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.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
"Is it a variable keyword, or is it just NURGLE DAEMON?"

What difference does it make? A keyword is a keyword.

The FAQ means a keyword isn't just a keyword.

And this is why Daemons should have been NEVERBORN for faction and <MARK/ALLEGIANCE> should have been <CHAOS GOD>. Changing the faction of Daemons would have shown what becomes cross pollination between the two codex's and what only affects Daemons themselves.

Meanwhile changing the chaos god keyword would have made it so people would stop trying to ruin fluffy chaos. There are 7 Chaos armies in the game even though there are only 2 books. Those armies are: Undivided, CSM, Daemons, Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh. Only Undivided got hit by the FAQ, the other 6 are still perfectly playable even though there are tons of people trying to stop it. The only reason the words weren't changed is because CSM have always had MARKS while Daemons are just a part of that god. Pure holdover from previous editions.

Azoqu wrote:
There are 7 Chaos armies in the game even though there are only 2 books..

Chaos actually has four books (Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons Death Guard and Thousand Sons)

Azoqu wrote:
And this is why Daemons should have been NEVERBORN for faction and <MARK/ALLEGIANCE> should have been <CHAOS GOD>. Changing the faction of Daemons would have shown what becomes cross pollination between the two codex's and what only affects Daemons themselves.

Meanwhile changing the chaos god keyword would have made it so people would stop trying to ruin fluffy chaos. There are 7 Chaos armies in the game even though there are only 2 books. Those armies are: Undivided, CSM, Daemons, Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh. Only Undivided got hit by the FAQ, the other 6 are still perfectly playable even though there are tons of people trying to stop it. The only reason the words weren't changed is because CSM have always had MARKS while Daemons are just a part of that god. Pure holdover from previous editions.

You forgot Renegades and Heretics - our version of Guard.

Can you explain the difference between Undivided and CSM?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

I'm sorry you find this all so confusing.

But it's pretty unambiguous for 99.9% of people, especially those who who read the FAQs and designer's commentary about keywords. Nothing is different between this now and when 8th edition was being previewed a year ago.

How can the community best support you on this? Would it help if there was a thread where you could post your keyword confusion questions for the rest of us to answer?

Oh, I am not confused. I see this issue pretty clearly. Please do not personally attack posters in this passive aggressive manner. It is not cool.

-

Naw, not trying to attack you. Totally understand this keyword stuff is confusing, seeing you go to such pains to spell out this problem makes me wonder why more people don't want to see it fixed.

You are doing a public service to the 0.01% - they matter too.

If a community based service is not in the cards, help me understand what would be. Maybe we do a letter writing campaign to GW about how bad the keyword system is and give them a list of suggestions for how to change it so everyone can play by the rules - not just the 99.9% who understand them.

Another idea - what if we had cards that represent faction keywords, instead of words that could be misunderstood? There could be a little picture of the army on it, and maybe each faction name is represented by a different color. You would match the cards with the Codex and the colors with the faction, then you could enjoy some nice, safe, legal lists without worrying about the designer commentary or stuff. There could even be a card that includes a blank line for you to write your own faction name, but no one would get confused because there's a picture of the Codex on the card.

It would be fun to make those.

Looking for constructive ways to deal with this problem. Thank you for all the posts about it.

I am not confused about "how" the rule/FAQ works. I am confused as to "why" it exists at all, or rather why it wasn't written better
The FAQ to prevent players from making up their own keywords to "game the system" makes perfect sense.
That fact that it also prevents pre-established keywords that also have existing rules and interactions with other units is dumb as all get out.

The FAQ should have made a distinction between <FILL IN THE BLANK> keywords that the Codex gives you and those you make up.
Keywords like KHORNE, TZEENTCH, etc that get swapped out for MARK OF CHAOS/ALLEGIANCE or CHAPTER TACTICS that the Codex gives you options for like ULTRAMARINES or WHITE SCARS should be treated as the same as "permanent" keywords like CHAOS or IMPERIUM.
Once these words replace the existing keyword, they are treated as if they were the original keyword the unit always had.

Keywords for a faction that you made up should be the only target for the FAQ as it is. Because at the end of the day, you made them up.

