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.

A datasheet is a datasheet, this shouldn't be too confusing.

An Ultramarine's predator uses the same datasheet as an Imperial Fist's predator which also uses the same datasheet as a Blood Angel's predator. Changing the faction/sub faction keyword is not a rewrite of the datasheet. Particularly since the datasheet itself has the prefix <faction>.

The only time this might be confusing realistically is when we have units that fulfil the exact same role but are named otherwise for fluff reasons, such as with long fangs for example.

I came into this thread for some juicy Johnny v BCB, but damnit if I didn't stay for the role swap!

Why do I read anything else, there's drama and twists all right here! (also I think the name of the dataslate is important as there has been a precedent set with stratagems)

You’ve gotta spice up a relationship now and then.

Main difference is I don’t mind being wrong if they change their mind and rule on it. I won’t claim I was right all along, I’ll just say “cool, we have clarity and fewer arguments now.” Until such time those Datasheets from different books with different pictures and Keywords are visibly different Datasheets.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
A datasheet is a datasheet, this shouldn't be too confusing.

An Ultramarine's predator uses the same datasheet as an Imperial Fist's predator which also uses the same datasheet as a Blood Angel's predator. Changing the faction/sub faction keyword is not a rewrite of the datasheet. Particularly since the datasheet itself has the prefix <faction>.

The only time this might be confusing realistically is when we have units that fulfil the exact same role but are named otherwise for fluff reasons, such as with long fangs for example.

Not sure what you mean by "<prefix>" - but isn't an Assault Squad from the blood angels codex named the same as an Assault Squad from the regular marine codex while having different options available, and therefore clearly being something different?

I mean if it's the same I should be able to equip Meltaguns on my Salamanders Assault Squad, right?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
A datasheet is a datasheet, this shouldn't be too confusing.

An Ultramarine's predator uses the same datasheet as an Imperial Fist's predator which also uses the same datasheet as a Blood Angel's predator. Changing the faction/sub faction keyword is not a rewrite of the datasheet. Particularly since the datasheet itself has the prefix <faction>.

The only time this might be confusing realistically is when we have units that fulfil the exact same role but are named otherwise for fluff reasons, such as with long fangs for example.

While you're right for Ultramarines and Imperial Fists, that is not the case for Blood Angels.

A Vanilla Predator has the <CHAPTER> keyword, a Blood Angels Predator has the BLOOD ANGELS keyword, which explicitly is prohibited from being selected for <CHAPTER>, so they are not the same datasheet, even if they have the same name.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No it is not truly debatable. People on the "they are the same Datasheet" side are just ignoring the facts.

A Blood Angel Dev Squad is demonstrably not the same as a Dark Angels Dev squad witch is demonstrably not the same as an Ultramarines Dev Squad...

Ergo they can not be the same Datasheet at all. But people are ignoring the facts to seem like it is debatable, when their argument is just wrong.

It doesnt matter what you think and what i think. It is debatable until GW says how its done.

It literally is not if one reads the rule correctly.

If the Datasheets have different Keywords and are in different books then they are not the same Datasheet.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
A datasheet is a datasheet, this shouldn't be too confusing.

An Ultramarine's predator uses the same datasheet as an Imperial Fist's predator which also uses the same datasheet as a Blood Angel's predator. Changing the faction/sub faction keyword is not a rewrite of the datasheet. Particularly since the datasheet itself has the prefix <faction>.

The only time this might be confusing realistically is when we have units that fulfil the exact same role but are named otherwise for fluff reasons, such as with long fangs for example.

An Ultramarine's predator absolutely does not use the same datasheet as a Blood Angel's predator. They are not even in the same book...

The Blood Angels predator does not have "the prefix <faction>."

 DeathReaper wrote:

It literally is not if one reads the rule correctly.

If the Datasheets have different Keywords and are in different books then they are not the same Datasheet.

Sort of devils advocate here, as I would play it how you're suggesting, but...

The new FAQ explicitly says that Stratagems with the same name from different Codexes are treated as the same Strat for purposes of limiting their use to onece per phase.

The affected Stratagems actually have different text. For instance the one from the Space Marine codex will say ADEPTUS ASTARTES, while the same Stratagem from the Dark Angel codex says DARK ANGELS.

