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.

I just want to make sure I’m not crazy and am seeing this correctly. CSM units with the mark of X gains the X keyword as a faction keyword. Similarly, units from codex daemons have the X faction keyword according to their X god. Can I put these two instances in the same detachment if the units selected share X.

 son_of_osiris wrote:
I just want to make sure I’m not crazy and am seeing this correctly. CSM units with the mark of X gains the X keyword as a faction keyword. Similarly, units from codex daemons have the X faction keyword according to their X god. Can I put these two instances in the same detachment if the units selected share X.

No, you cannot, due to the Designers Commentary.

<ALLEGIANCE> is not the same keyword as <MARK OF CHAOS>, even if you pick KHORNE, any more than <REGIMENT> is the same as <CHAPTER> if you pick BOBS PONY BRIGADE for both. We're explicitly even told we can't use keywords like that to circumvent detachment restrictions like the Battle Brothers rule imposes.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf wrote: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 AdeptusAstartes 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.

Be prepared for the usual contingent of "RaI" people to scream that this is not the case, but until GW fix their FAQ, this is the case.

It's one of the reasons I despise Special Snowflake FAQs instead of proper errata, they always cause more issues than they fix. If you accept that <ALLEGIANCE> is the same as <MARK OF CHAOS> despite the DC, then my <REGIMENT> is the same as <CHAPTER>, despite the DC. There is no in-between.

 son_of_osiris wrote:
I just want to make sure I’m not crazy and am seeing this correctly. CSM units with the mark of X gains the X keyword as a faction keyword. Similarly, units from codex daemons have the X faction keyword according to their X god. Can I put these two instances in the same detachment if the units selected share X.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. If they have the same faction keyword, they can form a detachment.

The Designers Commentary stops Keyword manipulation to achieve undesired effects. That’s not what this is. We’re literally told to give units from two different Codexes the exact same Faction Keyword. RAW, they have the same Faction Keyword.

If GW didn’t want two units to have the same Faction Keyword they wouldn’t have told us to give them the exact same Faction Keyword.

They are not the same faction key word. One replaces the word "allegiance" while the other codex that word replaces the word "mark of chaos". Thus while the word Khorne can be used in both instances it is for 2 different purposes (one is <Allegiance Khorne> the other <Mark of Chaos Khorne>.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They are not the same faction key word. One replaces the word "allegiance" while the other codex that word replaces the word "mark of chaos". Thus while the word Khorne can be used in both instances it is for 2 different purposes (one is <Allegiance Khorne> the other <Mark of Chaos Khorne>.

So I can replace my <REGIMENT> with ULTRAMARINES and benefit from Rowboats aura then.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They are not the same faction key word. One replaces the word "allegiance" while the other codex that word replaces the word "mark of chaos". Thus while the word Khorne can be used in both instances it is for 2 different purposes (one is <Allegiance Khorne> the other <Mark of Chaos Khorne>.

So I can replace my <REGIMENT> with ULTRAMARINES and benefit from Rowboats aura then.

Plague Marines have the NURGLE keyword.
Beasts of Nurgle have the NURGLE keyword.

Is this the same Keyword? How does one know?

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They are not the same faction key word. One replaces the word "allegiance" while the other codex that word replaces the word "mark of chaos". Thus while the word Khorne can be used in both instances it is for 2 different purposes (one is <Allegiance Khorne> the other <Mark of Chaos Khorne>.

So I can replace my <REGIMENT> with ULTRAMARINES and benefit from Rowboats aura then.

Plague Marines have the NURGLE keyword.
Beasts of Nurgle have the NURGLE keyword.

Is this the same Keyword? How does one know?

Because the codex explains how ALLEGIANCE and MARK OF CHAOS work. Please read your codex before participating in rules discussions, it can be pretty important. I will be the first to admit I sometimes fail to do that.

Is it stupid that they aren't the same? Yes, but GW has decreed from on high that this is how it must be, so until they reverse that decree, I will play as the Special Snowflake FAQ demands.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They are not the same faction key word. One replaces the word "allegiance" while the other codex that word replaces the word "mark of chaos". Thus while the word Khorne can be used in both instances it is for 2 different purposes (one is <Allegiance Khorne> the other <Mark of Chaos Khorne>.

So I can replace my <REGIMENT> with ULTRAMARINES and benefit from Rowboats aura then.

Plague Marines have the NURGLE keyword.
Beasts of Nurgle have the NURGLE keyword.

Is this the same Keyword? How does one know?

Because the codex explains how ALLEGIANCE and MARK OF CHAOS work. Please read your codex before participating in rules discussions, it can be pretty important. I will be the first to admit I sometimes fail to do that.

Is it stupid that they aren't the same? Yes, but GW has decreed from on high that this is how it must be, so until they reverse that decree, I will play as the Special Snowflake FAQ demands.

