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.

 Geifer wrote:
As you just noted, they're both X. Not X, Y and Z. Just X.

All within the same framework, keywords, and the same subsection of the framework, faction keywords.

In purely logical terms, they are the same thing.

Actually, from a logic viewpoint it would be "Chapter: X" and "Regiment: X", which are not the same.

The rules tell you to choose a regiment for AM and a chapter for Adeptus Astartes. You cannot chose a chapter as a regiment or a regiment as a chapter.
A space marine with the "CADIAN" keyword would be from the Cadian Chapter and thus cannot benefit from any rules referring regiments.
(The relevant rules can be found on first page of each faction)

If you would go into programming an object of type chapter would never be equal to an object of type regiment, even if they have the same content X.
Don't bring polymorphism to a wargame debate.

That's the terrible part of the rule. <Chapter> is a placeholder that you are instructed to replace entirely. It shouldn't work like that, but it does.

Edit: Jidmah, I don't know a thing about programming. I do know about linguistics, though, so I try to stick with that.

Programming is the thing with the hammer, right?

 Geifer wrote:
That's the terrible part of the rule. <Chapter> is a placeholder that you are instructed to replace entirely. It shouldn't work like that, but it does.

Exact quotes:

"If an Adeptus Astartes datasheet does not specify which Chapter it is drawn from it will have the <CHAPTER> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Chapter that unit is from. You then simply replace the <CHAPTER> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen Chapter."
If you chose CADIA in this case, you have chose the Chapter CADIA

"If an Astra Militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will typically have the <REGIMENT> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which regiment that unit is from. You then simply replace the <REGIMENT> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the chosen regiment."
If you chose CADIA in this case, you have chosen the regiment CADIA

As long as Chapter does not equal regiment, it's irrelevant if you chose the same word for both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:
Edit: Jidmah, I don't know a thing about programming. I do know about linguistics, though, so I try to stick with that.

Programming is the thing with the hammer, right?

Programming is the thing which is nothing but rules and logic

Or, to explain it better, the very same syntax exists in many programming languages. Even if you would chose the same name for both, the underlying types would not be equal.

For example, you could call two things a "DUCK". One would be a bird and the another a toy.

 Geifer wrote:


Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0

That's X,Y and Z as used above.

Fists of Bull0 by itself is always X.

It's only X if you skip half of the piece of information. "What's Fists of Bull0?" "Oh, it's my Space Marine chapter, but it's also my Imperial Guard regiment. But the Imperial Guard can have the Space Marines' rules because, um... they're called the same thing".

No dice. I mean, it already feels like I'm flogging a dead horse here, I'm just shocked that people want the prevailing belief here to be that this needed to be FAQ'd. I mean, jesus christ.

When we create a system, any system, it's inherently open to abuse, and people will find that way.

Where is the FAQ? It's not in the link in the OP and I can't seem to find it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah here it is https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/06/17/new-edition-now-available-read-the-rules-get-the-t-shirtgw-homepage-post-1/

 Jidmah wrote:
"If an Adeptus Astartes datasheet does not specify which Chapter it is drawn from it will have the <CHAPTER> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Chapter that unit is from. You then simply replace the <CHAPTER> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen Chapter."
If you chose CADIA in this case, you have chose the Chapter CADIA.

I'm just going to grab this part here.

If you choose CADIA, you chose CADIA as a keyword. Nothing more. That it's supposed to be Chapter CADIA is meta-information that does not go into the keyword.

Again, and as per your quote, <Chapter> is a placeholder which you are instructed to replace with a name, that of your chapter. The name of the Ultramarines chapter is not The Ultramarines Chapter. Just Ultramarines. Even the samples we get from GW itself say ULTRAMARINES. Not Chapter ULTRAMARINES, or anything else that would tie that particular keyword to the Adeptus Astartes keyword.

We can wish for it. We can find it lamentable. But I'm sorry to say, it's simply not there. The keyword rules are GW's sloppy writing at its best.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Geifer wrote:


Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0

That's X,Y and Z as used above.

Fists of Bull0 by itself is always X.

It's only X if you skip half of the piece of information. "What's Fists of Bull0?" "Oh, it's my Space Marine chapter, but it's also my Imperial Guard regiment. But the Imperial Guard can have the Space Marines' rules because, um... they're called the same thing".