Of course Stratagems are not the same thing as Datasheets, but it does show some precedence for interpreting how the game handles 'sameness'.

nekooni wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "<prefix>" - but isn't an Assault Squad from the blood angels codex named the same as an Assault Squad from the regular marine codex while having different options available, and therefore clearly being something different?

I mean if it's the same I should be able to equip Meltaguns on my Salamanders Assault Squad, right?

Not sure what makes you think you can equip Meltaguns on your Salamanders Assault Squad but I see what you're saying with regards to different options. I don't think it's enough to justify that it's an entirely different datasheet but it's certainly not clear cut. Out of interest what are the different options for a BA Assault squad vs a regular marine Assault squad?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
While you're right for Ultramarines and Imperial Fists, that is not the case for Blood Angels.

A Vanilla Predator has the <CHAPTER> keyword, a Blood Angels Predator has the BLOOD ANGELS keyword, which explicitly is prohibited from being selected for <CHAPTER>, so they are not the same datasheet, even if they have the same name.

Isn't the "BLOOD ANGELS" keyword the same sort of keyword as the <CHAPTER> keyword though? This for me is not enough to claim the datasheets are different.

 DeathReaper wrote:
An Ultramarine's predator absolutely does not use the same datasheet as a Blood Angel's predator. They are not even in the same book...

The Blood Angels predator does not have "the prefix <faction>."

It makes absolutely no difference that they aren't in the same book. As I said above, the <BLOOD ANGELS> is functionally the same sort of keyword as <ULTRAMARINES> only it's chosen for you. This isn't enough to justify the two units being a different datasheet imo.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Isn't the "BLOOD ANGELS" keyword the same sort of keyword as the <CHAPTER> keyword though? This for me is not enough to claim the datasheets are different.

Yeah, it's the same, that's why I am saying they aren't. /s

BLOOD ANGELS cannot be selected as <CHAPTER>. The BLOOD ANGELS keyword has as much relation to <CHAPTER> as it does to ADEPTUS ASTARTES or IMPERIUM, that is, zero. You assigning it any meaning or "type" is you making up rules.

BLOOD ANGELS is a Faction Keyword and nothing more. It's not the "same" as ULTRAMARINES, <CHAPTER> or NECRON.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "<prefix>" - but isn't an Assault Squad from the blood angels codex named the same as an Assault Squad from the regular marine codex while having different options available, and therefore clearly being something different?

I mean if it's the same I should be able to equip Meltaguns on my Salamanders Assault Squad, right?

Not sure what makes you think you can equip Meltaguns on your Salamanders Assault Squad but I see what you're saying with regards to different options. I don't think it's enough to justify that it's an entirely different datasheet but it's certainly not clear cut. Out of interest what are the different options for a BA Assault squad vs a regular marine Assault squad?

Sorry - that was my point. Regular Assault Squad do not have access to Meltaguns while BA Assault Squads can equip them. If they were the same datasheet they should have the same options available to them.
It drastically changes the usefulness and role of the squad because all of a sudden you can DS and reliably hit big targets without even having to gamble on the charge.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
A datasheet is a datasheet, this shouldn't be too confusing.

An Ultramarine's predator uses the same datasheet as an Imperial Fist's predator which also uses the same datasheet as a Blood Angel's predator. Changing the faction/sub faction keyword is not a rewrite of the datasheet. Particularly since the datasheet itself has the prefix <faction>.

The only time this might be confusing realistically is when we have units that fulfil the exact same role but are named otherwise for fluff reasons, such as with long fangs for example.

While you're right for Ultramarines and Imperial Fists, that is not the case for Blood Angels.

A Vanilla Predator has the <CHAPTER> keyword, a Blood Angels Predator has the BLOOD ANGELS keyword, which explicitly is prohibited from being selected for <CHAPTER>, so they are not the same datasheet, even if they have the same name.

Same deal with Rubric Marines for CSM and TS codexes I reckon. Same name, same stats even. Different weapon options and the TS ones also have the THOUSAND SONS keyword. Oh and elite vs troop choice.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yeah, it's the same, that's why I am saying they aren't. /s

BLOOD ANGELS cannot be selected as <CHAPTER>. The BLOOD ANGELS keyword has as much relation to <CHAPTER> as it does to ADEPTUS ASTARTES or IMPERIUM, that is, zero. You assigning it any meaning or "type" is you making up rules.

