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.

To me this wont be a problem. Because to me and everyone i play with its clear that a <chapter>keyword always is a <chapter>keyword and a <legion>keyword always is a <legion>keyword no matter what you chose to name it.

ShadowPug wrote:
I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?

It has all been leaked.

So, don't have th SM rules but this doesn't work with how SoB are worded. Basically it says you have to nominate what Order you are from and then you get the <order> keyword.

However, because the Black Legion is not an Order it isn't a legal choice for this. You could create and order Called 'Black Legion' but it wouldn't be the same keyword. It would just be an order that happened to be called black legion because the rules specifically spell out that it must be an ORDER that you choose.

 Purifier wrote:

ShadowPug wrote:
I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?

It has all been leaked.

Ah, then surely theres a chance the leakers got it wrong? I would wait for the actual release before rule debating.

ShadowPug wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

ShadowPug wrote:
I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?

It has all been leaked.

Ah, then surely theres a chance the leakers got it wrong? I would wait for the actual release before rule debating.

It is photos of the pages from the books. Not someone typing what they saw.

Ahhh didn't know as I never heard of it, well I think tournaments will ban it and if anyone actually does it I don't think people will actually play, I sure as hell wont.

 Purifier wrote:
I'm all for clarifying where there is even the smallest chance that it could be another way... but this is clearly just insane.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea badly written rules are fine because we should all understand the intent.

Lord Kragan wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Okay, then does anyone have a suggestion for fixing the wording of the rule to prevent this?

Stop forcing the issue? You're literally making a fool out of yourself.

Except we are at least going to need a strict set of rules for tournaments, and I was brainstorming how they'd fix this without messing up intended army combinations.

Unless we are now saying tournaments organizers will release army restrictions like "don't try to exploit things", which would be hilarious to see admittedly.

ShadowPug wrote:
I think they meant that it would be the "insert keyword" "insert suffix" and thats how it would work.
How do you guys know this anyway? You can't get the rulebooks yet can you?

There is a link on the main rumors/news page with the full rules available for download. Where ya been?

I don't really come on Dakka often tbh.

SilverAlien wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Okay, then does anyone have a suggestion for fixing the wording of the rule to prevent this?

Stop forcing the issue? You're literally making a fool out of yourself.

Except we are at least going to need a strict set of rules for tournaments, and I was brainstorming how they'd fix this without messing up intended army combinations.

Unless we are now saying tournaments organizers will release army restrictions like "don't try to exploit things", which would be hilarious to see admittedly.

No, you're overthinking something based on the most base of ruleslawyering that no sane human being would go and accept in a tournament. You don't need "restrictions" to use common sense, add two and two, and see that a chapter is not the same as a legion, regardless of them being named the same.

Who would actually play it this way? How would such a person ever get games?

In free play mode or something sure, throw your guys on the board. In matched play? Grow up.

Outside of a tournament setting, there's an easy solution to this.

Don't play that donkey-cave.

He is right that this is an issue, and all you dakkanauts know that there will be some random idiot that will argue this as intended, because (insert sarcastic voice) "clearly the rules writers would have said otherwise if they meant it".

However someone mentioned simply changing it to "Chapter: <CHAPTER>" instead of just "<CHAPTER>" and that's a pretty neat fix. The faction prefix at the beginning will make unique names functionally different in a strict reading, and that's pretty much how sane people are reading the rule as is right now.

I am personally against the very concept of "not playing" as a balancing factor. The rules should at least try to state what they mean to say.

And given the way that Games Workshop has been doing things lately (both the Allies rules and the Age of Sigmar melting pot armies) I can see how they might actually mean for you to be able to mix things together.

An example that has been stated:

 Runic wrote:

To be fair, I ended up thinking about ways this could be used non abusively. Give some IG the ultramarines keyword, to illustrate they are the pdf ultramar and used to fighting alongside marines. Or giving alpha legion to both koyal and traitor marines, to represent those double agents and hypno indoctrinated sleepers.

But given the scope of the 40k galaxy, there aren't a lot of things that you can't justify in the fluff. They wrote it that way on purpose.

The first example you had was mixing loyal and chaos space marines together. They've had that since 2nd ed- the Red Corsairs. And they made sure to let us know that the Red Corsairs are just an example of something that sometimes happens.