-

 Galef wrote:
I am not confused about "how" the rule/FAQ works. I am confused as to "why" it exists at all, or rather why it wasn't written better

Oh. Thank you for the clarification.

This is the You Make Da Call forum. It is exclusively concerned with how the rules work, not why something was not written to your satisfaction.

Your comments really confused me and made it sound like there was some legitimate problem with keywords. They took a long time to read, and I felt like the helpful suggestions I was offering were being dismissed.

Some of that probably has to do with the fact they were being posted in the wrong forum. Perhaps you could take up your complaints in a separate thread in the general discussion or off topic forum?

Feels like the original question was answered a long time ago. Perhaps a mod can close the thread.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Azoqu wrote:
And this is why Daemons should have been NEVERBORN for faction and <MARK/ALLEGIANCE> should have been <CHAOS GOD>. Changing the faction of Daemons would have shown what becomes cross pollination between the two codex's and what only affects Daemons themselves.

Meanwhile changing the chaos god keyword would have made it so people would stop trying to ruin fluffy chaos. There are 7 Chaos armies in the game even though there are only 2 books. Those armies are: Undivided, CSM, Daemons, Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh. Only Undivided got hit by the FAQ, the other 6 are still perfectly playable even though there are tons of people trying to stop it. The only reason the words weren't changed is because CSM have always had MARKS while Daemons are just a part of that god. Pure holdover from previous editions.

You forgot Renegades and Heretics - our version of Guard.

Can you explain the difference between Undivided and CSM?

The difference between the two would be CSM + Daemons and just CSM. One you can currently play in the same detatchment and the other you need two to play now. Though yes, I did forget about Death Guard, Thousand Sons (and I play them too...), and Renegade. Though since both 1ksons and DG have the CSM keyword, you can still run them with all the other CSM marines and still soup it up, same goes for all the Space Marines in existance. So if people are arguing for 1 codex per detachment, there's still bigger fish to fry people.

Also. Death Guard and Thousand Sons Codex Say hi.

Their codexes do not mention ANYWHERE that their NURGLE or TZEENCH keywords are marks of chaos or allegiance. And they have DAEMONS in their codexes

That would also mean that Daemonic ritual would NEVER be able to be used as it specifically calls out Daemons aligned to a god to be summoned. If what your guys interpretations are true then that whole ability would not work in matched play.

<ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> are the same thing when their keywords are replaced by a god, it's that simple.

mchammadad wrote:
Also. Death Guard and Thousand Sons Codex Say hi.

That would also mean that Daemonic ritual would NEVER be able to be used as it specifically calls out Daemons aligned to a god to be summoned. If what your guys interpretations are true then that whole ability would not work in matched play.

<ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> are the same thing when their keywords are replaced by a god, it's that simple.

Except that logic is faulty. For the purposes of summoning, they are indeed the same keyword, because you're not trying to circumvent a restriction. The Special Snowflake FAQ explicitly says it's only not permitted when trying to circumvent a restriction on abilities or detachment legality.

Summoning does not have a "Their keywords are the same" exception. It is literally saying you summon a Daemon from the Codex: Daemons

Which would not be able to work because they would not be BATTLE BROTHERS in this beta rule.

That nurgle daemon would still have <Allegiance> keyword if you guys followed your logic. Therefore you cannot summon as it invalidates your army

mchammadad wrote:
Summoning does not have a "Their keywords are the same" exception. It is literally saying you summon a Daemon from the Codex: Daemons

Which would not be able to work because they would not be BATTLE BROTHERS in this beta rule.

That nurgle daemon would still have <Allegiance> keyword if you guys followed your logic. Therefore you cannot summon as it invalidates your army

The battle brothers rule doesn't look at units added after the battle begins. Mainly because summoned units are not part of a detachment.

The faq clearly only applies to make your own factions. It says that using words. It has nothing to do with marks, stop saying that it does.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The faq clearly only applies to make your own factions. It says that using words. It has nothing to do with marks, stop saying that it does.

