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.

This kind of interactions never worked for any faction except DG, so this last FAQ is in line with the rest of rules. Nothing to see here.

Spoletta wrote:
This kind of interactions never worked for any faction except DG, so this last FAQ is in line with the rest of rules. Nothing to see here.

That is a total lie. It worked for SM and all the other Flavours of Marine too.

Wayniac wrote:
Again I maintain the main issue here is GW is playtesting in a certain way, potentially for the majority of gamers. It's the small amount of "competitive", tournament WAAC powergamers that keep finding all these loopholes and vague wording to abuse the game. GW will never be able to fix these issues, because they don't approach rules writing with "Can this break the game".

Sadly it feels like a more fundamental failing to me. This is not an issue which should need playtesting to pick up. If the codex writers and whoever signs it off don't realise the implications of deepstriking Morty or a Brass Scorpion well....
It feels as though there is no coherent plan, no deep vision behind the game. I do hope GW moves towards valuing excellence in rules writing as they go through this "transition" and feel it could pay them off in the bottom line in the long term, barriers to entry to this market have fallen away dramatically.

The only problem here is that GW decided to go with an FAQ answer rather than a proper Errata like they did for Tyranid Units. A simple paragraph stating something to the effect that "any Daemon Stratagems that affects a Daemon unit affect units with the Daemon Faction Keyword only."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
This kind of interactions never worked for any faction except DG, so this last FAQ is in line with the rest of rules. Nothing to see here.

That is a total lie. It worked for SM and all the other Flavours of Marine too.

Complaining about things we are ignorant about is really immature, you know?

This line has always been here, and is the FIRST thing written about SM stratagems, relics and traits:

SPACE MARINE UNITS

In the rules described in this section we often
refer to ‘Space Marines units’. This is shorthand
for any ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit that
has one of the following Faction keywords:
<CHAPTER>, ULTRAMARINES, IMPERIAL
FISTS, SALAMANDERS, WHITE SCARS,
RAVEN GUARD, IRON HANDS, CRIMSON
FISTS or BLACK TEMPLARS. A SpaceMarines
Detachment is therefore one which only
includes units with one of these keywords.
Note that other Space Marine Chapters, such
as the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves,
deviate significantly in terms of organisation
and fighting styles. TheseChapters therefore
cannot make use of any of the rules or abilities
listed in this section, and instead have their
own rules.


Let's end this futile discussion now, before someone else starts getting the wrong idea.

Why are you quoting something that has NOTHING to do with the discussion right now?

If you take a Space Marines Detachment, you unlock their stratagems. Some stratagems can be used on non-Space Marines detachment units, like Orbital Bombardment.

If I have a Space Marines Detachment, and a Blood Angels detachment, any SM stratagems that are legal to use on BA can be used, and vice versa. Same for Death Guard and CSM. The simple fact is that the Daemon FAQ is a blatant ignoring of RaW and FAQ precedent, in order to stop people using them on daemon primarchs when all it would have taken is an errata to prevent the problem stratagems being used on LoW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why are you quoting something that has NOTHING to do with the discussion right now?

If you take a Space Marines Detachment, you unlock their stratagems. Some stratagems can be used on non-Space Marines detachment units, like Orbital Bombardment.

If I have a Space Marines Detachment, and a Blood Angels detachment, any SM stratagems that are legal to use on BA can be used, and vice versa. Same for Death Guard and CSM. The simple fact is that the Daemon FAQ is a blatant ignoring of RaW and FAQ precedent, in order to stop people using them on daemon primarchs when all it would have taken is an errata to prevent the problem stratagems being used on LoW.

No, it is not legal, exactly for that text i pasted.

If you have an SM detachment and a BA detachment, you can use SM stratagems on codex compliant SM and BA stratagems on BA. Stop.

It is explained in clear "Blood Angels cannot use any of the rules in this section". What do you want more than that? A video tape with the declaration from GW designer that you can't do that attached to every codex?

You cannot use the "Chapter Master" stratagem with a Blood Angels model.

Spoletta wrote:
It is explained in clear "Blood Angels cannot use any of the rules in this section". What do you want more than that? A video tape with the declaration from GW designer that you can't do that attached to every codex?

The stratagems are unlocked by the SM detachment. The Death Guard FAQ says "A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on any permitted target: they do not need to be from that Detachment. "

That is not Death Guard specific. It is generalised and applies to everything.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is explained in clear "Blood Angels cannot use any of the rules in this section". What do you want more than that? A video tape with the declaration from GW designer that you can't do that attached to every codex?

The stratagems are unlocked by the SM detachment. The Death Guard FAQ says "A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on any permitted target: they do not need to be from that Detachment. "

That is not Death Guard specific. It is generalised and applies to everything.

That means a completely different thing.