BLOOD ANGELS is a Faction Keyword and nothing more. It's not the "same" as ULTRAMARINES, <CHAPTER> or NECRON.

It's a Faction Keyword just like ULTRAMARINES is a faction keyword and NIHILAKH is also a Faction Keyword. They literally serve the same function.

I'm not sure why you think BLOOD ANGELS is any different?

nekooni wrote:
Sorry - that was my point. Regular Assault Squad do not have access to Meltaguns while BA Assault Squads can equip them. If they were the same datasheet they should have the same options available to them.
It drastically changes the usefulness and role of the squad because all of a sudden you can DS and reliably hit big targets without even having to gamble on the charge.

Ah I see, fair point.

Take this with a grain of salt as I'm totally going off memory but wasn't there something about datasheets and the most recent "version" of a datasheet replacing older ones? There might be an argument to take Meltaguns on your Salamanders Assault Squads.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yeah, it's the same, that's why I am saying they aren't. /s

BLOOD ANGELS cannot be selected as <CHAPTER>. The BLOOD ANGELS keyword has as much relation to <CHAPTER> as it does to ADEPTUS ASTARTES or IMPERIUM, that is, zero. You assigning it any meaning or "type" is you making up rules.

BLOOD ANGELS is a Faction Keyword and nothing more. It's not the "same" as ULTRAMARINES, <CHAPTER> or NECRON.

It's a Faction Keyword just like ULTRAMARINES is a faction keyword and NIHILAKH is also a Faction Keyword. They literally serve the same function.

I'm not sure why you think BLOOD ANGELS is any different?

Because they aren't the same keyword.
If I give you Moby Dick, and then Moby Dick where every instance of the word Whale is replaced with Gorilla, are they the same book?

This is all a pointless discussion anyway since it needs an official decree from GW to actually fix, since both "Name only" and "All must be exact" are true, for a specific value of true.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because they aren't the same keyword.
If I give you Moby Dick, and then Moby Dick where every instance of the word Whale is replaced with Gorilla, are they the same book?

This is all a pointless discussion anyway since it needs an official decree from GW to actually fix, since both "Name only" and "All must be exact" are true, for a specific value of true.

But functionally they are identical?

This isn't a novel, it's a ruleset, although a version of "Mody Dick" with the word whale repaced with Harambe sounds epic.

You're right, there is an argument for both sides and GW needs to clarify. I guess that's what these beta rules are for though.

No, functionally they are not identical. Things that affect an ULTRAMARINES RHINO don't affect things that are a BLOOD ANGELS RHINO.

I can't cast Unleash Rage on an ULTRAMARINES RHINO, for example.

Yea but their function is exactly the same. Just like the function of "ULTRAMARINES", "SALAMANDERS", "IMPERIAL FISTS" or even the dreaded "RAINBOW SPESS MEHREENS" do the exact same thing. They are a faction keyword that specifies what faction units in a detachment belong to.

I see your point but I think common sense dictates that a Rhino is a Rhino regardless of faction keyword. Same with Rubric Marines on the CSM side. Or any other overlapping units for that matter.

GW have said themselves that they put the ruling in to help deal with spam, if you can bypass the rule of 3 in this way they haven't effectively dealt with spam.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Yea but their function is exactly the same. Just like the function of "ULTRAMARINES", "SALAMANDERS", "IMPERIAL FISTS" or even the dreaded "RAINBOW SPESS MEHREENS" do the exact same thing. They are a faction keyword that specifies what faction units in a detachment belong to.

I see your point but I think common sense dictates that a Rhino is a Rhino regardless of faction keyword. Same with Rubric Marines on the CSM side. Or any other overlapping units for that matter.

GW have said themselves that they put the ruling in to help deal with spam, if you can bypass the rule of 3 in this way they haven't effectively dealt with spam.

If GW want to deal with the "spam", then they need to write a rule that properly deals with it, or make an official decree via FAQ as to whether only the name needs to match to be considered the "same" or not.