No dice. I mean, it already feels like I'm flogging a dead horse here, I'm just shocked that people want the prevailing belief here to be that this needed to be FAQ'd. I mean, jesus christ.

"What's Fists of Bull0?" is additional information that does not appear in the rule text. It should, but it doesn't.

I certainly don't mean to punch the poor horsey any more. My argument is made. I'm not on a mission to convince anybody to follow it, but I stand by it.

The big problem is when newcomers to factions don't know if "Prophets of Flesh" is a Kabal or a Haemonculus Coven..

Oh my god I can't believe people are still arguing over this when the intent was completely clear to begin with AND they've given us a 100% unequivocal clarification.

It's time to let the keyword argument go, guys. Move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CT GAMER wrote:
Based on the FAQ I see the same people that ruined 7th are already intent on ruining 8th too. God I hate those people.

It's ok... GW seem to churn through games developers much faster than they used to, so they probably won't be around for long...


Or were you referring to someone else?

Only issue I have is with this:

Q:Can you declare charges against units that are not visible to the charging unit?
A: Yes

Note however that the unit being charged still obeys the normal rules for targeting when it fires Overwatch, and so, if a model cannot see the charging unit, it will not be able to fire Overwatch.

Can anyone explain that? Seems that at some point in the charge the targeted unit would eventually see the charging unit and pop off some shots at them. I know its a game and abstractions are made but that interaction seems a bit clunky.

pejota wrote:
Only issue I have is with this:

Q:Can you declare charges against units that are not visible to the charging unit?
A: Yes

Note however that the unit being charged still obeys the normal rules for targeting when it fires Overwatch, and so, if a model cannot see the charging unit, it will not be able to fire Overwatch.

Can anyone explain that? Seems that at some point in the charge the targeted unit would eventually see the charging unit and pop off some shots at them. I know its a game and abstractions are made but that interaction seems a bit clunky.

Guessing the abstraction is that overwatch is prior to the unit charging moving - its not a full on 'interrupt' mechanic. It also appears to mean that you can charge safely into flamer units - as long as you are willing to risk a longer ranged charge.

Makes about as much sense as a unit half in cover and half behind cover, gets no benefit from the cover as its not totally within it.

It is however pretty clear.

Fluff logic, unit appears from around a corner, taking you by surprise as your unit is watching another. When a unit you can see charges you were expecting it. Position yourself carefully in dense terrain as nimble units have an advantage.

Its the flip side of having pretty simple core rules, you get abstractions like this, however you solve that you will get edge cases, pick your poison

leopard wrote:

pejota wrote:
Only issue I have is with this:

Q:Can you declare charges against units that are not visible to the charging unit?
A: Yes

Note however that the unit being charged still obeys the normal rules for targeting when it fires Overwatch, and so, if a model cannot see the charging unit, it will not be able to fire Overwatch.

Can anyone explain that? Seems that at some point in the charge the targeted unit would eventually see the charging unit and pop off some shots at them. I know its a game and abstractions are made but that interaction seems a bit clunky.

Guessing the abstraction is that overwatch is prior to the unit charging moving - its not a full on 'interrupt' mechanic. It also appears to mean that you can charge safely into flamer units - as long as you are willing to risk a longer ranged charge.



Makes about as much sense as a unit half in cover and half behind cover, gets no benefit from the cover as its not totally within it.

It is however pretty clear.

Fluff logic, unit appears from around a corner, taking you by surprise as your unit is watching another. When a unit you can see charges you were expecting it. Position yourself carefully in dense terrain as nimble units have an advantage.

Its the flip side of having pretty simple core rules, you get abstractions like this, however you solve that you will get edge cases, pick your poison

In Shadow War: Armageddon it actually is a full on interrupt, which is where my questions arise. That being said, the designers spell it out in black and white, so I'm glad they did. Years past this argument would rage for months on end. I'm glad to see GW is proactive (so far) with this edition. Print out the FAQ and have some fun!! Ooops, I mean "Designers' Commentary."

Not played SWA, I don't think a proper interrupt mechanic is what 40k needed, and given the level of GW rule writing would lead to issues.

Enjoying ti so far, and actually like the day 1 issue being "designers commentary", personally I'd like to see more of this integrated with the FAQ, also would make a good column for WD (and could get me to start buying it again), a column based on:

"To ask the question Why?" going into why rules work the way they do, why they don't work differently etc

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Only thing my group are thinking about house ruling is targeting characters.

It came up during a game yesterday, where a SoB tank was engaged with an enemy unit, leaving Celestine and her body guard the closest viable target.

But, as the rules say 'unless they're the closest visible target', the Deathwatch couldn't shoot at Celestine.

Minor quibble, and simply part of the new edition learning curve, but one that stands out as a little odd.

From my admittedly limited experience of watching AoS play, engineering overlapping synergies and those kinds of target priority and positional shenanigans seem to be the intentional core of the gameplay - it's possible they just overlooked units in combat, but I doubt it, since maneuvering your models into wierd conga-lines and taking advantage of positional oddities and different unit states seems to be what the new "GW engine" games intend for core tactics.

Basically they've given up on trying to make "cinematic" tabletop interactions where units occupy the battlefield in a logical way also provide a "tactical" experience, and went for a more "gamified" system where the RAW is much tighter and in general more balanced, but finding and exploiting little quirks in the abstractions of the RAW is the gameplay(assuming you're in a competitive mindset) rather than an unintended flaw. And before anyone jumps down my throat, that's not a value judgement, they're different approaches and which you prefer is a matter of taste not divine law.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Only thing my group are thinking about house ruling is targeting characters.

It came up during a game yesterday, where a SoB tank was engaged with an enemy unit, leaving Celestine and her body guard the closest viable target.

But, as the rules say 'unless they're the closest visible target', the Deathwatch couldn't shoot at Celestine.

Minor quibble, and simply part of the new edition learning curve, but one that stands out as a little odd.

Yeah I'm hoping they FAQ/Errata that one!

Jidmah wrote:

Davor wrote:
Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.

The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.

Whatever GW has previously been calling a FAQ was basically a pile of FAQ, Errata, Rule Changes and new Rules.

This is what an actual FAQ looks like. Question about how rules work, with official answers.

Just because GW said it in an online article it doesn't mean it's OFFICIAL. We can say that Games Workshop has said many things like in White Dwarf or Customer Service on rulings and they were wrong. I still say they are designers notes so we can understand their thought process. I think it's a great idea. Just like in White Dwarf they had designer notes and people were saying anyone could take an Imperial Knight and we know how Chaos Space Marines, Orks and especially Tyranids found out that they couldn't use them. People kept claiming White Dwarf is not official.

Also with all the updating GW has done for the new edition, how come this is not under Errat on the GW website?

Again I am not saying these are not official answers but to call them FAQs is disingenuous because some people can see FAQ and then try and look for them on the GW website and find that there is no FAQ. I know when I saw FAQ I went to GW site to see if I could find it for Tyranids.

Design Commentary released concurrent with the rules in a Blog post with the rules is not official? What more does it need to be official?

Yeah. They are the designers explaining literally with examples how the rules work.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Only thing my group are thinking about house ruling is targeting characters.

It came up during a game yesterday, where a SoB tank was engaged with an enemy unit, leaving Celestine and her body guard the closest viable target.

But, as the rules say 'unless they're the closest visible target', the Deathwatch couldn't shoot at Celestine.

Minor quibble, and simply part of the new edition learning curve, but one that stands out as a little odd.

From my admittedly limited experience of watching AoS play, engineering overlapping synergies and those kinds of target priority and positional shenanigans seem to be the intentional core of the gameplay - it's possible they just overlooked units in combat, but I doubt it, since maneuvering your models into wierd conga-lines and taking advantage of positional oddities and different unit states seems to be what the new "GW engine" games intend for core tactics.

Basically they've given up on trying to make "cinematic" tabletop interactions where units occupy the battlefield in a logical way also provide a "tactical" experience, and went for a more "gamified" system where the RAW is much tighter and in general more balanced, but finding and exploiting little quirks in the abstractions of the RAW is the gameplay(assuming you're in a competitive mindset) rather than an unintended flaw. And before anyone jumps down my throat, that's not a value judgement, they're different approaches and which you prefer is a matter of taste not divine law.

Yep pretty much the whole tactics for competitive AoS is finding ways of twisting and bending rules without breaking them.

 Geifer wrote:
If you choose CADIA, you chose CADIA as a keyword. Nothing more. That it's supposed to be Chapter CADIA is meta-information that does not go into the keyword.

Again, and as per your quote, <Chapter> is a placeholder which you are instructed to replace with a name, that of your chapter. The name of the Ultramarines chapter is not The Ultramarines Chapter. Just Ultramarines. Even the samples we get from GW itself say ULTRAMARINES. Not Chapter ULTRAMARINES, or anything else that would tie that particular keyword to the Adeptus Astartes keyword.

We can wish for it. We can find it lamentable. But I'm sorry to say, it's simply not there. The keyword rules are GW's sloppy writing at its best.

This. It's obvious what the intent is, but equally obviously exploitable, and in a system that runs on abstraction, it's unreasonable to say what is and isn't common sense in terms of how things should work. Lots of things mechanically make no sense regarding the most basic of common-sense physics but, in abstraction, kind of make sense, and and why should one assume that army organization isn't designed so you can have mixed warbands? Jimmy gets a little in to the fluff and sees Inquisitors can requisition lots of imperial forces and sometimes even make alliances with aliens, so decides to make Inquisitor Jimmy's Green Berets where his hodgepodge list of orks and marines and dark eldar that share little putty hats and the keyword he made up.

The FAQ, which is designed to clarify things, can tell Jimmy that he can't do that, since the rules don't say "replace <chapter> with 'Ultramarines Chapter'," like they should, if decided to go down the rabbit hole of relaxing control on keywords.

 Geifer wrote:
I'm still reasonably positive about the new edition and my first game reaffirmed this, but honestly that's mostly in direct comparison to 7th ed. To put it politely, I find some of the designers' ideas counter-intuitive.

Good job on conveying designers' intentions again, though. Better to have those than have to guess what they were thinking.

 Lockark wrote:

Spoiler:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
bit depressing to see them need to post these two FAQs quite so soon but I guess 'that guy' is always going to be 'that guy'

Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’?

A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus
Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes
– neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.


Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

TBH I never thought of this, and love the fact GW made it clear how it's meant to work. So happy I don't have to worry about explaining to someone why it doesn't work like that lol

It works like that. It's just not meant to work like that.

It's a good and needed clarification, but let's not pretend an unrestricted pick your own keyword system was ever a good idea.

Only if we can pretend an aspect of the rules designed to support artistic creativity is best evaluated from a perspective of mathematical logic. Seriously, if you want to criticize the rules there are loads of good places to do it. This isn't one of them. The only potential 'flaw' of people exploiting the keywords (that would be immediately overruled by any TO anyways) was addressed by two paragraphs explaining how it works.

It's like putting a warning label on a lighter saying "WARNING: Fire can burn" at a certain point rule designers are not responsible for people lacking a basic level of reasoning.

 RiTides wrote:
Let's avoid making this a "TFG bashing thread", please, and stick to discussing the posting of the rules and FAQ (in the OP and second post). Thanks all

TFG reported people mocking him*
*in no way am I implying that RiTides is TFG.. he's cool as a cucumber


When I loaded up the FAQ I got the rules.. or maybe I am looking at it wrong (or clicked the wrong one). I'm still waiting for my actual 8th ed to ship from the warstore (first and last time pre-ordering from them) so I am not sure how much of the rules they've listed here line up with the rules as they are in the actual book.. Is the only difference the pointed play? Are the mechanics otherwise exactly as what is at that link?

I remember in the other thread some people had submitted FAQs.. or at least were attempting to through various means, did anyone get their questions/concerns answered? I'm not asking that because I care about your specific situation (which I do) but because I am curious as to whether or not they are legitimately fielding questions that are cropped from the community rather than wherever the hell they used to get their seemingly strange and/or pointless questions from in days of old.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also.. is Page 12 of the rules pdf messed up for anyone else? On mine it's half loaded, out of alignment (the text, fields, frames, etc) and starts halfway down the page where it's cutoff and the next page begins.
EDIT: It appears the above Page 12 problem is only when I view it in my web browser. When I download the PDF and view it with Acrobat it appears to be perfectly fine.

 Geifer wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
"If an Adeptus Astartes datasheet does not specify which Chapter it is drawn from it will have the <CHAPTER> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Chapter that unit is from. You then simply replace the <CHAPTER> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen Chapter."
If you chose CADIA in this case, you have chose the Chapter CADIA.

I'm just going to grab this part here.

If you choose CADIA, you chose CADIA as a keyword. Nothing more. That it's supposed to be Chapter CADIA is meta-information that does not go into the keyword.

Again, and as per your quote, <Chapter> is a placeholder which you are instructed to replace with a name, that of your chapter. The name of the Ultramarines chapter is not The Ultramarines Chapter. Just Ultramarines. Even the samples we get from GW itself say ULTRAMARINES. Not Chapter ULTRAMARINES, or anything else that would tie that particular keyword to the Adeptus Astartes keyword.

We can wish for it. We can find it lamentable. But I'm sorry to say, it's simply not there. The keyword rules are GW's sloppy writing at its best.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Geifer wrote:


Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0

That's X,Y and Z as used above.

Fists of Bull0 by itself is always X.

It's only X if you skip half of the piece of information. "What's Fists of Bull0?" "Oh, it's my Space Marine chapter, but it's also my Imperial Guard regiment. But the Imperial Guard can have the Space Marines' rules because, um... they're called the same thing".

No dice. I mean, it already feels like I'm flogging a dead horse here, I'm just shocked that people want the prevailing belief here to be that this needed to be FAQ'd. I mean, jesus christ.

"What's Fists of Bull0?" is additional information that does not appear in the rule text. It should, but it doesn't.

I certainly don't mean to punch the poor horsey any more. My argument is made. I'm not on a mission to convince anybody to follow it, but I stand by it.

No dude, just no. Its a CHAPTER or REGIMENT keyword. Period. No amount of twisting and cheating can help you with this.

Once again, take the keyword discussion elsewhere. It's been resolved in the FAQ. If you want to discuss how you thought it worked prior to the FAQ, or the merits or otherwise of the keyword system in either case, take it to 40K Discussions.

The best thing to come out of that keyword discussion was me discovering the name for my next guard regiment, the mighty Fists of Bull0. Maybe a pure armored regiment.

SeanDrake wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Only thing my group are thinking about house ruling is targeting characters.

It came up during a game yesterday, where a SoB tank was engaged with an enemy unit, leaving Celestine and her body guard the closest viable target.

But, as the rules say 'unless they're the closest visible target', the Deathwatch couldn't shoot at Celestine.

Minor quibble, and simply part of the new edition learning curve, but one that stands out as a little odd.

From my admittedly limited experience of watching AoS play, engineering overlapping synergies and those kinds of target priority and positional shenanigans seem to be the intentional core of the gameplay - it's possible they just overlooked units in combat, but I doubt it, since maneuvering your models into wierd conga-lines and taking advantage of positional oddities and different unit states seems to be what the new "GW engine" games intend for core tactics.

Basically they've given up on trying to make "cinematic" tabletop interactions where units occupy the battlefield in a logical way also provide a "tactical" experience, and went for a more "gamified" system where the RAW is much tighter and in general more balanced, but finding and exploiting little quirks in the abstractions of the RAW is the gameplay(assuming you're in a competitive mindset) rather than an unintended flaw. And before anyone jumps down my throat, that's not a value judgement, they're different approaches and which you prefer is a matter of taste not divine law.

Yep pretty much the whole tactics for competitive AoS is finding ways of twisting and bending rules without breaking them.

No, it isn't. The meta defining AoS tournaments is exploiting areas of poorly balanced point costs, and always has been. If anything exploits of rules to do weird things is less common now than it was in WHFB.

Some of these rules are really counter-intuitive. A character with a familiar can't be picked out from a crowd, but once the character is dead the familiar is easier to stop than both of them together were?

Having a character nearby your plasma weapons letting you re-roll ones to hit makes it way less likely they will overheat. I guess I can kind of buy that an officer being there to point out targets and just inspire the men to do their best makes them better at shooting, but does his presence inspire the machine spirit of the plasma gun to not overheat?

Also, if you have +1 to hit, then your plasma weapons can't overheat because you'll never roll a 1? But if you have some negative modifiers to hit, it is WAY more likely to overheat, because the lowest you can get is a 1. So if you are -1 to hit, a roll of 1 or 2 will overheat.

As has been pointed out, if a character unit is the closest (or only) valid target, but there is a closer enemy unit engaged in combat, the character can't be picked out and fired at, even if they are nowhere near another of their own units.

Any ORK faqs yet?