switch Theme:

Be'lakor advance and charge?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

DeathReaper wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
<Allegiance>
With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. 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.
No. It does not. The SLAANESH keyword is the SLAANESH keyword whether it is on the datasheet or selected via <Allegiance>.
No what does not? What are you talking about?

DeathReaper wrote:
warped wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:

KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword.
Page 84 of the Codex under the headline KEYWORDS, second sentence:
This is shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below:

Not treated different in the rules.
For the Be'lakor dataslate, which is what we were talking about, it does not let you get a keyword of your own choosing at all. So they are treated different in the rules for the situation we are discussing.
I'm talking about the red above. You said his god keywords are treated differently from Allegiance keywords, which is simply not true.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Alextroy has it right. A datasheet with faction SLAANESH is the same faction as a datasheet with faction <Allegiance> when replaced with Slaanesh, much in the same way that faction ULTRAMARINES characters are the same faction as a datasheet with faction <Chapter> when replaced with Ultramarines.

On the whole issue, I think GW need to clean up their Chaos Daemons FAQ. I would personally consider the Daemons FAQ irrelevant for Be'lakor - the Warlord trait FAQ is a example where the FAQ doesn't make sense and clearly hasn't been updated for the newer datasheet.

In terms of the Loci, with how it interacts with the newer datasheet for Be'lakor, I think that it is sufficiently ambiguous. If Be'lakor is included in a Slaanesh Daemons detachment, all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh. But Be'lakor also has allegiance to Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. If you approach the Loci question as, "Do all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh?" then the answer is yes. If you approach it as "Do all of the daemons have matching allegiance?" then the answer is no. IMO both approaches are valid interpretations of the RAW.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




JakeSiren wrote:

In terms of the Loci, with how it interacts with the newer datasheet for Be'lakor, I think that it is sufficiently ambiguous. If Be'lakor is included in a Slaanesh Daemons detachment, all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh. But Be'lakor also has allegiance to Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. If you approach the Loci question as, "Do all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh?" then the answer is yes. If you approach it as "Do all of the daemons have matching allegiance?" then the answer is no. IMO both approaches are valid interpretations of the RAW.

Just to be sure, is that your interpretation after reading BRB page 245 section "FACTIONS"?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yes, because that only applies to factions, unless you can prove otherwise

Also, he either has no stated allegiance (from null to infinite) based on the written rules, or he has 4, and not the required one.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because that only applies to factions, unless you can prove otherwise

Also, he either has no stated allegiance (from null to infinite) based on the written rules, or he has 4, and not the required one.

First of all, I didn't ask you.
Second I don't think you read it or if you did, you don't care.

The rule on p245 specifically clarifies that the wording used for <ALLEGIANCES> is inclusive. Matching 1 is enough. The whole rule just for you:
Spoiler:

FACTIONS
A unit's Faction is important when building a Battle-forged army, because most Detachments require all units included in them to be from the same Faction. Importantly, for an army to be Battle-forged it must have an Army Faction (see below).

The Factions that a unit belongs to will be listed in the Factions keywords sections of its datasheet.

Faction: Described by Faction keywords on a unit's datasheet.
If Detachment require all units to be from the same Faction, they must all share at least one Faction Keyword.


So let's go through it.
Daemonic Loci is something Chaos Daemons Detchments qualify for "so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God.". Comparing that with the rules on 245 that show that to be from the same Faction, they must all share at least one Faction Keyword, we can conclude that the phrasing is the same, ie; same allows for "at least one".

You're quite right that the rule in question is in the context of factions. Luckily for us, <ALLEGIANCES> happen to be factions and how you check a faction it's literally spelt out in the last sentence of the spoilered rules, or on p245 if you prefer. This is Be'lakor from War Zone p74 of War Zone Act 2:
FACTION KEYWORDS: Chaos, Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Daemon

Enough.
The burden of proof is on you.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 alextroy wrote:
Spoiler:
DeathReaper wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
<Allegiance>
With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. 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.
No. It does not. The SLAANESH keyword is the SLAANESH keyword whether it is on the datasheet or selected via <Allegiance>.
No what does not? What are you talking about?

