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.

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
only says "Dreadnought" which is a proper noun

It's not a proper noun. Happy Jew is a proper noun. Bjorn is a proper noun.

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?

It's not a proper noun. Neither is Ironclad Dreadnought. Neither is Scout, Bike, Veteran, or Terminator. Cato Sicarius is a proper noun.

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
only says "Dreadnought" which is a proper noun

It's not a proper noun. Happy Jew is a proper noun. Bjorn is a proper noun.

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?

Dave

 Happyjew wrote:

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

I wasn't involved in that and I don't have those rules. Any opinion that I have would be ill informed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?

Dave

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Sure they are. You are basing an argument on the fact that the unit composition defines the unit. If that is true, then there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz. That is just as silly as the bolters being vulcan mega-bolters.

So the line of reasoning should be dropped because it creates issues across the board.

And.., that's a lie. That is not how I'm basing my argument. You've made the same mistake Idolator did.

It's a lie? Hm, that's funny:

rigeld2 wrote:

Guess what's relevant for embarking? Unit composition. What's the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught? (Hint: It's on page 137)

rigeld2 wrote:

According to their Unit Composition (you know... that pesky thing that determines whether you can embark or not). . .

rigeld2 wrote:

just because venerables have the word venerable before the dreadnaught,
does not suddenly make them non dreads, reading 101

As far as Unit Composition it absolutely does. And guess what matters for embarking in a transport?

rigeld2 wrote:

adding a descriptor to a class does makes you a more specific part of that class, it does not make you into a different class, it simply divides the class further

And Venerable is not a descriptor, it's a different Unit Composition.

rigeld2 wrote:


What is the Unit Composition of a Venerable Dreadnaught unit?
I ask, because according to page 78 that's what is used to determine if a model can embark - not the name of the unit or anything else.

Would you like me to go on?

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

And he's saying that all Ven Dreads are Dreadnoughts, but not all Dreadnoughts are Ven Dreads.

Just like all VMBs are bolters, but not all bolters are VMBs.

Yes!
Now - how do you know which one you're talking about?

Context. Like you said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

So for my two cents, as this thread has gotten silly. It seems that some people believe that.

1: Dreadnoughts are not the same as the Venerable/Ironclad Dreadnoughts.

2: Heavy Flamers are heavy weapons.

3: That Assault Cannons, are Assault Weapons.


Okay with that said. GK's have Both Venerable Dreads and regular Dreads and there has never been an issue with which you can transport in a Stormraven.

If BA's, can transport DC Dreads in a SRGS, and GK's can transport VEN/RER Dreads, all while using the same rule why is there even an issue here?

BLADERIKER wrote:
So for my two cents, as this thread has gotten silly. It seems that some people believe that.

1: Dreadnoughts are not the same as the Venerable/Ironclad Dreadnoughts.

2: Heavy Flamers are heavy weapons.

3: That Assault Cannons, are Assault Weapons.


Okay with that said. GK's have Both Venerable Dreads and regular Dreads and there has never been an issue with which you can transport in a Stormraven.

If BA's, can transport DC Dreads in a SRGS, and GK's can transport VEN/RER Dreads, all while using the same rule why is there even an issue here?

The silly thing about it all is there actually is no issue. Everyone has agreed on the RAI. Now, for some reason, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of the RAW, as if it mattered.

BLADERIKER wrote:
So for my two cents, as this thread has gotten silly. It seems that some people believe that.

1: Dreadnoughts are not the same as the Venerable/Ironclad Dreadnoughts.

2: Heavy Flamers are heavy weapons.

3: That Assault Cannons, are Assault Weapons.


Okay with that said. GK's have Both Venerable Dreads and regular Dreads and there has never been an issue with which you can transport in a Stormraven.

If BA's, can transport DC Dreads in a SRGS, and GK's can transport VEN/RER Dreads, all while using the same rule why is there even an issue here?

First, nobody (I hope) actually believe that Heavy Flamers and Assault Cannons are heavy and assault weapons respectively. It was put forth as to why you should not arbitrarily choose to use part of the name of something to define the thing.

This is the first time (not within the thread, but since the new GK codex came out) that it was even mentioned that the GK codex and BA codex were different in that regards. Once this thread came out people actually went "Huh, technically that is a Venerable Dreadnought and is not allowed to embark". Everybody has agreed that the way they play (and most likely what the RAI are) is that Dreadnought refers to the broad class of Dreadnought which would include Venerable Dreads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
The silly thing about it all is there actually is no issue. Everyone has agreed on the RAI. Now, for some reason, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of the RAW, as if it mattered.