I disagree with the FAQ not being relevant to e.g. MARK OF CHAOS, but I can see where you're coming from. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that, until GW comes out with a better explanation.
HIWPI is that no, it's not the same, not in a tournament setting where fluff means nothing. In a casual game I'd be fine with it, but I'd also expect to be allowed to bring eg an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor as the HQ of a Deathwatch detachment in return.

The FAQ is specifically calling out "create your own" factions, using those exact words.

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.

It doesn't mention "existing" faction keywords cannot unify detachments because that is what they are for. It applies only to "create your own" factions
<Mark/Allegience> are NOT "create your own". There are only 4 options and the respective Codices tell you exactly what those options are.
You cannot, for example, choose to swap them for <Undivided> or <Malal>. You can only use KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE, or SLAANESH, because the Codex tells you to.

They are not <Create your Own> faction keywords as the player didn't make them up, the rules provided them, therefore the FAQ does NOT apply to them.

It does, however, apply to using pre-existing sub-factions within factions that they do not exist.
For example, you cannot "create your own" Militarum sub-faction called <UltraMarines> to allow them to use Guiliman's aura. <Ultramarines> is not a valid option for Militarum to use as the Codex does not list it as an option, and therefore using it qualifies as "create your own" and thus the FAQ applies.

Using <Ultramarines> for Astates, however, is an option the Codex gives them, therefore it is NOT "create your own" for that faction.

-

It's worth noting that Chaos Daemons daemon princes are allowed to buff Chaos Space Marine units, as long as the keywords match up. They specifically call out Allegiance and Mark of Chaos as being the same keyword when addressing this point.

Citation:
Page 4 (last page) of the Designer's Commentary.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's worth noting that Chaos Daemons daemon princes are allowed to buff Chaos Space Marine units, as long as the keywords match up. They specifically call out Allegiance and Mark of Chaos as being the same keyword when addressing this point.

Citation:
Page 4 (last page) of the Designer's Commentary.

Except when Stratagems are involved, because then SUDDENLY they matter.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's worth noting that Chaos Daemons daemon princes are allowed to buff Chaos Space Marine units, as long as the keywords match up. They specifically call out Allegiance and Mark of Chaos as being the same keyword when addressing this point.

Citation:
Page 4 (last page) of the Designer's Commentary.

Except when Stratagems are involved, because then SUDDENLY they matter.

*shrug* I don't know what to tell you. I am just reporting that Mark of Chaos and Allegiance are specifically being called out as the same keyword.

Nope, that the difference between faction and non faction keywords. Different topic.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Nope, that the difference between faction and non faction keywords. Different topic.

That's what the answer was addressing, but it doesn't change the fact that the two are called out to be the same.

Much like how people are applying the <Regiment> and <Chapter> FAQ about fabricating "your own" keyword, which is obviously also not talking about <Allegiance> and <Mark of Chaos> (which have only 4 predefined keywords to choose from; you cannot make up your own), to draw precedent that they're not the same.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Nope, that the difference between faction and non faction keywords. Different topic.

That's what the answer was addressing, but it doesn't change the fact that the two are called out to be the same.

Much like how people are applying the <Regiment> and <Chapter> FAQ about fabricating "your own" keyword, which is obviously also not talking about <Allegiance> and <Mark of Chaos> (which have only 4 predefined keywords to choose from; you cannot make up your own), to draw precedent that they're not the same.

I think Captyn_Bob was specifically responding to BCB's response to your post. Both your posts are like 30 seconds apart
Unlikely Captyn_Bob was able to read your post and respond in that time

-

 Galef wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Nope, that the difference between faction and non faction keywords. Different topic.

That's what the answer was addressing, but it doesn't change the fact that the two are called out to be the same.

Much like how people are applying the <Regiment> and <Chapter> FAQ about fabricating "your own" keyword, which is obviously also not talking about <Allegiance> and <Mark of Chaos> (which have only 4 predefined keywords to choose from; you cannot make up your own), to draw precedent that they're not the same.

I think Captyn_Bob was specifically responding to BCB's response to your post. Both your posts are like 30 seconds apart
Unlikely Captyn_Bob was able to read your post and respond in that time

-

Oh.

Sorry, I forget quotes sometimes