DeathReaper wrote:
warped wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:

KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword.
Page 84 of the Codex under the headline KEYWORDS, second sentence:
This is shorthand for a keyword of your own choosing, as described below:

Not treated different in the rules.
For the Be'lakor dataslate, which is what we were talking about, it does not let you get a keyword of your own choosing at all. So they are treated different in the rules for the situation we are discussing.
I'm talking about the red above. You said his god keywords are treated differently from Allegiance keywords, which is simply not true.
What I was saying is true if you do not ignore the context of my post. I said "KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH,TZEENTCH are keywords, but they are different than the "ALLEGIANCE" keyword." Which is true.

Let me explain the context of what I was talking about.

If a Dataslate has KHORNE, then that keyword can not be replaced with NURGLE.

If a Dataslate has <ALLEGIANCE>, then that keyword can be replaced with NURGLE.

See how they are different?

Basically just because all apples are fruit does not mean all fruit are apples.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

So what is the difference between SLAANESH on a datasheet, and <ALLEGIANCE> on a datasheet that’s replaced with SLAANESH?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what is the difference between SLAANESH on a datasheet, and <ALLEGIANCE> on a datasheet that’s replaced with SLAANESH?
One is printed on the Dataslate and can not be changed, and <ALLEGIANCE> can be KHORNE, NURGLE, SLAANESH, or TZEENTCH depending on what you pick.




This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/20 19:57:48


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

So no difference when it’s been selected.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 JNAProductions wrote:
So no difference when it’s been selected.
Technically, one was static, and one you picked would be the difference.

But what does that have to do with anything?

No one was talking about that.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 DeathReaper wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
So no difference when it’s been selected.
Technically, one was static, and one you picked would be the difference.

But what does that have to do with anything?

No one was talking about that.
What's the point in noting this difference? It has zero rules effect if your datasheet come stock with Slannesh or your picked Slannesh to replace <Allegiance> when you added the unit to your army list.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 alextroy wrote:
Spoiler:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
So no difference when it’s been selected.
Technically, one was static, and one you picked would be the difference.

But what does that have to do with anything?

No one was talking about that.
What's the point in noting this difference? It has zero rules effect if your datasheet come stock with Slannesh or your picked Slannesh to replace <Allegiance> when you added the unit to your army list.
I am not sure why JNAProductions went on that tangent.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/21 04:47:49


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




warped wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:

In terms of the Loci, with how it interacts with the newer datasheet for Be'lakor, I think that it is sufficiently ambiguous. If Be'lakor is included in a Slaanesh Daemons detachment, all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh. But Be'lakor also has allegiance to Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. If you approach the Loci question as, "Do all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh?" then the answer is yes. If you approach it as "Do all of the daemons have matching allegiance?" then the answer is no. IMO both approaches are valid interpretations of the RAW.

Just to be sure, is that your interpretation after reading BRB page 245 section "FACTIONS"?
Yes.

Having read your response to Nosferatu1001, I don't think you can reasonably make the conclusion that "every unit... owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" as being equivalent to "every unit... shares at least one Chaos God allegiance".
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




As above

The burden of proof hasn't shifted, you in fact showed that the wording for factions is handily different to that of allegiance

To be Same is not the same as to share

You've proven your own argument false.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




JakeSiren wrote:
warped wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:

In terms of the Loci, with how it interacts with the newer datasheet for Be'lakor, I think that it is sufficiently ambiguous. If Be'lakor is included in a Slaanesh Daemons detachment, all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh. But Be'lakor also has allegiance to Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. If you approach the Loci question as, "Do all of the daemons have allegiance to Slaanesh?" then the answer is yes. If you approach it as "Do all of the daemons have matching allegiance?" then the answer is no. IMO both approaches are valid interpretations of the RAW.

Just to be sure, is that your interpretation after reading BRB page 245 section "FACTIONS"?
Yes.

Having read your response to Nosferatu1001, I don't think you can reasonably make the conclusion that "every unit... owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God" as being equivalent to "every unit... shares at least one Chaos God allegiance".

That's not what I wrote. You modified the part of the statement I said was equivalent. (Why?)