Sometimes it does matter. I enjoy knowing what the actual RAW say as it helps to determine how to make rulings mid-game. I've only played one strict RAW player and due to a slightly better knowledge of the rules (from hanging out here when not working or playing) I was able to quickly turn the game against him.

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
only says "Dreadnought" which is a proper noun

It's not a proper noun. Happy Jew is a proper noun. Bjorn is a proper noun.

So what is the name (by which I mean proper noun) for the walker-type vehicle in Codex Space Marines that is not an Ironclad Dreadnought or Venerable Dreadnought?

Nope still not a proper noun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun

People usually say things like "Regular Dreadnought"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just as an aside to the back and forth don't GW sometimes capitalise classes too?
So the group might again be the one being referred to?

They capitalize darn near everything, probably for trademarking purposes. That's why Dreadnought is always capitalized, as well as Space Marine and Ork. Ork is not a proper noun any more then Bike. But Bike is capitalized all the same.

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

Nope, heavy bolters aren't affected by the DA bolters, and whether they do or no has nothing to do with whether it is capitalized. WTF are you even talking about?

 Happyjew wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
The silly thing about it all is there actually is no issue. Everyone has agreed on the RAI. Now, for some reason, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of the RAW, as if it mattered.

Sometimes it does matter. I enjoy knowing what the actual RAW say as it helps to determine how to make rulings mid-game. I've only played one strict RAW player and due to a slightly better knowledge of the rules (from hanging out here when not working or playing) I was able to quickly turn the game against him.

I was specifically referring to this thread, Happyjew. I am like you, I need the rules to make perfect sense, or it sends alarms going off. If I understand the RAW, I can better understand the RAI, or why it is considered the RAI. But, when all the dust settles, if everyone has agreed on the RAI, I'm not going to continue to argue the RAW to get some inane point across.

 puma713 wrote:

The silly thing about it all is there actually is no issue. Everyone has agreed on the RAI. Now, for some reason, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of the RAW, as if it mattered.

I still haven't figured out how anyone comes to the conlusion that a Ironclad Dreanought isn't a Dreadnought. I'm unable to wrap my head around it.

It reminds me of a Gravchute insertion question, before the 2nd errata update. Some people were arguing that the company intended for the rules to be so badly broken, then when they issued the correction as an error, the same people still insisted that they had been correct and that it was intentional.

You see it all the time.

I do enjoy seeing the mental contortions involved in trying to prove the case however. I keep it up because, I've had to have conversations like this in the real world (Gravchute, among others) and it keeps me sharp.

We are arguing the rules as written so it's still viable. (Plus I think the Mods are enjoying the back and forth a little, as well)

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Sure they are. You are basing an argument on the fact that the unit composition defines the unit. If that is true, then there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz. That is just as silly as the bolters being vulcan mega-bolters.

So the line of reasoning should be dropped because it creates issues across the board.

And.., that's a lie. That is not how I'm basing my argument. You've made the same mistake Idolator did.

It's a lie? Hm, that's funny:

I snipped it all because you're not proving what you think you're proving. Unit Composition does not define the unit for everything. I never - ever - said it did. My argument is not based on the fact that it does, regardless of what you and Idolator want to pretend. If you read my posts in context instead of just filter, ctrl+f, multi quote, you'd see that.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

And he's saying that all Ven Dreads are Dreadnoughts, but not all Dreadnoughts are Ven Dreads.

Just like all VMBs are bolters, but not all bolters are VMBs.

Yes!
Now - how do you know which one you're talking about?

Context. Like you said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

Yes! We agree so far! Excellent!
For comparisons sake, Idolator refused to agree that there are two definitions of the word Dreadnought - one fluff based and one the unit Dreadnought. Do you agree that these are the two definitions of the word, with respect to 40k (and the SM, GK, and maybe BT codexes)?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just as an aside to the back and forth don't GW sometimes capitalise classes too?
So the group might again be the one being referred to?

They capitalize darn near everything, probably for trademarking purposes. That's why Dreadnought is always capitalized, as well as Space Marine and Ork. Ork is not a proper noun any more then Bike. But Bike is capitalized all the same.

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

Nope, heavy bolters aren't affected by the DA bolters, and whether they do or no has nothing to do with whether it is capitalized. WTF are you even talking about?