What page? Because I do not see that on any page of the Death Guard codex.

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They are not the same faction key word. One replaces the word "allegiance" while the other codex that word replaces the word "mark of chaos". Thus while the word Khorne can be used in both instances it is for 2 different purposes (one is <Allegiance Khorne> the other <Mark of Chaos Khorne>.

So I can replace my <REGIMENT> with ULTRAMARINES and benefit from Rowboats aura then.

Plague Marines have the NURGLE keyword.
Beasts of Nurgle have the NURGLE keyword.

Is this the same Keyword? How does one know?

Because the codex explains how ALLEGIANCE and MARK OF CHAOS work. Please read your codex before participating in rules discussions, it can be pretty important. I will be the first to admit I sometimes fail to do that.

Is it stupid that they aren't the same? Yes, but GW has decreed from on high that this is how it must be, so until they reverse that decree, I will play as the Special Snowflake FAQ demands.

What page? Because I do not see that on any page of the Death Guard codex.

Because that is just the NURGLE keyword. It is not a MARK OF CHAOS or ALLEGIANCE keyword. The CSM and Chaos Daemons codexes make clear that units with a fixed choice still have MARK OF CHAOS or ALLEGIANCE, and presumably any such references in the codex are those keywords.

Does that last part have any rules basis? No, it's entirely on the back of the Special Snowflake FAQs because GW didn't want to spend 5 femtoseconds making their shoddy keyword system work.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They are not the same faction key word. One replaces the word "allegiance" while the other codex that word replaces the word "mark of chaos". Thus while the word Khorne can be used in both instances it is for 2 different purposes (one is <Allegiance Khorne> the other <Mark of Chaos Khorne>.

So I can replace my <REGIMENT> with ULTRAMARINES and benefit from Rowboats aura then.

No, that is why I said that they are different (even using the same word). By GW standards your IG would be <Regiment Ultramarines> and Rowboat is <chapter Ultramarines> that is not the same thing. So, no he would not be able to affect them with his aura.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They are not the same faction key word. One replaces the word "allegiance" while the other codex that word replaces the word "mark of chaos". Thus while the word Khorne can be used in both instances it is for 2 different purposes (one is <Allegiance Khorne> the other <Mark of Chaos Khorne>.

So I can replace my <REGIMENT> with ULTRAMARINES and benefit from Rowboats aura then.

No, that is why I said that they are different (even using the same word). By GW standards your IG would be <Regiment Ultramarines> and Rowboat is <chapter Ultramarines> that is not the same thing. So, no he would not be able to affect them with his aura.

So why is <MARK OF CHAOS KHORNE> the same as <ALLEGIANCE KHORNE>? You can't have it both ways.

I said that they are different. I don't know why you are having a hard time reading that post.

edit: notice the 3rd, 4th and, 5th words of the opening sentence.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I said that they are different. I don't know why you are having a hard time reading that post.

It seems we got some wires crossed, are you saying you can or cannot use the two different types of KHORNE to link a detachment? I am saying you cannot, because they aren't the same, as per the DC.

You can use the same base word (Khorne) but they are not allowed in the same detachment because they are not the same keyword (<Allegiance Khorne> =/= <Mark of Khorne> ).

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You can use the same base word (Khorne) but they are not allowed in the same detachment because they are not the same keyword (<Allegiance Khorne> =/= <Mark of Khorne> ).

| see nothing written anywhere that even slightly suggests that interpretation is correct.
Whilst agreed they are different terms, when they are both set to the same keyword, they become the same keyword. This has been confirmed by the designers commentary.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You can use the same base word (Khorne) but they are not allowed in the same detachment because they are not the same keyword (<Allegiance Khorne> =/= <Mark of Khorne> ).

| see nothing written anywhere that even slightly suggests that interpretation is correct.
Whilst agreed they are different terms, when they are both set to the same keyword, they become the same keyword. This has been confirmed by the designers commentary.

Agreed. If the rules change a keyword to the same Keyword, it is the same Keyword. The Commentary prevents artificially creating Keyword synergy. The Chaos Codexes deliberately create synergy. Trying to apply the Designers Commentary is flawed logic, and breaks the Daemon Prince datasheet. Also, have a look at the Chaos Marine codex version of the Daemon Prince that gives a third way to create the identical e.g. KHORNE Keyword. They create the same Keyword RAW, and most definitely RAI.

I'm going to revise my opinion. Based on the RAW where we are told to replace the<> phrase with a chaos god's name. The phrase replace means that all that is seen is the name. So, rather than being a clarification of which (mark or allegiance) is in place the name completely erases that and just places the name in that keyword slot. Based on that I'm going to say that <Khorne>=<Khorne>.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You can use the same base word (Khorne) but they are not allowed in the same detachment because they are not the same keyword (<Allegiance Khorne> =/= <Mark of Khorne> ).

| see nothing written anywhere that even slightly suggests that interpretation is correct.
Whilst agreed they are different terms, when they are both set to the same keyword, they become the same keyword. This has been confirmed by the designers commentary.