In my reply to Nosferatu1001 I compared the following:
"so long as every unit in that Detachment owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God."

with:
"to be from the same Faction, they must all share at least one Faction Keyword"

The two parts in italics are equivalent, it's reasonable to conclude that the underlined clarification applies to both.

If B means C and A and B are the same, then A also means C.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above

The burden of proof hasn't shifted, you in fact showed that the wording for factions is handily different to that of allegiance

To be Same is not the same as to share

You've proven your own argument false.

I firmly believe you're trolling and enjoy arguing for argument's sake instead of actually looking at the validity of your claims.
In the context of that, the chosen username is apt.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/21 15:03:26


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Why is faction and allegiance equivalent? They may use the same keywords, but we know that chaos daemons of Nurgle are not the same as CSM daemons of Nurgle (for a specific use - strats) and that's comparing exactly the same thing (faction) and not a different concept entirely.

Your reasonable conclusion is completely unsafe.
Sharing at least one keyword is not the same (hah) as being told you must have the same keyword. One is many to one, the other is one to one

But given you've proven you're arguing in bad faith already, I don't believe you will engage.

Also, you realise nosferatu was a vampire, right ? Not a troll?
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





I still have my old finecast Be'lakor and I used to play lots of mixed daemons and Chaos Warriors/CSM in 40k and WHFB back when that was a thing, but I have been considering the new model/books so this is actually pretty relevant to me. As the OP and others noted, this is a situation where a D6 roll really doesn't resolve the situation if you're going to a tournament or FLGS, unless you've got room in your bag for Be'lakor AND a Keeper of Secrets AND the rest of your army, plus extra models/units you need to bring two lists. So, really, I don't think this will be resolved without an updated FAQ, but I think there is another way to approach the RAW that we currently have.

So, to quickly summarize the argument so far as I can tell, there are 3 rules in 3 different publications that are in conflict:

1. The first sentence of the Allegiance rule in Codex: Chaos Daemons:

With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


2. The answer to a Codex Daemons FAQ question:

A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.


3. The updated Be'lakor datasheet from War Zone: Charadon 2 which replaces the old datasheet and gives Be'lakor faction keywords for all four chaos gods.


So, addressing these in reverse order, no one is disputing (3) that the new datasheet takes precedence and that it has added the keywords for all four gods.

Most people seem to agree that the FAQ answer in (2) was the correct RAW interpretation at the time it was published, but that it is now incorrect or irrelevant due to a new datasheet being released in a new book.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be hung up on (1) the Allegiance rule and the first sentence there, and whether it is still relevant or not.

My Hot Take: The sentence that says "With the exception of Be'lakor..." is not actually a rule at all. It's descriptive prose to clarify the subsequent rule that follows it and describes the state of the codex and datasheets that were published at the time. Out of all the datasheets published in that codex, all had exactly one allegiance, with the exception of Be'lakor, who had none. The FAQ answer can also clarifies that this is the reason a detachment with Be'lakor does not get a Locus, because he has no allegiance as was RAW at the time.

So if (1) was never relevant and (2) is no longer relevant as it references a fact of the old datasheet, then current RAW is that a mono-daemon detachment which includes Be'lakor gets the Locus of that god.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 WarsmithMike wrote:
Spoiler:
I still have my old finecast Be'lakor and I used to play lots of mixed daemons and Chaos Warriors/CSM in 40k and WHFB back when that was a thing, but I have been considering the new model/books so this is actually pretty relevant to me. As the OP and others noted, this is a situation where a D6 roll really doesn't resolve the situation if you're going to a tournament or FLGS, unless you've got room in your bag for Be'lakor AND a Keeper of Secrets AND the rest of your army, plus extra models/units you need to bring two lists. So, really, I don't think this will be resolved without an updated FAQ, but I think there is another way to approach the RAW that we currently have.

So, to quickly summarize the argument so far as I can tell, there are 3 rules in 3 different publications that are in conflict:

1. The first sentence of the Allegiance rule in Codex: Chaos Daemons:

With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


2. The answer to a Codex Daemons FAQ question:

A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.


3. The updated Be'lakor datasheet from War Zone: Charadon 2 which replaces the old datasheet and gives Be'lakor faction keywords for all four chaos gods.