What that FAQ says is that in the following situation:

Detachment A - Imperium

SM Captain
Guardsmen
Guardsmen

Detachment B - Space Marines

SM Librarian
SM Scouts
SM Scouts

The detachment B unlocks the SM stratagems, and since the SM captain from detachment A is a valid target for it, he can become a chapter master, even if he is not in the same detachment that is generating the stratagems.
If the Detachment A was instead like this:

Detachment A - Imperium

Dark Angel Master
Guardsmen
Guardsmen

Then that DA Master would not be able to do the same, because he is not a valid target.



That FAQ does not say anything about the definition of "Valid Target" because that one is covered in the codex.

THE FAQ LITERALLY GIVES AN EXAMPLE OF USING DG STRATAGEM ON ALPHA LEGION.

 sfshilo wrote:

People seem to want to forget that faction keywords are different than keywords....

As per rules only pre-game. In game as per rules they are functionally identical. EXCEPT for chaos daemon ones but that is only for chaos daemon ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
The only problem here is that GW decided to go with an FAQ answer rather than a proper Errata like they did for Tyranid Units. A simple paragraph stating something to the effect that "any Daemon Stratagems that affects a Daemon unit affect units with the Daemon Faction Keyword only."

Which still leaves it silly that it only affects chaos daemon strategies but not others. Why single out chaos daemons?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
THE FAQ LITERALLY GIVES AN EXAMPLE OF USING DG STRATAGEM ON ALPHA LEGION.

Now i finally understand the source of confusion, indeed that FAQ is misleading as @#$&.

This is from the CSM codex:

CHAOS SPACE MARINE UNITS
In the rules described in this section we often
refer to ‘Chaos Space Marine units’. This is
shorthand for any unit that has one of the
following Faction keywords: <LEGION>,
BLACK LEGION, WORD BEARERS, IRON
WARRIORS, ALPHA LEGION, NIGHT
LORDS, WORLD EATERS, EMPEROR’S
CHILDREN, FALLEN or RED CORSAIRS. A
Chaos Space Marine Detachment is therefore
one which only includes units with one of
these keywords.
Note that the Death Guard and Thousand
Sons Legions deviate significantly in terms of
organisation and therefore cannot make use
of any of the rules or abilities listed in this
section; instead they have bespoke rules and
abilities detailed in their own codexes.

It is in straight opposition to it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm making a YMDC.

I have to say, Mr. BaconCat, it seems that you were right and I was wrong. GW made a total mess of this, and their fixes made it worse.

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Suddenly Chaos Daemons disallow it. I can use Codex: Space Marines stratagem Orbital Bombardment if I have a SPACE WOLF warlord because the stratagem only looks for an ADEPTUS ASTARTES warlord. So if I have a Patrol of <CHAPTER> I can use the stratagem.

So, yeah, why not? That's apparently intended which they confirmed in the DG FAQs.

Keywords and Faction Keywords simply aren't the same. You don't get to fall back and shoot because you named your Chapter "FLY". You don't get to use Orbital Bombardment with an Astra Militarum Warlord of the Regiment "ADEPTUS ASTARTES".

Yes, they fethed up when they used the same keyword as both a faction and a regular keyword, and now they fixed it (mostly - they'll probably have another update up quite soon for the Horror thing).
But it's not a snowflake thing, it's in line with what they've previously said regarding keywords.

I love Dakka.

GW produce an FAQ to fix a potentially very big problem (i.e. a Keyword functioning as a Faction keyword, hence the need to differentiate) and people cry that GW are actually fixing problems.

The same people who cried that GW weren't fixing things during 6th and 7th.

Never change BCB. Never change.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

GW produce an FAQ to fix a potentially very big problem (i.e. a Keyword functioning as a Faction keyword, hence the need to differentiate) and people cry that GW are actually fixing problems.

The same people who cried that GW weren't fixing things during 6th and 7th.

Never change BCB. Never change.

You realize all they did was made snowflake ruling against rules for ONE faction? They make yet another strategem like this and it has same issue AGAIN. Rulebook actually makes it very clear keywords in game are IDENTICAL to faction keywords. That's not mistake but deliberate choice. They just backpedalled on it for this ONE case. But this isn't even change in how the rule works generally. Only for this one case.

All other strategems that works on keywords still work across codexes. No change. Only chaos daemon ones don't.

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

GW produce an FAQ to fix a potentially very big problem (i.e. a Keyword functioning as a Faction keyword, hence the need to differentiate) and people cry that GW are actually fixing problems.

The same people who cried that GW weren't fixing things during 6th and 7th.

Never change BCB. Never change.

You realize all they did was made snowflake ruling against rules for ONE faction? They make yet another strategem like this and it has same issue AGAIN. Rulebook actually makes it very clear keywords in game are IDENTICAL to faction keywords. That's not mistake but deliberate choice. They just backpedalled on it for this ONE case. But this isn't even change in how the rule works generally. Only for this one case.

All other strategems that works on keywords still work across codexes. No change. Only chaos daemon ones don't.