Astra Militarum are the classic 'mixes with everything faction. Humans can be Tau auxiliaries, Ork 'Umies, Chaos Cultists, Brood Brothers, slaves or what have you. You just have to pick a legion "Ork" and go from there, right?

Newer players will think that mixing anything with Tyranids doesn't make any sense, and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong with the current portrayal. However, back in the day, the 'Nids had mind slaver bugs that they'd insert into other species and employ them in service. So it just makes sense that you'd be able to mix 'nids with any other faction (although Necrons would be a stretch, and they didn't really exist back then, but I don't see how the faction keywords would allow this combination anyway).

Chaos Daemons mix with everyone because absolutely everyone could be corrupted by Chaos.

Genestealers likewise can ally with a lot of armies- 'stealer cults used to turn to chaos all the time (because the Partiarch or Magus like their autonomy from the hive mind) But you can also have non-human groups that get invaded by Genestealers- Ork Genestealer Hybrids used to be a thing, and there's no reason to think that Tau or Eldar would be immune. It would be particularly amazing if a 'particularly savvy patriarch was able to infect a Space Marine chapter.


I once knew a guy who made a tyranid army that had been experimented on by the Adeptus Mechanicus. He converted them each to have some mechanical bits attached to their heads (the mechanicus attachment blocked and replaced messages from the Hive Mind). He said he really loved the way that it justified fighting everyone (the Mechanicus sends them after the Imperium's Enemies, while the Imperial forces attack them because they're a xenos abomination).



If they do mean for this to be used (abused) in these ways, I'm not sure that I see it as being very different from the way that "allies" were made part of the game a few years back. I mean, once the official rules explicitly say that an Ork Waaagh can bring along a contingent of Space Wolves, I think we've passed the point where we have a leg to say "that's not fluffy enough, I'm going home."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum- I think it is worth noting that if GW have an interest in making this work with faction exclusivity, it would be the easiest thing in the world to include it in an FAQ.

Especially since this is how most people will read it to begin with.

Easiest way is to make and Detachment require two like Faction keywords, and an Army require one like Faction Keyword for match play.

Problem solved, and cheese allowed...

 odinsgrandson wrote:
I am personally against the very concept of "not playing" as a balancing factor. The rules should at least try to state what they mean to say.

And given the way that Games Workshop has been doing things lately (both the Allies rules and the Age of Sigmar melting pot armies) I can see how they might actually mean for you to be able to mix things together.

An example that has been stated:

 Runic wrote:

To be fair, I ended up thinking about ways this could be used non abusively. Give some IG the ultramarines keyword, to illustrate they are the pdf ultramar and used to fighting alongside marines. Or giving alpha legion to both koyal and traitor marines, to represent those double agents and hypno indoctrinated sleepers.

But given the scope of the 40k galaxy, there aren't a lot of things that you can't justify in the fluff. They wrote it that way on purpose.

The first example you had was mixing loyal and chaos space marines together. They've had that since 2nd ed- the Red Corsairs. And they made sure to let us know that the Red Corsairs are just an example of something that sometimes happens.

Astra Militarum are the classic 'mixes with everything faction. Humans can be Tau auxiliaries, Ork 'Umies, Chaos Cultists, Brood Brothers, slaves or what have you. You just have to pick a legion "Ork" and go from there, right?

Newer players will think that mixing anything with Tyranids doesn't make any sense, and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong with the current portrayal. However, back in the day, the 'Nids had mind slaver bugs that they'd insert into other species and employ them in service. So it just makes sense that you'd be able to mix 'nids with any other faction (although Necrons would be a stretch, and they didn't really exist back then, but I don't see how the faction keywords would allow this combination anyway).

Chaos Daemons mix with everyone because absolutely everyone could be corrupted by Chaos.

Genestealers likewise can ally with a lot of armies- 'stealer cults used to turn to chaos all the time (because the Partiarch or Magus like their autonomy from the hive mind) But you can also have non-human groups that get invaded by Genestealers- Ork Genestealer Hybrids used to be a thing, and there's no reason to think that Tau or Eldar would be immune. It would be particularly amazing if a 'particularly savvy patriarch was able to infect a Space Marine chapter.