So, addressing these in reverse order, no one is disputing (3) that the new datasheet takes precedence and that it has added the keywords for all four gods.

Most people seem to agree that the FAQ answer in (2) was the correct RAW interpretation at the time it was published, but that it is now incorrect or irrelevant due to a new datasheet being released in a new book.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be hung up on (1) the Allegiance rule and the first sentence there, and whether it is still relevant or not.

My Hot Take: The sentence that says "With the exception of Be'lakor..." is not actually a rule at all. It's descriptive prose to clarify the subsequent rule that follows it and describes the state of the codex and datasheets that were published at the time. Out of all the datasheets published in that codex, all had exactly one allegiance, with the exception of Be'lakor, who had none. The FAQ answer can also clarifies that this is the reason a detachment with Be'lakor does not get a Locus, because he has no allegiance as was RAW at the time.

So if (1) was never relevant and (2) is no longer relevant as it references a fact of the old datasheet, then current RAW is that a mono-daemon detachment which includes Be'lakor gets the Locus of that god.
I noted this earlier in the thread, but Be'lakor is still an exception to the "one Chaos God" statement, just for the opposite reason from before (4 Gods instead of none). Similarly, the FAQ answer is also still correct for the very same opposite reason (4 Gods, not just any 1). So until they revise the FAQ, it is still a clear ruling that cannot be logically refuted.

Now the Warlord Trait FAQ answer simply contradicts the rules.

My suggestion, email GW Rules and hope they revise the Chaos Daemon or Charadon FAQ to give a clear and updated answer to the question.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/22 14:01:26


 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why is faction and allegiance equivalent? They may use the same keywords, but we know that chaos daemons of Nurgle are not the same as CSM daemons of Nurgle (for a specific use - strats) and that's comparing exactly the same thing (faction) and not a different concept entirely.

Your reasonable conclusion is completely unsafe.
Sharing at least one keyword is not the same (hah) as being told you must have the same keyword. One is many to one, the other is one to one

But given you've proven you're arguing in bad faith already, I don't believe you will engage.

Also, you realise nosferatu was a vampire, right ? Not a troll?

I have no need to convert you, you've made your case and the forum can judge you based on that. The same goes for me.
You source none of your opinions and anytime you're questioned you flip your argument, don't address the criticism and request that the other side show proof, never doing so yourself. When proof is shown you ignore it and repeat your statements.

Your last comment is something I can agree with; I won't engage your baiting anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 WarsmithMike wrote:
Spoiler:
I still have my old finecast Be'lakor and I used to play lots of mixed daemons and Chaos Warriors/CSM in 40k and WHFB back when that was a thing, but I have been considering the new model/books so this is actually pretty relevant to me. As the OP and others noted, this is a situation where a D6 roll really doesn't resolve the situation if you're going to a tournament or FLGS, unless you've got room in your bag for Be'lakor AND a Keeper of Secrets AND the rest of your army, plus extra models/units you need to bring two lists. So, really, I don't think this will be resolved without an updated FAQ, but I think there is another way to approach the RAW that we currently have.

So, to quickly summarize the argument so far as I can tell, there are 3 rules in 3 different publications that are in conflict:

1. The first sentence of the Allegiance rule in Codex: Chaos Daemons:

With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods.


2. The answer to a Codex Daemons FAQ question:

A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.


3. The updated Be'lakor datasheet from War Zone: Charadon 2 which replaces the old datasheet and gives Be'lakor faction keywords for all four chaos gods.


So, addressing these in reverse order, no one is disputing (3) that the new datasheet takes precedence and that it has added the keywords for all four gods.

Most people seem to agree that the FAQ answer in (2) was the correct RAW interpretation at the time it was published, but that it is now incorrect or irrelevant due to a new datasheet being released in a new book.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be hung up on (1) the Allegiance rule and the first sentence there, and whether it is still relevant or not.

My Hot Take: The sentence that says "With the exception of Be'lakor..." is not actually a rule at all. It's descriptive prose to clarify the subsequent rule that follows it and describes the state of the codex and datasheets that were published at the time. Out of all the datasheets published in that codex, all had exactly one allegiance, with the exception of Be'lakor, who had none. The FAQ answer can also clarifies that this is the reason a detachment with Be'lakor does not get a Locus, because he has no allegiance as was RAW at the time.