"Common Sense" dictates my Marines automatically hit. Luckily the rules rely on, well, the rules, not something as nebulous as "common sense".

But this is all pointless since the rule is only for organised play, and in that situation it's the TO who has to make the call, not GW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"Common Sense" dictates my Marines automatically hit. Luckily the rules rely on, well, the rules, not something as nebulous as "common sense".

I'm on about common sense from the perspective of reading the rules not some bizarre definition that makes no sense to anyone.

It shouldn't be call ed "the rule of 3". It should be "the suggested guideline for tournament organisers of 3".

Andykp wrote:
It shouldn't be call ed "the rule of 3". It should be "the suggested guideline for tournament organisers of 3".

Like the 3 detachments are just "suggestion".

When do people stop pretending it's not going to be pretty much de facto standard to the level that NOT using it is the house rule.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Yea but their function is exactly the same. Just like the function of "ULTRAMARINES", "SALAMANDERS", "IMPERIAL FISTS" or even the dreaded "RAINBOW SPESS MEHREENS" do the exact same thing. They are a faction keyword that specifies what faction units in a detachment belong to.

I see your point but I think common sense dictates that a Rhino is a Rhino regardless of faction keyword. Same with Rubric Marines on the CSM side. Or any other overlapping units for that matter.

GW have said themselves that they put the ruling in to help deal with spam, if you can bypass the rule of 3 in this way they haven't effectively dealt with spam.

Why are we assuming that GW can effectively deal with any balance related rules issues? Not to be snarky, but we know they TRIED to deal with it. We don't know that what they wrote actually represents what they intended. GW rule sets are notoriously ambiguous and poorly worded.

GW could resolve a ton of this in a variety of ways. Each datasheet really needs a truly unique identifier AND a publication date. Name isn't unique enough. There are numerous datasheets with identical names across different Codexes - this is particularly egregious across the various Marines books. It can also be tough for a new player coming into the game to know which version of a datasheet is the most recent... especially since GW is perfectly happy to keep selling out of date rules (every Index book?).

 Kriswall wrote:
Why are we assuming that GW can effectively deal with any balance related rules issues? Not to be snarky, but we know they TRIED to deal with it. We don't know that what they wrote actually represents what they intended. GW rule sets are notoriously ambiguous and poorly worded.

GW could resolve a ton of this in a variety of ways. Each datasheet really needs a truly unique identifier AND a publication date. Name isn't unique enough. There are numerous datasheets with identical names across different Codexes - this is particularly egregious across the various Marines books. It can also be tough for a new player coming into the game to know which version of a datasheet is the most recent... especially since GW is perfectly happy to keep selling out of date rules (every Index book?).

You're not being snarky at all and I see your point.

I think your idea of a unique identifier for each datasheet would be perfect. A publication date might not be necessary but it certainly wouldn't hurt. The problem is - I doubt GW will do this since it would likely take them a fair bit of time for little reward.

I guess the easiest way to sort out any ambiguity is to reference exactly what constitutes a "unique datasheet". Do Faction Keywords and codex publications change the datasheet enough for it to be considered unique? Are different names enough even (Daemon Prince of Nurgle, Daemon Prince, Thousand Sons Daemon Prince etc)?

We certainly need clarity but I'd put my mortgage on GW taking the easiest possible route.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Sorry - that was my point. Regular Assault Squad do not have access to Meltaguns while BA Assault Squads can equip them. If they were the same datasheet they should have the same options available to them.
It drastically changes the usefulness and role of the squad because all of a sudden you can DS and reliably hit big targets without even having to gamble on the charge.

Ah I see, fair point.

Take this with a grain of salt as I'm totally going off memory but wasn't there something about datasheets and the most recent "version" of a datasheet replacing older ones? There might be an argument to take Meltaguns on your Salamanders Assault Squads.

Yes, which is exactly the point. If these datasets were the same, one would invalidate the other. But melts guns on assault squads is a BA exclusive and has been for a while now, and it's still supposed to be that.
By now you're bending established things to make your interpretation work, don't you see that? They're different datasheets, and while that creates a few inconsistencies, it's not even noticeable in a world where there are like 7 clearly unique dreadnought datasheets of which multiple ones can be equipped basically the same, there are like 7 slightly different land raider datasheets and so on.