One of the DA banners makes all bolters within X" a Salvo 2/4 weapon. a thread started asking if this applied to all bolters (by which was meant hurricane bolters, twin-linked bolters on bikes, the bolter portion of combi-weapons) or only that which is commonly referred to as a boltgun with the 24" range, Strength 4, AP 5 Rapid Fire. One of the arguments was since a heavy bolter is a type of bolter it would be affected as well. If they used capitalization, and said all Boltguns, it would refer to the specific weapon known as Boltguns.

It was put forth as to why you should not arbitrarily choose to use part of the name of something to define the thing.

Except for the part where that makes no damn sense as a comparison. It's you said, "by that logic, a missile cruiser must be a missile, right?" Well, no. But it is a cruiser.

It's like you don't even know what words mean. Or proper nouns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just as an aside to the back and forth don't GW sometimes capitalise classes too?
So the group might again be the one being referred to?

They capitalize darn near everything, probably for trademarking purposes. That's why Dreadnought is always capitalized, as well as Space Marine and Ork. Ork is not a proper noun any more then Bike. But Bike is capitalized all the same.

Except for bolters, which led to the whole are heavy bolters and bolt pistols affected by that one DA Banner that makes bolters Salvo 2/4 weapons.

Nope, heavy bolters aren't affected by the DA bolters, and whether they do or no has nothing to do with whether it is capitalized. WTF are you even talking about?

One of the DA banners makes all bolters within X" a Salvo 2/4 weapon. a thread started asking if this applied to all bolters (by which was meant hurricane bolters, twin-linked bolters on bikes, the bolter portion of combi-weapons) or only that which is commonly referred to as a boltgun with the 24" range, Strength 4, AP 5 Rapid Fire. One of the arguments was since a heavy bolter is a type of bolter it would be affected as well. If they used capitalization, and said all Boltguns, it would refer to the specific weapon known as Boltguns.

OK? It doesn't affect heavy bolters. It doesn't matter whether it is captilaized or not. I don't know why you'd think it does.

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Sure they are. You are basing an argument on the fact that the unit composition defines the unit. If that is true, then there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz. That is just as silly as the bolters being vulcan mega-bolters.

So the line of reasoning should be dropped because it creates issues across the board.

And.., that's a lie. That is not how I'm basing my argument. You've made the same mistake Idolator did.

It's a lie? Hm, that's funny:

I snipped it all because you're not proving what you think you're proving. Unit Composition does not define the unit for everything. I never - ever - said it did. My argument is not based on the fact that it does, regardless of what you and Idolator want to pretend. If you read my posts in context instead of just filter, ctrl+f, multi quote, you'd see that.

And in your RAW-galvanized brain, when you read 'define' you see only one meaning. Define can mean a lot of things, including describe. So, when I say that your argument is using Unit Composition to define a unit, I am saying that it is doing so in the context of the discussion. Your argument is very much based on the fact that the unit composition defines whether or not it may embark, which is where this whole conversation started. And if I hadn't read your posts, I wouldn't have known where to go to get the quotes.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

And he's saying that all Ven Dreads are Dreadnoughts, but not all Dreadnoughts are Ven Dreads.

Just like all VMBs are bolters, but not all bolters are VMBs.

Yes!
Now - how do you know which one you're talking about?

Context. Like you said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Context is important to keep in mind. You're ignoring it.

Yes! We agree so far! Excellent!

Why are you acting like we've been discussing this the entire time? I really haven't ever disagreed with you. I disagree with some of your points, but I see the validity of your argument. The reason I am arguing with you is because you don't extend the same courtesy to the other side of the debate. There is no way, in your mind, that you could be wrong. In a muddied discussion, that is a precarious perch to stand on.

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you agree that these are the two definitions of the word, with respect to 40k (and the SM, GK, and maybe BT codexes)?

Sure, it doesn't change any of the rules wording in my mind, so there could be twelve definitions of it for all I care. In the context of Drop Pods, 'a single dreadnought' means any Dreadnought. In the context of the Seismic Hammer, a Venerable Dreadnought is not only a Dreadnought, but is also a Venerable Dreadnought.

 puma713 wrote:
And in your RAW-galvanized brain, when you read 'define' you see only one meaning. Define can mean a lot of things, including describe. So, when I say that your argument is using Unit Composition to define a unit, I am saying that it is doing so in the context of the discussion. Your argument is very much based on the fact that the unit composition defines whether or not it may embark, which is where this whole conversation started. And if I hadn't read your posts, I wouldn't have known where to go to get the quotes.

And yet you throw out the straw man that my argument means that there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz? How does that follow?
If you know that's not my argument, why say that it is?