So if (1) was never relevant and (2) is no longer relevant as it references a fact of the old datasheet, then current RAW is that a mono-daemon detachment which includes Be'lakor gets the Locus of that god.


Nice summary and observations.
I agree 100%.

Thank you for taking your time posting that.

Edited: Spoilered Warsmiths reply.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/22 16:18:11


 
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





 alextroy wrote:

I noted this earlier in the thread, but Be'lakor is still an exception to the "one Chaos God" statement, just for the opposite reason from before (4 Gods instead of none). Similarly, the FAQ answer is also still correct for the very same opposite reason (4 Gods, not just any 1). So until they revise the FAQ, it is still a clear ruling that cannot be logically refuted.


Oh, right, that argument. I specifically didn't address that because it's not a real issue. The only thing that mentions "any one Chaos God" is the FAQ answer, which is not only irrelevant now, but again I would interpret that answer as a description of the reason why the answer was no, not a rule unto itself.

The Daemonic Locus rule says "the same Chaos God". And allegiances are basically just another word for factions. The only way that argument works is if you start debating the meaning of basic english words like "same" and "share", and at that point, you're not really making an argument, you're just being pedantic.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Warped - incorrect, as I cited sources and explained my argument. I also refuted yours

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make me a troll. Your foot stomp on the other hand...
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 WarsmithMike wrote:
 alextroy wrote:

I noted this earlier in the thread, but Be'lakor is still an exception to the "one Chaos God" statement, just for the opposite reason from before (4 Gods instead of none). Similarly, the FAQ answer is also still correct for the very same opposite reason (4 Gods, not just any 1). So until they revise the FAQ, it is still a clear ruling that cannot be logically refuted.

Oh, right, that augument. I specifically didn't address that because it's not a real issue. The only thing that mentions "any one Chaos God" is the FAQ answer, which is not only irrelevant now, but again I would interpret that answer as a description of the reason why the answer was no, not a rule unto itself.

The Daemonic Locus rule says "the same Chaos God". And allegiances are basically just another word for factions. The only way that argument works is if you start debating the meaning of basic english words like "same" and "share", and at that point, you're not really making an argument, you're just being pedantic.
I'm confused. You ignored the argument because what isn't a real issue?

Going by your argument, I have to think you are ignoring it because you don't want the statement With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods to be a rule. Only GW knows the answer to that, However given their FAQ answer, I kinda think it is. YMMV, but when GW's ruling can be plausibility correct, I'm not inclined to discount it because I don't want it to be.
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





 alextroy wrote:
I'm confused. You ignored the argument because what isn't a real issue?

This:
 alextroy wrote:
Be'lakor has all 4 of the allegiance keywords and thus does not have allegiance to 1 of the four Chaos Gods. He has allegiance to all 4 of them!

I like that you added the exclamation point at the end, as it highlights my point perfectly. This statement reads as absurd and/or humorous, because while it is grammatically and logically consistent, it relies on a non-standard usage of language to reach an absurd and unexpected conclusion. It reads like a bad "Dad Joke", which you might punctuate with an exclamation point to indicate the punch-line.

That's fine, some people may actually like "Dad Jokes", but we probably shouldn't be using them to determine rules questions, IMO.


Going by your argument, I have to think you are ignoring it because you don't want the statement With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods to be a rule.


It's possible, like I said, I do like Be'lakor and have played Chaos Daemons quite a bit, but I already explained why I do not think it's a rule at all, let alone one that should apply in this situation. I actually thought about breaking it down further, but my last post was already getting a bit long, but I'll do it for you now.

Here's the part of that rule I would consider descriptive or explanatory and not specifically a 'rule' per se:
Spoiler:

With the exception of Be’lakor, all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods. Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle).


And here's the actual rules text (emphasis mine for the rulez logiks):
Spoiler:

IF a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to,
[ THEN ] it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword.
WHEN you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to.
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.