By now I think GW should just redo the keyword system as a whole. Make all predators unit keyword PREDATOR, land raiders LAND Raider and so on. Make it clear what type of keyword any given keyword is, then change the surrounding rules based on that - in this case limit unit keywords to 0-3 of the same unit keyword, for example.

Same with all the other keyword related crap. But that's for a different subforum I guess.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Yea but their function is exactly the same. Just like the function of "ULTRAMARINES", "SALAMANDERS", "IMPERIAL FISTS" or even the dreaded "RAINBOW SPESS MEHREENS" do the exact same thing. They are a faction keyword that specifies what faction units in a detachment belong to.

I see your point but I think common sense dictates that a Rhino is a Rhino regardless of faction keyword. Same with Rubric Marines on the CSM side. Or any other overlapping units for that matter.

GW have said themselves that they put the ruling in to help deal with spam, if you can bypass the rule of 3 in this way they haven't effectively dealt with spam.

If GW want to deal with the "spam", then they need to write a rule that properly deals with it, or make an official decree via FAQ as to whether only the name needs to match to be considered the "same" or not.

"Common Sense" dictates my Marines automatically hit. Luckily the rules rely on, well, the rules, not something as nebulous as "common sense".

But this is all pointless since the rule is only for organised play, and in that situation it's the TO who has to make the call, not GW.

Agreed. Except for the common sense fallacy where you again make ‘common sense’ mean ‘cheating’, something it does not mean. Do stop?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yeah, it's the same, that's why I am saying they aren't. /s

BLOOD ANGELS cannot be selected as <CHAPTER>. The BLOOD ANGELS keyword has as much relation to <CHAPTER> as it does to ADEPTUS ASTARTES or IMPERIUM, that is, zero. You assigning it any meaning or "type" is you making up rules.

BLOOD ANGELS is a Faction Keyword and nothing more. It's not the "same" as ULTRAMARINES, <CHAPTER> or NECRON.

It's a Faction Keyword just like ULTRAMARINES is a faction keyword and NIHILAKH is also a Faction Keyword. They literally serve the same function.

I'm not sure why you think BLOOD ANGELS is any different?

nekooni wrote:
Sorry - that was my point. Regular Assault Squad do not have access to Meltaguns while BA Assault Squads can equip them. If they were the same datasheet they should have the same options available to them.
It drastically changes the usefulness and role of the squad because all of a sudden you can DS and reliably hit big targets without even having to gamble on the charge.

Ah I see, fair point.

Take this with a grain of salt as I'm totally going off memory but wasn't there something about datasheets and the most recent "version" of a datasheet replacing older ones? There might be an argument to take Meltaguns on your Salamanders Assault Squads.

That doesn't work that way, and if it would, it would be ridiculously stupid. For example, now chaos spawn would all be daemon factions, so it wouldn't be possible to add spawn to a CSM army. All predators would be blood angels, making them unable to receive buff from an Ultramarine source. All chaplains would now be dark angels, and would make them unable to buff salamanders, for example. Etc, etc, etc.
The only time a datasheet can overwrite an older datasheet, is when you go from index to codex, as detailed per the faq. Everything else is a different datasheet.

Something I love to ask about with these sorts of things is: does the rule of three override the rule of one for commanders in the Tau codex?

Or do both hold, and the rule of 3 matters across your army list but not detachments?

 carldooley wrote:
Something I love to ask about with these sorts of things is: does the rule of three override the rule of one for commanders in the Tau codex?

Or do both hold, and the rule of 3 matters across your army list but not detachments?

They both hold. Max 3 across the army, max 1 in a detachment, because GW hates anyone who wants to play Farsight Enclaves.

The rule where you can only use the same datasheet up to 4 times, depending on points, is only a suggestion, its not an official rule. If you play with it both rules still hold. You cant have more than 1 commander in one detachment.

 p5freak wrote:
The rule where you can only use the same datasheet up to 4 times, depending on points, is only a suggestion, its not an official rule. If you play with it both rules still hold. You cant have more than 1 commander in your army.

Thats totaly false.
Its 1 commander per detachment not per army

Ice_can wrote:

Thats totaly false.
Its 1 commander per detachment not per army

You are right, sorry. I corrected it.