Why are you acting like we've been discussing this the entire time? I really haven't ever disagreed with you. I disagree with some of your points, but I see the validity of your argument. The reason I am arguing with you is because you don't extend the same courtesy to the other side of the debate. There is no way, in your mind, that you could be wrong. In a muddied discussion, that is a precarious perch to stand on.

I do extend the same courtesy - when I see evidence. Trying to use fluff as rules (which is exactly what he was doing), setting equalities that not only don't make sense, but can't make sense... That's not evidence.

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you agree that these are the two definitions of the word, with respect to 40k (and the SM, GK, and maybe BT codexes)?

Sure, it doesn't change any of the rules wording in my mind, so there could be twelve definitions of it for all I care. In the context of Drop Pods, 'a single dreadnought' means any Dreadnought. In the context of the Seismic Hammer, a Venerable Dreadnought is not only a Dreadnought, but is also a Venerable Dreadnought.

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

\

Because you can put any dreadnought in a drop pod, I imagine.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

\

Because you can put any dreadnought in a drop pod, I imagine.

So, just intent then.

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
And in your RAW-galvanized brain, when you read 'define' you see only one meaning. Define can mean a lot of things, including describe. So, when I say that your argument is using Unit Composition to define a unit, I am saying that it is doing so in the context of the discussion. Your argument is very much based on the fact that the unit composition defines whether or not it may embark, which is where this whole conversation started. And if I hadn't read your posts, I wouldn't have known where to go to get the quotes.

And yet you throw out the straw man that my argument means that there are no orks in the ork codex aside from boyz? How does that follow?
If you know that's not my argument, why say that it is?

Man, you guys like to throw around "strawman" a lot. For me to reframe your argument with a different unit is not a strawman. Your argument is that Unit Composition defines a unit insofar that rules that reference the unit must reference it directly, or are useless - ie., a Stormraven does not reference a Venerable Dreadnought, so it may not embark. If you replace Venerable Dreadnought with Loota in this argument, it causes the Ork Codex to break down - ie., Ork Mob Rule does not reference Lootas, so they may not benefit from it.

I wasn't saying that wasn't your argument. I'm saying you're misunderstanding what I mean by "unit composition defines the unit", for some reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you agree that these are the two definitions of the word, with respect to 40k (and the SM, GK, and maybe BT codexes)?

Sure, it doesn't change any of the rules wording in my mind, so there could be twelve definitions of it for all I care. In the context of Drop Pods, 'a single dreadnought' means any Dreadnought. In the context of the Seismic Hammer, a Venerable Dreadnought is not only a Dreadnought, but is also a Venerable Dreadnought.

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

No, not aside from intent. I applied logic to the RAW. That's the thing about RAW: it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It cannot. GW would have to write consistent rules, with keywords and definitions to even consider reading the rules in a vaccuum. So, where you are left with a RAW interpretation that doesn't make sense or creates questions, you must apply logic to it. Would the Ironclad be able to take a drop pod it cannot use? Probably not. Is the fact that the Drop Pod only mentions 'a single Dreadnought' strong enough evidence that they cannot take Ironclad Dreadnoughts? I would say definitely not. Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that 'a single Dreadnought', in the context of the Drop Pod, means any dreadnought in the codex? Yes.

Is it reasonable to conclude that any marine carries a vulcan mega-bolter? No, it is not.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

\

Because you can put any dreadnought in a drop pod, I imagine.

So, just intent then.

Not just intent, words to that effect, too.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

Aside from Intent, do you have a basis for the bolded comment?

\

Because you can put any dreadnought in a drop pod, I imagine.

So, just intent then.

man, no, that's the rule. I haven't bothered to deconstruct exactly how that's the rule, because I've never seen anybody have the balls to argue that's it not. I kinda don't care to.

You and HappyJew apparently want to pretend that words mean things other than what they do.

Well, look a venerable dreadnought is a dreanought. A Blue Dreadnought is a dreadnought, as is Red Dreanought. Silver Dreadnoughts are also dreadnoughts.

Guess what? Bjorn is a dreadnought, too. There's a fluff as rules bit for ya. Same as how The swarmlord is a hive tyrant.

GW doesn't use keywords. They don't write rules in the manner in which you are trying to interpret them. It's not a RAW vs RAI issue....it's you being obstinate and misunderstanding things on purpose.

Dreadnought is a Dreadnought Unit that contains one Dreadnought.
An Ironclad is a Dreadnought Unit that contains one Ironclad Dreadnought
A Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought unit that contains one Venerable Dreadnought.

How about that?