See the difference? Maybe you don't, but I think most people will. The first part is just descriptive prose, but the text that follows (which I do consider 'the rules' is written in clear and precise language so that there is almost no room for interpretation of its meaning. (I only added a single implied word and some formatting, otherwise this is the exact text.)

In addition, this rule never applied to any of Be'lakor's datasheets, because as you noted above they do not have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. So I highly doubt it was intended to apply to this situation.

Only GW knows the answer to that, However given their FAQ answer, I kinda think it is. YMMV, but when GW's ruling can be plausibility correct, I'm not inclined to discount it because I don't want it to be.

So, now you're arguing RAI based on an outdated/superceded FAQ question. Good luck with that. I'm not discounting a GW ruling, I am discounting your interpretation of it, because it's silly. The fact that you added the exclamation point to the end of the sentence makes me believe you know this too. I won't grant you the fact that it could even be plausible that GW intended us to interpret a rule using this kind of atypical logic that would essentially break the entire Faction Keyword system of the whole game.

So that's why it's not a real issue. If I showed up with Be'lakor and Khorne daemons list, and you said "Hey, I think there was an FAQ ruling about that, my buddy used to play Chaos Daemons," I would show you the updated datasheet in Book of Fire with all the keywords and explain that it was released after said FAQ, and then we would most likely get on with the game. If you tried to make this argument to me instead, I would start packing up my models and leave. If a TO told me "No Locus for mono-faction daemons with Be'lakor HQ" because we're going with the old FAQ, or because it's too powerful/meta-breaking, I'd say that's fine, tournaments have lots of rules and regulations like that. If a TO tried to make the argument you are making, I would pack up my models and ask for a refund, because if you or the TO think this is a valid argument, what other crazy rule interpretations might start coming out?
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

The flaws to your logic train is that you first assume the sentence is descriptive and not rules. It may be, but there is no proof one way or the other.

Secondly, you assume the FAQ answer has been superseded because of the changes to the datasheet. However the FAQ does not specifically mention anything on the datasheet. It seems to be more designers commentary than a simple explanation of the rule. It could have said, “As Be’lakor does not have the required keyword, including him in a detachment prevents any models in that detachment from gaining a Daemonic Loci”. Sadly, it did not.

What GW intends is something only they can tell when/if they update one of the FAQs.
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





 alextroy wrote:
The flaws to your logic train is that you first assume the sentence is descriptive and not rules. It may be, but there is no proof one way or the other.

Secondly, you assume the FAQ answer has been superseded because of the changes to the datasheet. However the FAQ does not specifically mention anything on the datasheet. It seems to be more designers commentary than a simple explanation of the rule. It could have said, “As Be’lakor does not have the required keyword, including him in a detachment prevents any models in that detachment from gaining a Daemonic Loci”. Sadly, it did not.


Except I didn't assume anything. I quoted the exact text and provided an interpretation (which I believe to be correct) and explained how I came to that conclusion. I also pointed out the fact that the rule in question never applied to Be'lakor in the first place, that seems like decent evidence to me.

Yes, we may never get absolute, definitive proof, without an official FAQ, but I think there is plenty of evidence supporting my interpretation. This type of combination of descriptive prose alongside formal rules can be found throughout GW rulebooks, other gaming rulebooks, textbooks, technical manuals, etc.

Can you provide any evidence that the first clause, "With the exception of Be’lakor," should apply to anything other than the immediately following phrase, "all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."? Because I think that's all it's there for, it's stating a fact about the datasheets in the codex that was correct at the time it was published. So the FAQ answer is just a restatement of this fact, like, it wasn't a misprint or an error of omission that Be'lakor's old datasheet didn't have those keywords.

Be'lakor's new datasheet, however, contains all the faction keywords, which are the same thing as allegiances. So, if Be'lakor's new rules specifying he can only take his Shadow Lord trait supercede the FAQ about his Warlord Trait, then the new faction keywords supercede the "does not owe allegiance" FAQ answer. I guess you could argue that faction keywords and allegiances are different, but I think that's a pretty weak argument which warped already covered earlier in the thread.

I think we all wish that in these kinds of situations, GW's rules writers/designers would use more precise language. But then what would we argue about on Dakka? The answer you gave as an example is perfectly clear, I would have no problem with it at all. If you ever apply for a job as a FAQ writer, feel free to use me as a reference. ;-)

What GW intends is something only they can tell when/if they update one of the FAQs.