They don't become the same keyword. Did you actually read the Designers Commentary? It literally says the opposite. That's why I can't buff my Leman Russes that are ULTRAMARINES with Gulliman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm going to revise my opinion. Based on the RAW where we are told to replace the<> phrase with a chaos god's name. The phrase replace means that all that is seen is the name. So, rather than being a clarification of which (mark or allegiance) is in place the name completely erases that and just places the name in that keyword slot. Based on that I'm going to say that <Khorne>=<Khorne>.

Yes, you're absolutely right RaW they are the same. But GW has issues a Special Snowflake FAQ, so they aren't. It's stupid but them's the breaks.

I checked the designer's commentary it only says that you can't name regiments with the same name as an astartes chapter. It doesn't mention anything about chaos at all.

If you can point me to a specific quote in that FAQ then I'd be more than happy to change my opinion again.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I checked the designer's commentary it only says that you can't name regiments with the same name as an astartes chapter. It doesn't mention anything about chaos at all.

If you can point me to a specific quote in that FAQ then I'd be more than happy to change my opinion again.

So again, which is it. Either it ONLY works for Regiments and Chapters (so I can buff my Dark Reapers with archons now) or it applies to all keywords of that nature.

The DC is meant to be a general FAQ, not specifically for <REGIMENT> and <CHAPTER> but I'll be more than willing to play it that way if you demanded.

The line "It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment." seems pretty clear cut to me you can't circumvent the Detachment restrictions by using KHORNE to link MARK OF CHAOS and ALLEGIANCE.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I checked the designer's commentary it only says that you can't name regiments with the same name as an astartes chapter. It doesn't mention anything about chaos at all.

If you can point me to a specific quote in that FAQ then I'd be more than happy to change my opinion again.

You don't find anything specific. The only stuff in there is to do with custom named factions, which of course has nothing to do with god marks.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I checked the designer's commentary it only says that you can't name regiments with the same name as an astartes chapter. It doesn't mention anything about chaos at all.

If you can point me to a specific quote in that FAQ then I'd be more than happy to change my opinion again.

You don't find anything specific. The only stuff in there is to do with custom named factions, which of course has nothing to do with god marks.

Actually, it only has to do with REGIMENT and CHAPTER.

By your logic I can select BOBS PONY BRIGADE for my KABAL and HIVE FLEET and have my KABAL auras buff my HIVE FLEET units and have them in the same detachment too. That is no different to selecting KHORNE for MARK OF CHAOS and ALLEGIANCE, under the rules. It's only the Special Snowflake FAQ that prohibits it.

Yeah, this seems to clearly be legal. Both have the exact same faction keyword. The designers' commentary is solely concerned with naming subfactions of your own creation (which these are not) to prevent unintended interactions (which these are not).

Dionysodorus wrote:
Yeah, this seems to clearly be legal. Both have the exact same faction keyword. The designers' commentary is solely concerned with naming subfactions of your own creation (which these are not) to prevent unintended interactions (which these are not).

You can't have one and not the other with the current Special Snowflake FAQ. It's one or the other. If GW want it to work they have to fix it first.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Yeah, this seems to clearly be legal. Both have the exact same faction keyword. The designers' commentary is solely concerned with naming subfactions of your own creation (which these are not) to prevent unintended interactions (which these are not).

Exactly. There's nothing confusing about it at all.

Maybe I'm missing something BCB. What exactly is the special snowflake FAQ that you are referring to and which particular part?

Otherwise RAW the question in the designers commentary only applies to <regiment> and <chapter>. RAI is, I believe, to limit abuses by using custom (non-GW) names for any faction to avoid the very problem that you're talking about.

The problem is that GW, as usual, didn't think about their own keyword rules and which words could substitute for them.

Its this "common sense" thing that GW keep trying to rely on.

In CSM listings it should say "Mark : <chaos patron>" and in Daemons it should say "Allegiance : <chaos patron>".

That way, neither would ever say just "Khorne" or "Nurgle" it would be "Mark : Nurgle" and "Allegiance : Nurgle" which are then definitely not the same.

He quoted it above and it doesn’t apply here. The Mark and Allegiance have no user-generatable options, just the choice of four. The “can’t name your Guard Regiment and Marine Chapter the same” FAQ sinply does not apply. We’re told to swap for identical keywords, so identical they are. He isn’t reading the RAW.

The so-called Special Snowflake FAQ answers.

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.

Where does this leave Chaos? It has no impact on <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE>.

Why you ask? Because both of these come with a rule that require you to choose between KHORNE, SLAANESH, TZEENTCH, or NURGLE. No rule (that I am aware of) asks you to reference whether it is the Mark of Chaos or Allegiance.