What they're doing is making the rules work like they had originally intended them to work. That's literally it. Call it "snowflake ruling", call it "backpedalling", call it whatever the feth you want. But they're fixing their mistakes, and I'm glad about that. Sure, I'd prefer if they didn't have to do it by getting it right the first time, but I'd rather have them fix stuff that wasn't intended to happen instead of them going "well, you got us on that one, haha! I guess you're allowed to use and exploit the mistake / error / typo we made until we bring out a new edition!".

If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Skulltaker, Skarbrand, the Masque, Epidemius, the Changeling and Fateweaver would disapprove.

Maybe if they replaced the Daemon keyword with Empyrean, and added it to all Codex Daemon units, we wouldn't have to deal with "when is a Daemon a Daemon?"

 Crazyterran wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Skulltaker, Skarbrand, the Masque, Epidemius, the Changeling and Fateweaver would disapprove.

Just like my sorceror of tzeench on disc isn't very happy his herald friend cant allow him to re roll to cast anymore (due to gw being stupid and removing the spell familiar as a war gear option)..

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Or why not just say Magnus and Morty can't use the stratagem?

pismakron wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Or why not just say Magnus and Morty can't use the stratagem?

Guess that Brass Scorpion is A-OK!

 MagicJuggler wrote:

pismakron wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Or why not just say Magnus and Morty can't use the stratagem?

Guess that Brass Scorpion is A-OK!

Well if GW had had a brain cells between all of them and thought "hey maybe if we made mono god csm anf undivided armies strong enough to stand on their own people wont have to abuse demon allies".

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Maybe if they replaced the Daemon keyword with Empyrean, and added it to all Codex Daemon units, we wouldn't have to deal with "when is a Daemon a Daemon?"

that'd be too good a solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

pismakron wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
If they wanted to stop magnus and Morty being deep struck in why not just say named characters cant use the stratagem?

Or why not just say Magnus and Morty can't use the stratagem?

Guess that Brass Scorpion is A-OK!

Well if GW had had a brain cells between all of them and thought "hey maybe if we made mono god csm anf undivided armies strong enough to stand on their own people wont have to abuse demon allies".

Because people would never abuse a loophole if only their army was powerful enough in the first place. That's how life in general works, isn't it? Once you have reached a certain amount of power or money you'd never use another loophole to evade taxes or anything like that.

So sad that Morty and Maggie can't deepstrike.

So sad.

I guess I'll just have to make do with their 36" move in a single turn instead...

Please remember the first and only tenant of general chat.

Got chased off YMDC again huh? This really has no need to be here. You're willfully twisting the rules so that you can try to pull some obvious BS and screaming about how ther's no such thing as RAI. Again. Go away. Shoo.

On a separate note anyone else notice that people who shoehorn "snowflake" into every criticism are a joy to converse with?

How is this discussion still going on?! GW have corrected a clear mistake. Like it or lump it the job is done, move on with your lives.

It is irrelevant what other codexes say for their units. Chaos soup is one of the strongest tournament lists pre Daemon codex and some of you have the gall to whine because you can't deep strike Morty or Magnus, but can a fething Bloodthirster or GUO?! Cry me a river.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How is this discussion still going on?! GW have corrected a clear mistake. Like it or lump it the job is done, move on with your lives.

It is irrelevant what other codexes say for their units. Chaos soup is one of the strongest tournament lists pre Daemon codex and some of you have the gall to whine because you can't deep strike Morty or Magnus, but can a fething Bloodthirster or GUO?! Cry me a river.

"BECAUSE IT WAS RAAAAAAAAW! I FOUND THIS LOOPHOLE! IT'S MINE!"

You can also still deep strike greater daemons from forge world

I had a thought. Are we misinterpreting this FAQ Answer for Codex: Death Guard?

Q: Is it possible to use a Stratagem from Codex: Chaos Space Marines to target a unit from Codex: Death Guard? For example, can I use the Tide of Traitors Stratagem on a unit of Cultists from a Death Guard Detachment if I have an Alpha Legion Detachment and a Death Guard Detachment in a single Battle-forged army?
A: Yes – if you have access to a Stratagem because you have an appropriate Detachment, it can be used on any permitted target: they do not need to be from that Detachment. In your example, the Alpha Legion Detachment gives access to the Chaos Space Marine Stratagems, and Tide of Traitors can be used on any Chaos Cultists – this would include any Chaos Cultists from the Death Guard Detachment.

This specifically states that a Stratagem that targets a specific unit (Tide of Traitors targets Chaos Cultist) may be used regardless of the <<Legion>> of the Chaos Cultist. Could this be because it does not mention any faction keyword unlike most Stratagems and this FAQ answer is not intended to allow Chaos Space Marine Stratagem units prohibited <<Legion>> models if they target Heretic Astartes? This would allow both FAQ answers to exist in harmony, although it would make the DG one really badly written.