Which is why there's literally an entire section in the wiki article linked to the sticky at the top of this subforum telling people not to argue Intents. And why I am intentionally avoiding it and making an argument based on what is written. So if you can provide any counter-evidence, please do, otherwise I think I have made my case.

But, ultimately I think this rules conflict resulted from a misreading of one sentence and a misapplication of outdated rules. So, from my point of view, the RAW and RAI are the same, no FAQ update is strictly needed. Old mono-daemon Be'lakor got no Locus. New Be'lakor does. Simple as.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




New belakor doesn't, because he does not owe allegiance to the same chaos god as the keeper of secret. He owes allegiance to Khorne. And Nurgle. And tzeentch

You cannot disprove this, because it is true.

GW need to errata the rules on allegiance if you want to allow belakor to exist in a detachment and not break locus.

As for the first bit of the allegiance rule not being rules, it is. It tells you how to identify the allegiance of, for example , a keeper of secrets.

Your opinion that it isn't rules is just that. An opinion. And one proven not to be factually correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"So, if Be'lakor's new rules specifying he can only take his Shadow Lord trait supercede the FAQ about his Warlord Trait, then the new faction keywords supercede the "does not owe allegiance" FAQ answer"
Assumption

The concept of allegiance is not the same as faction. We know this to be true. Faction is "at least one" whereas allegiance is "exactly the same".

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 08:01:23


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 WarsmithMike wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
The flaws to your logic train is that you first assume the sentence is descriptive and not rules. It may be, but there is no proof one way or the other.

Secondly, you assume the FAQ answer has been superseded because of the changes to the datasheet. However the FAQ does not specifically mention anything on the datasheet. It seems to be more designers commentary than a simple explanation of the rule. It could have said, “As Be’lakor does not have the required keyword, including him in a detachment prevents any models in that detachment from gaining a Daemonic Loci”. Sadly, it did not.


Except I didn't assume anything. I quoted the exact text and provided an interpretation (which I believe to be correct) and explained how I came to that conclusion. I also pointed out the fact that the rule in question never applied to Be'lakor in the first place, that seems like decent evidence to me.

Yes, we may never get absolute, definitive proof, without an official FAQ, but I think there is plenty of evidence supporting my interpretation. This type of combination of descriptive prose alongside formal rules can be found throughout GW rulebooks, other gaming rulebooks, textbooks, technical manuals, etc.

Can you provide any evidence that the first clause, "With the exception of Be’lakor," should apply to anything other than the immediately following phrase, "all Chaos Daemons owe allegiance to one of the four Chaos Gods."? Because I think that's all it's there for, it's stating a fact about the datasheets in the codex that was correct at the time it was published. So the FAQ answer is just a restatement of this fact, like, it wasn't a misprint or an error of omission that Be'lakor's old datasheet didn't have those keywords.

Be'lakor's new datasheet, however, contains all the faction keywords, which are the same thing as allegiances. So, if Be'lakor's new rules specifying he can only take his Shadow Lord trait supercede the FAQ about his Warlord Trait, then the new faction keywords supercede the "does not owe allegiance" FAQ answer. I guess you could argue that faction keywords and allegiances are different, but I think that's a pretty weak argument which warped already covered earlier in the thread.

I think we all wish that in these kinds of situations, GW's rules writers/designers would use more precise language. But then what would we argue about on Dakka? The answer you gave as an example is perfectly clear, I would have no problem with it at all. If you ever apply for a job as a FAQ writer, feel free to use me as a reference. ;-)

What GW intends is something only they can tell when/if they update one of the FAQs.


Which is why there's literally an entire section in the wiki article linked to the sticky at the top of this subforum telling people not to argue Intents. And why I am intentionally avoiding it and making an argument based on what is written. So if you can provide any counter-evidence, please do, otherwise I think I have made my case.

