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.

 Flipsiders wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Custom keywords don't gain the keywords or synergies of any of the names you put on it.

It's the same reason I can't name my guard regiment <blood angels> and gain the blood angels buffs and synergies

Can you provide a citation for this statement? I don't see it anywhere in any official GW rulebook.

You can baselessly claim that I can't use stratagems from the CSM book on my custom Hive Fleet World Eaters Tyranids according to "RAI," but, of course, if we follow RAW, there is nothing which specifically states I cannot do so.

If that is a genuine question put it in its own thread its not relevant here in the question of whether this instance is RAW or RAI but I suspect your trolling so I can't be bothered finding the reference

While it is true that I am expressing my point in an intentionally humorous fashion, my statement in that comment relies on the same flavor of textual semantics as yours does.

Let me ask more blatantly: If a "supreme grandmaster" is a "grandmaster" because it is a position defined as a form of "grandmaster," just like how a "baseball bat" could be called a "bat" because it's a form of "bat," then an IG regiment dubbed the "blood angels" must count as "blood angels" because they are an organization defined by being "blood angels," correct? Could you find me something in RAW that states otherwise?

Note that I'm asking about the RAW ruling, here; whatever claim you make about how the two are different, I am unlikely to accept it if you don't back it up with a quote.

The question has no bearing on this it is not the same thing and was faq'd

my claim is not that it happens. My claim is that people saying its raw cannot prove that it doesn't. Which requires a quote. proving something irrelevant to this question doesn't make this RAW or RAI. You also don't need to accept it. You can either prove that is the case or not in which case you disprove me or you cannot prove either way in which case I am right

Also blood angels is an organisation defined by two words Supreme grandmaster could be viewed as either a rank defined by two words or a rank noun and an adjective for a type of that rank e.g. a brigadier general is still a general. You cannot differentiate which under raw



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It is the crux of this argument it is how lists work in English. You know full well a baseball bat does refer to the noun as in animal it refers to noun as in stick of wood for hitting balls. But if you want to use the same analogy with "baseball stadium" being a stadium for clarity be my guest.

Exactly. The crux is how you define a list.

The following list has 5 items: Peanut Butter, Chocolate, Vanilla, Caramel, Honey.

Is Butter on this list? No. It is not. Peanut Butter is not Butter. It is two words used to describe a singular thing that is a different thing than Butter.

That is the difference between the Supreme Grand Master and Grand Master keywords. Both are singular keywords on the specific datasheets lists of keywords. Take a moment to read the keywords on Kaldor Drag's and the Grand Master datasheets. Supreme Grand Master is not magically two different keywords, both Supreme Grand Master and Grand Master. So if a rule call for Grand Master, it doesn't apply to Supreme Grand Master.

This is also why many datasheets have to include things like, both Terminator and Brotherhood Terminator Squad in their list of keywords. Because the Terminator in Brotherhood Terminator Squad cannot be separated from the rest of the keyword because all three words are singular keyword in the list of keywords.

Again I am not disputing that two words can describe one thing on a list. so showing that does not change that two words can also describe an adjective and a noun. All you have done is demonstrate it could be your way not proved it can't be the other which is what you need to do for a raw proof