I once knew a guy who made a tyranid army that had been experimented on by the Adeptus Mechanicus. He converted them each to have some mechanical bits attached to their heads (the mechanicus attachment blocked and replaced messages from the Hive Mind). He said he really loved the way that it justified fighting everyone (the Mechanicus sends them after the Imperium's Enemies, while the Imperial forces attack them because they're a xenos abomination).



If they do mean for this to be used (abused) in these ways, I'm not sure that I see it as being very different from the way that "allies" were made part of the game a few years back. I mean, once the official rules explicitly say that an Ork Waaagh can bring along a contingent of Space Wolves, I think we've passed the point where we have a leg to say "that's not fluffy enough, I'm going home."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum- I think it is worth noting that if GW have an interest in making this work with faction exclusivity, it would be the easiest thing in the world to include it in an FAQ.

Especially since this is how most people will read it to begin with.

Just pointing out the quote is not from me.

BRB under Matched Play Choose Armies

"Army Faction
All units in a matched play army, with the exception of those that are UNALIGNE, must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. Imperium or Chaos), even though they may be in different Detachments"

Advanced Rules, Battle-Forged Armies, Factions

"A unit's Faction is important when building a Battle-Forged army because some Detachments require all units included in it to be from the same Faction"

You will ONLY see a mixing of Factions in an Open or Narrative play where things like Detachments and Advanced rules can be ignored

BBH, that custom <whatever> name IS a Faction Keyword...

That's why it needs to be changed to TWO keywords for a Detachment.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
BRB under Matched Play Choose Armies

"Army Faction
All units in a matched play army, with the exception of those that are UNALIGNE, must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. Imperium or Chaos), even though they may be in different Detachments"

Advanced Rules, Battle-Forged Armies, Factions

"A unit's Faction is important when building a Battle-Forged army because some Detachments require all units included in it to be from the same Faction"

You will ONLY see a mixing of Factions in an Open or Narrative play where things like Detachments and Advanced rules can be ignored

This isn't the point here, and those sections from the rulebook don't help the issue being discussed. The issue is that you are allowed to make up your own keyword. The rest you can probably deduct.

I already posted an easy fix to it however. Just keep the original default keyword as a suffix until it gets FAQ'd, if ever. For example, Tyranids from a custom Hivefleet called "Pointytooths" would count as <Pointytooths Hivefleet> - effectively blocking a player from adding Space Marines from the <Pointytooths Chapter> into the same army.

The intent of how it is supposed to work is blatantly clear. The whole "same keyword" sentence/rule would be pointless if it was inteded you can just make up your own to circumvent it, and it would therefore have no need of existing in the rulebook to beginwith.

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
What if my Legion is called Fly?
Can they shoot after falling back?

Winner of the thread

Could I use this to give one unit from every possible faction a shared faction keyword to create a goofy army of "Dogs of War" style units? Going by RAW, yeah. It sure looks like it.

Would I ever play against someone who did it? No. Are realistically no tournament is going to allow it either.

It would be nice if GW put out an errata to clean the wording up and close this loophole. And currently GW certainly does seem active in releasing FAQs and errata for their games now (see Shadow War). However, if you're a reasonable person and you play with reasonable people, it's not going to be a problem.

Simple solution: the placeholder text is appended as a prefix.

Therefore, Chapter: WAAC and Legion: WAAC are not the same keywords.

Similarly, Chapter: Fly is not Fly, it clearly has that Chapter prefix and therefore confers no special rules.

For everyone saying "tournaments won't allow it", you do get the point this is a rather difficult issue to fix in a consistent manner?

The best solution is changing it to chapter: <chapter>, but you'd also have to deal with unique characters then no longer having the same keyword, which is still fixable but is more a GW errata thing at that point. Other restrictions (must have two keywords in common, can't use an existing keyword unless specifically stated, or can't use the same custom keyword to draw from two different army lists) I think work, but still might have loopholes.

Also, that's assuming tournaments actually care to close the loophole. I'm pretty sure the ally rules led to some very odd builds in the past, this isn't all that different.

But allies were balanced by giving pretty big restrictions, yes I think it was still a bit too good but there was atleast some balance.
This would just break the game, races are made to have weakness for example tau is dreadful at melee, if we can just get some great melee guys that would really ruin everything imo.

Regimental Standard: All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6" of any <Regiment> Veteran with a Regimental Standard.

There is no need the to errata anything, the rules is as clear as day. Even if you remap both a <Regiment> and a <Chapter> to be the same keyword (say WAAC for example), it is quite clear that any rules text that mentions the origin text of <Regiment>. You would need to be incredibly daft to even argue against this. <Regiment> is essential value 'y' and <Chapter> is value 'x', the only thing you are change is the visual display, but the input/output characteristics remains unchanged. Consider for example I take the 4x 'T' keys from 4 different keyboards and replace a fifth keyboards WASD keys with a 'T's. Visually they are not dissimilar, but when pressed it is quite clear they hold different values. Thinking this is an issue or asking for an errata simply shows a clear lack of any logistical skills.

takonite wrote:
Regimental Standard: All friendly <Regiment> units add 1 to their Leadership whilst they are within 6" of any <Regiment> Veteran with a Regimental Standard.

There is no need the to errata anything, the rules is as clear as day. Even if you remap both a <Regiment> and a <Chapter> to be the same keyword (say WAAC for example), it is quite clear that any rules text that mentions the origin text of <Regiment>. You would need to be incredibly daft to even argue against this. <Regiment> is essential value 'y' and <Chapter> is value 'x', the only thing you are change is the visual display, but the input/output characteristics remains unchanged. Consider for example I take the 4x 'T' keys from 4 different keyboards and replace a fifth keyboards WASD keys with a 'T's. Visually they are not dissimilar, but when pressed it is quite clear they hold different values. Thinking this is an issue or asking for an errata simply shows a clear lack of any logistical skills.

I've already addressed this but "chapter" and "regiment" get totally replaced by the keyword, the rules explicitly mention totally replacing <chapter> with "keyword", and that abilities which apply only look to see if "keyword" is present. The rules don't care what "keyword" replaced. They probably should, but they don't. So when you make your Captain a blood raven, his ability isn't looking for <chapter>, it in fact doesn't care if <chapter> is present, it is looking exclusively for "blood raven".

Note that this aspect isn't the problem, and either breaks some units or leaves room to exploit still. Keywords don't look for the origin because unique characters don't have an origin. So if the input matters, unique characters wouldn't be able to buff normal marines, as ultramarines on a unique character would have no input variable, as it didn't replace <chapter>. So either they couldn't buff normal ultramarines, because the unique character had no mention of <chapter>, or they could ignore input as they don't have one and buff members of hive fleet ultramarine, as they'd have the "ultramarine" keyword.

If you are going to be insulting, double check that you interpretation of the rules actually fixes the problem and doesn't end up having obvious issues of its own.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm all for clarifying where there is even the smallest chance that it could be another way... but this is clearly just insane.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea badly written rules are fine because we should all understand the intent.

Me neither. This is bloody mental though. This is as far as it can be taken. This is the extreme and it deserves to be ridiculed.

 Rippy wrote:
I am pretty sure this same thing came up when AoS was launched?

No..it didnt ...

These are permissive rulesets,no were in either ruleset does it give permission to "create" a keyword...there are several instances were keywords can be "chosen" though.

Are you talking about both 8th and AoS? Because a few armies in 8th explicitly give the choice to make your own craftworld, regiment, etc. Plus their is no list to draw from for the others (unless it's somewhere in the core rulebook's fluff section, which is possible).

 Purifier wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm all for clarifying where there is even the smallest chance that it could be another way... but this is clearly just insane.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea badly written rules are fine because we should all understand the intent.

Me neither. This is bloody mental though. This is as far as it can be taken. This is the extreme and it deserves to be ridiculed.

The problem is the rules don't even hint this shouldn't be allowed. The closest I've seen was explicitly disallowing the usage of "fallen" as a CSM legion keyword... but not for loyalist chapters etc. It is written like there is a rule in place disallowing certain keywords from moving across army lists, without evidence of any such rule existing.

That's like forgetting to include the rule that only infantry can be embarked in transports. Yes we know anyone trying to argue you can embark a chimera in a different chimera is just causing trouble, but what if someone tries embarking idk chaos spawn in the rhino? Or the wolves that follow around the SW? You wouldn't have as nearly clear a consensus.

Odinsgrandson gave a good rundown above, but there is a lot of stuff you can justify. I mean, imperial guard given a tau sept or legion keyword is one that is really hard to say shouldn't be allowed, as the lore explicitly mentions such forces existing.

Why not Tyranids of Hive Fleet: Deathskulls for Looted Carnifexes?