But, ultimately I think this rules conflict resulted from a misreading of one sentence and a misapplication of outdated rules. So, from my point of view, the RAW and RAI are the same, no FAQ update is strictly needed. Old mono-daemon Be'lakor got no Locus. New Be'lakor does. Simple as.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm also not saying you're right. I'm saying there is enough space in the way the rule and FAQ written to not be able to rule against the Daemonic Loci rule while the Warlord Trait rule clearly contradicts subsequently published rules.

As I said, we need to wait for GW to clean up their mess before we know what they really intended.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




My opinion is that any time you see a mention of Be'lakor in the FAQ, it refers to Be'lakor from the book the FAQ amends.
snippets from the public FAQ for the 8th ed Chaos Daemons Codex wrote:
Page 102 – Be’lakor, Abilities
Remove ‘Daemonic Ritual’

Q: If I include Be’lakor in a Detachment in which every other unit owes its allegiance to the same Chaos God, does that Detachment benefit from the Daemonic Loci ability?
A: No, as Be’lakor does not owe allegiance to any one Chaos God.

Q: What Warlord Traits can Be’lakor have?
A: Be’lakor can have the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait from the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book.

So, none of the above rules have any effect on Be'lakor as he now exists, from the War Zone supplement. I base this on the fact that the FAQ boldly lists the name of the Codex in the very first line below the logo. It's further reinforced by the lack of Daemonic Ritual on the new dataslate (p74 War Zone Act 2), so that errata is clearly a miss. The same goes for the allegiances, since he now has allegiances to all four gods instead of none and finally that the new dataslate specifies that you have to take Shadow Lord as the warlord trait. They even added a designer's note to preempt similar discussions, stating that the new dataslate replaces the old one.

The only reasonable conclusion I can make from all this is that references to Be'lakor in the FAQ are null and void. Ever seen an Excel document with broken formulas listing #REF! ? That is equivalent what I see as having happened here.

I feel that the moment you decide to allow the FAQ for the Codex affect dataslates released after the publication of the FAQ is the moment you open the door to anarchy in the context of how to interpret almost any of the rules.
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





 alextroy wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm also not saying you're right. I'm saying there is enough space in the way the rule and FAQ written to not be able to rule against the Daemonic Loci rule while the Warlord Trait rule clearly contradicts subsequently published rules.

As I said, we need to wait for GW to clean up their mess before we know what they really intended.


Yup, I agree that there's some ambiguity, I'm not going to claim that it's 100% clear, so we're in agreement there. But, you seem to think it's more like 50/50, so we need a ruling from GW. My point is if you look at all the rules and text that we have (across 2 or 3 books and several FAQs), I think it's more like 80/20 or 90/10, i.e. there's more evidence supporting that he gets the Locus than against it. So that's How I Would Play It, but I would also expect most people to consider that the current RAW with the absence of other evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
warped wrote:
The only reasonable conclusion I can make from all this is that references to Be'lakor in the FAQ are null and void. Ever seen an Excel document with broken formulas listing #REF! ? That is equivalent what I see as having happened here.

I feel that the moment you decide to allow the FAQ for the Codex affect dataslates released after the publication of the FAQ is the moment you open the door to anarchy in the context of how to interpret almost any of the rules.


I like the Excel example, that is a good analogy of why there's confusion in the first place.

So, does anyone know of any examples of a similar situation, i.e. where GW published new datasheets to override old ones, but both the new and old rulebooks/codexes are still current?

I know they provide guidance such as "Use the most recent rules/codex and the most up-to-date FAQ", etc. But have they ever said anywhere how the FAQs should be applied? I think your reasoning makes the most sense, as it's clearly broken in this case otherwise. But let's say we do see an FAQ update for this before we get a new Codex: Chaos Daemons. Do you think GW would update the existing Codex Daemons FAQ, or the War Zone Charadon FAQ? Both?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 21:22:22


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





GW have updated the Codex: Chaos Daemons errata removing the references to Be’lakor:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/fg9dAIcx6EvpwCM3.pdf

Designer’s Note: Some entries in this document required removal as they do not apply to the updated datasheet for Be’lakor found in War Zone Charadon Act 2: The Book of Fire. In order to make it easier to identify what has been removed, for this iteration of this document we have struck those entries out. These entries will be removed in future iterations of this document.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/24 12:14:20


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: