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.

Quick confirmation of a rules interpretation. The fire frenzy chaos marine strategem says a helbrute that didn't move can fire twice so long as it is at the closest target. The deredo dreadnought has the helbrute keyword per the FAQ. Can the deredo dreadnought use this strategem? Thanks!

 buddha wrote:
Quick confirmation of a rules interpretation. The fire frenzy chaos marine strategem says a helbrute that didn't move can fire twice so long as it is at the closest target. The deredo dreadnought has the helbrute keyword per the FAQ. Can the deredo dreadnought use this strategem? Thanks!

No. As written it only applies to the Helbrute found on page 138 of the codex. For it to be a keyword it would have to be written as HELBRUTE.

Helbrute is not the same as HELBRUTE. The stratagem is referring to the unit by name, not a keyword.

Still interested in seeing if the fact the FW ones weren't Helbrutes until long after the book went to print changes it in an errata or not.

Someone pointed out there is a Loyalist Whirlwind strategem worded the same that works with one of the FW ones apparently.

 Eldarain wrote:
Still interested in seeing if the fact the FW ones weren't Helbrutes until long after the book went to print changes it in an errata or not.

Someone pointed out there is a Loyalist Whirlwind strategem worded the same that works with one of the FW ones apparently.

Well, that "someone" is wrong unless FW released an FAQ or Errata saying "These special snowflake Whirlwinds work with the DATALINK TELEMETRY Stratagem on page 197 of Codex: Space Marines."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Still interested in seeing if the fact the FW ones weren't Helbrutes until long after the book went to print changes it in an errata or not.

Someone pointed out there is a Loyalist Whirlwind strategem worded the same that works with one of the FW ones apparently.

Well, that "someone" is wrong unless FW released an FAQ or Errata saying "These special snowflake Whirlwinds work with the DATALINK TELEMETRY Stratagem on page 197 of Codex: Space Marines."

Found it. It was a blurb for selling a bundle on FW's site. Not a FAQ or official ruling at all.
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-DK/Relic-Datalink-Telemetry-2017

IANAL That could be construed as misleading advertising if someone were petty enough to try and go to court over something so silly. I've sent them an email anyway telling them of their mistake.

 Ghaz wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Quick confirmation of a rules interpretation. The fire frenzy chaos marine strategem says a helbrute that didn't move can fire twice so long as it is at the closest target. The deredo dreadnought has the helbrute keyword per the FAQ. Can the deredo dreadnought use this strategem? Thanks!

No. As written it only applies to the Helbrute found on page 138 of the codex. For it to be a keyword it would have to be written as HELBRUTE.

Yes, you can. That is one of the reasons the FW errata exists. If you are going to pull the "not bolded" card, I'm going to pull the "sorry, I'm not playing my toys with you" card. The RAW is pretty clear here. And before you say WAAC, just consider a sonic deread, which would get it under any interpretation.

Nah. The Javelin has the LAND SPEEDER keyword and you could run the Whirlwinds as fancy-lookin' regular ones. Works just fine with the Strategem.

Faintly hilarious to imagine legal peeps considering a case based on a 40K Stratagem and laughing it out of court...

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Quick confirmation of a rules interpretation. The fire frenzy chaos marine strategem says a helbrute that didn't move can fire twice so long as it is at the closest target. The deredo dreadnought has the helbrute keyword per the FAQ. Can the deredo dreadnought use this strategem? Thanks!

No. As written it only applies to the Helbrute found on page 138 of the codex. For it to be a keyword it would have to be written as HELBRUTE.

Yes, you can. That is one of the reasons the FW errata exists. If you are going to pull the "not bolded" card, I'm going to pull the "sorry, I'm not playing my toys with you" card. The RAW is pretty clear here. And before you say WAAC, just consider a sonic deread, which would get it under any interpretation.

Sorry, RaW is clearly on the side of "doesn't work". You might disagree, bully for you, but it doesn't change what the rule says. If you can show me where in the FAQ it gives the reasoning for the errata, I'm all ears. By refusing to play, you are being TFG and WAAC, because you want to break the rules to benefit you. Either GW need to issue an Errata turning it to the WHIRLWIND keyword, or ForgeWorld needs to give their Whirlwinds a special rule allowing them to use the stratagem. Anything else is breaking the rules.

By your logic, I could say 'My conscripts all have 9001 wounds. You're going to pull the "it says 1" card? I'm going to pull the "sorry, I'm not playing my toys with you" card.'

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Quick confirmation of a rules interpretation. The fire frenzy chaos marine strategem says a helbrute that didn't move can fire twice so long as it is at the closest target. The deredo dreadnought has the helbrute keyword per the FAQ. Can the deredo dreadnought use this strategem? Thanks!

No. As written it only applies to the Helbrute found on page 138 of the codex. For it to be a keyword it would have to be written as HELBRUTE.

Yes, you can. That is one of the reasons the FW errata exists. If you are going to pull the "not bolded" card, I'm going to pull the "sorry, I'm not playing my toys with you" card. The RAW is pretty clear here. And before you say WAAC, just consider a sonic deread, which would get it under any interpretation.

Sorry, RaW is clearly on the side of "doesn't work". You might disagree, bully for you, but it doesn't change what the rule says. If you can show me where in the FAQ it gives the reasoning for the errata, I'm all ears. By refusing to play, you are being TFG and WAAC, because you want to break the rules to benefit you. Either GW need to issue an Errata turning it to the WHIRLWIND keyword, or ForgeWorld needs to give their Whirlwinds a special rule allowing them to use the stratagem. Anything else is breaking the rules.

Where exactly are the rules delineating bolded text from non bolded text? Rules or codex or index?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Where exactly are the rules delineating bolded text from non bolded text? Rules or codex or index?

Page 174 of the rulebook:

9. Keywords
All datasheets have a list of keywords, sometimes separated into Faction keywords and other keywords. The former can be used as a guide to help decide which models to include in your army, but otherwise both sets of keywords are functionally the same. Sometimes a rule will say that it applies to models that have a specific keyword. For example, a rule might say that it applies to ‘all ADEPTUS ASTARTES models’. This means it would only apply to models that have the Adeptus Astartes keyword on their datasheet.

Since the stratagem does not define the WHIRLWIND keyword, the only way the rule can do anything is if you assume "Whirlwind" refers to the unit name because, ya know, English grammar and whatnot.

Any other questions?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Quick confirmation of a rules interpretation. The fire frenzy chaos marine strategem says a helbrute that didn't move can fire twice so long as it is at the closest target. The deredo dreadnought has the helbrute keyword per the FAQ. Can the deredo dreadnought use this strategem? Thanks!

No. As written it only applies to the Helbrute found on page 138 of the codex. For it to be a keyword it would have to be written as HELBRUTE.

Yes, you can. That is one of the reasons the FW errata exists. If you are going to pull the "not bolded" card, I'm going to pull the "sorry, I'm not playing my toys with you" card. The RAW is pretty clear here. And before you say WAAC, just consider a sonic deread, which would get it under any interpretation.

The RAW is perfectly clear. The Forge World FAQ does give them the HELBRUTE keyword. The problem is the stratagem doesn't give its effects to models with the HELBRUTE keyword, but to the unit named 'Helbrute'. Please try to support your position with actual rules instead of claiming you'd throw a hissy fit if you didn't get your way.

Again, I ask where exactly GW delineates when they separate the difference between bold font and non bold font. It would have been much more simple had they just gone with different keywords than unit words or just defined a certain font style in their rules, but they didn't. It's stupid they didn't, but they didn't. As a result, RAW there is no difference. RAI, maybe, maybe not.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Again, I ask where exactly GW delineates when they separate the difference between bold font and non bold font. It would have been much more simple had they just gone with different keywords than unit words or just defined a certain font style in their rules, but they didn't. It's stupid they didn't, but they didn't. As a result, RAW there is no difference. RAI, maybe, maybe not.

I literally showed you where it differentiates.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Again, I ask where exactly GW delineates when they separate the difference between bold font and non bold font. It would have been much more simple had they just gone with different keywords than unit words or just defined a certain font style in their rules, but they didn't. It's stupid they didn't, but they didn't. As a result, RAW there is no difference. RAI, maybe, maybe not.

I literally showed you where it differentiates.

Actually, if you quoted it exactly, then it would support my argument that there is no difference between bold font and non bold font. Read the last two sentences again carefully, and you will see it.

This argument has become circular - with quite a few rule #1 violations, as well.

In the future, do NOT resort to calling other posters "TFG" in YMDC - the WAAC label is also being used much too aggressively (and personally) in this thread.