This is a rewording of Someones response on a different thread, but it holds up here as well. It's a very cogent response.

 puma713 wrote:
Your argument is that Unit Composition defines a unit insofar that rules that reference the unit must reference it directly, or are useless - ie., a Stormraven does not reference a Venerable Dreadnought, so it may not embark.

No, that's not my argument. Like I said.
The Stormraven references a Dreadnought. There are 2 definitions of Dreadnought. The unit and the fluff. We know we can't use fluff without a rule telling us to (because fluff is not a rule).
If the Unit Composition of a Ven Dread was "1 Dreadnought" it would be a Dreadnought - by definition.

No, not aside from intent. I applied logic to the RAW. That's the thing about RAW: it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It cannot. GW would have to write consistent rules, with keywords and definitions to even consider reading the rules in a vaccuum. So, where you are left with a RAW interpretation that doesn't make sense or creates questions, you must apply logic to it. Would the Ironclad be able to take a drop pod it cannot use? Probably not. Is the fact that the Drop Pod only mentions 'a single Dreadnought' strong enough evidence that they cannot take Ironclad Dreadnoughts? I would say definitely not. Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that 'a single Dreadnought', in the context of the Drop Pod, means any dreadnought in the codex? Yes.

Sure, the Intent is obvious. That was agreed to like 8 pages ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Same as how The swarmlord is a hive tyrant.

Hmmm... Do you know if they issued an FAQ about that?

GW doesn't use keywords. They don't write rules in the manner in which you are trying to interpret them. It's not a RAW vs RAI issue....it's you being obstinate and misunderstanding things on purpose.

They do use keywords - "unit", "target", and a few other ones are key words.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, the Intent is obvious. That was agreed to like 8 pages ago.

Okay. . .so what is the point you're trying to make with all of the posts you've made since?

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, the Intent is obvious. That was agreed to like 8 pages ago.

Okay. . .so what is the point you're trying to make with all of the posts you've made since?

Someone made a statement that it was RAW and not RAI.
I disagreed. You said you read the posts - so surely you saw that.
Edit: And after my second post in the thread I was insulted (told I couldn't read) so I felt the need to defend my statements.

I made a boo boo and hit ignore on someone, how do you undo that?

I meant to hit friend and screwed up.

I know it's unrelated but you guys know a bit more of this stuff than I do.

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sure, the Intent is obvious. That was agreed to like 8 pages ago.

Okay. . .so what is the point you're trying to make with all of the posts you've made since?

Someone made a statement that it was RAW and not RAI.
I disagreed. You said you read the posts - so surely you saw that.

Okay? Who cares what the RAW is (on this particular subject)? RAW could say that all Ironclad Dreadnoughts were all purple balloons too. Point is, the intent is clear, both sides have shown what they feel to be the truth in the matter. And neither side is budging.

But, at the end of the day, both you and I are going to let our opponent's embark a venerable dreadnought on their stormraven, whether we agree why or not.

rigeld2 wrote:
Edit: And after my second post in the thread I was insulted (told I couldn't read) so I felt the need to defend my statements.

Well obviously you can read. I'm sure that 12 pages of debate puts that to rest.

rigeld2 wrote:

GW doesn't use keywords. They don't write rules in the manner in which you are trying to interpret them. It's not a RAW vs RAI issue....it's you being obstinate and misunderstanding things on purpose.

They do use keywords - "unit", "target", and a few other ones are key words.

They do, sometimes, but hilariously inconsistently. Like how the avatar had the "demon" rule on it but the CSM Great Demon didn't. Its really that GW said, "Durr, it has demon in the name, we don't have to give a rule to be a demon, don't be a jackass". Well, do you really want to be that guy?

Or here's a good one: How GW reffers to "die", removed form the board, removed as a casualty, etc like 6 different ways.

It would be easier, in some ways, if they just stopped trying to use keywords at all, instead of just using them sometimes.

No, it really wouldn't. It'd make rules discussion infinitely harder.

If GW didn't do things like spell out that the Avatar was demon, dumb people wouldn't get to thinking that a greater demon had to be labeled "demon" in order to be a demon.

Alterantively, they could be like MtG, use keywords evry single time, and then you could say yeah, if the card doesn't have Type: demon, then well, it's not a demon. But they don't do that either.

That's why I say the in-between is worse.

Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.
They have a different profile, so are not "Lasguns" for FRFSRF, and yet they have lasgun in their name.

Fluff wise pretty much every infantry unit in Codex: Chaos Space Marines is a Chaos Space Marine, but Fabius Bile may only enhance the troop unit specifically named Chaos Space Marine

There is definite precedent in various rules, codecies, and FAQ's.