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.

Please quote the rule which defines the "Nurgle" faction keyword in the DG codex as different for different units.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And finally: Under the new battle brothers rule, can I mix plague bearers from the DG codex with plague marines from the DG codex?

No, because they don't share a (FAQ permitted) faction keyword. Unlike Tzaangors they do not share the HERETIC ASTARTES keyword with the other units in the codex.

They share the Nurgle faction keyword, which is neither defined as Alleigence nor as Mark of Chaos.

And as per the Special Snowflake FAQ, you cannot treat them as the same keyword. Otherwise I could declare my <CHAPTER> to be DAEMON and be able to mix Vanilla Marines and Nurglings. I agree it's stupid, but GW have decided Special Snowflake FAQs are the way to do things, consequences be damned.

You’re misreading this, as explained upthread and in it’s threads. The rule you quote stops you making two keywords that shouldn’t be the same the same. We’re told by the RAW you can make these particular ones the same. You’re misapplying the Designers Commentary.

Ah, you're absolutely right on that! I blame the fact it's 9am and I've not gone to bed. That and senility.

Your second example is perfectly legal, because NURGLE is the same keyword as NURGLE. The other two are not legal because <MARK OF CHAOS>, <ALLEGIANCE> and NURGLE are not the same keyword.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ah, you're absolutely right on that! I blame the fact it's 9am and I've not gone to bed. That and senility.

Your second example is perfectly legal, because NURGLE is the same keyword as NURGLE. The other two are not legal because <MARK OF CHAOS>, <ALLEGIANCE> and NURGLE are not the same keyword.

They are. See above.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And finally: Under the new battle brothers rule, can I mix plague bearers from the DG codex with plague marines from the DG codex?

No, because they don't share a (FAQ permitted) faction keyword. Unlike Tzaangors they do not share the HERETIC ASTARTES keyword with the other units in the codex.

They share the Nurgle faction keyword, which is neither defined as Alleigence nor as Mark of Chaos.

And as per the Special Snowflake FAQ, you cannot treat them as the same keyword. Otherwise I could declare my <CHAPTER> to be DAEMON and be able to mix Vanilla Marines and Nurglings. I agree it's stupid, but GW have decided Special Snowflake FAQs are the way to do things, consequences be damned.

Except what you stupidly call special snowflake faq in fact doesn't prevent it.

But as usual you just keep twisting things along with your lies.

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And finally: Under the new battle brothers rule, can I mix plague bearers from the DG codex with plague marines from the DG codex?

No, because they don't share a (FAQ permitted) faction keyword. Unlike Tzaangors they do not share the HERETIC ASTARTES keyword with the other units in the codex.

They share the Nurgle faction keyword, which is neither defined as Alleigence nor as Mark of Chaos.

And as per the Special Snowflake FAQ, you cannot treat them as the same keyword. Otherwise I could declare my <CHAPTER> to be DAEMON and be able to mix Vanilla Marines and Nurglings. I agree it's stupid, but GW have decided Special Snowflake FAQs are the way to do things, consequences be damned.

Except what you stupidly call special snowflake faq in fact doesn't prevent it.

But as usual you just keep twisting things along with your lies.

Not to mention this is all a repeat of another thread now...

So, the FAQs in question.

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.

This only limits what I can choose to replace keywords. It does not change in any way how they function.

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.

This applies only when creating your own Keywords. You do not have permission to create your own marks or alignments.

From the same FAQ:

Imagine, then, that
the Heretic Astartes Detachment contains
a unit of Possessed (which does not have the
Daemon Faction keyword, but does have the
Daemon keyword), and I choose for them to
replace their <Mark of Chaos> keyword
with Khorne. If the Daemon Detachment
contained a Herald of Khorne, his ability to ‘add
1 to the Strength characteristic of all Khorne
Daemons’ would also apply to the unit of
Possessed, as they have both the Khorne and
Daemon keywords.

So clearly "Khorne" from codex CSM is the same as "Khorne" from codex daemons, therefore you are not circumventing any restrictions.

So, as your interpretation directly contradicts an example from the same document, I think I have to agree with JohnnyHell, you are wrong on this.

 Jidmah wrote:
So, the FAQs in question.

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.

This only limits what I can choose to replace keywords. It does not change in any way how they function.

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.

This applies only when creating your own Keywords. You do not have permission to create your own marks or alignments.

From the same FAQ:

Imagine, then, that
the Heretic Astartes Detachment contains
a unit of Possessed (which does not have the
Daemon Faction keyword, but does have the
Daemon keyword), and I choose for them to
replace their <Mark of Chaos> keyword
with Khorne. If the Daemon Detachment
contained a Herald of Khorne, his ability to ‘add
1 to the Strength characteristic of all Khorne
Daemons’ would also apply to the unit of
Possessed, as they have both the Khorne and
Daemon keywords.

So clearly "Khorne" from codex CSM is the same as "Khorne" from codex daemons, therefore you are not circumventing any restrictions.

So, as your interpretation directly contradicts an example from the same document, I think I have to agree with JohnnyHell, you are wrong on this.

Excellent, inescapably-RAW summary.

A whole page later and we can all agree that Khorne = Khorne

 Kharneth wrote:
A whole page later and we can all agree that Khorne = Khorne

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And finally: Under the new battle brothers rule, can I mix plague bearers from the DG codex with plague marines from the DG codex?

No, because they don't share a (FAQ permitted) faction keyword. Unlike Tzaangors they do not share the HERETIC ASTARTES keyword with the other units in the codex.

They share the Nurgle faction keyword, which is neither defined as Alleigence nor as Mark of Chaos.

And as per the Special Snowflake FAQ, you cannot treat them as the same keyword. Otherwise I could declare my <CHAPTER> to be DAEMON and be able to mix Vanilla Marines and Nurglings. I agree it's stupid, but GW have decided Special Snowflake FAQs are the way to do things, consequences be damned.

Except what you stupidly call special snowflake faq in fact doesn't prevent it.

But as usual you just keep twisting things along with your lies.

Rule #1 please - don't call someone a liar just because they have an alternative opinion that differs from your own.

 Jidmah wrote:

From the same FAQ:

Imagine, then, that
the Heretic Astartes Detachment contains
a unit of Possessed (which does not have the
Daemon Faction keyword, but does have the
Daemon keyword), and I choose for them to
replace their <Mark of Chaos> keyword
with Khorne. If the Daemon Detachment
contained a Herald of Khorne, his ability to ‘add
1 to the Strength characteristic of all Khorne
Daemons’ would also apply to the unit of
Possessed, as they have both the Khorne and
Daemon keywords.

So clearly "Khorne" from codex CSM is the same as "Khorne" from codex daemons, therefore you are not circumventing any restrictions.

So, as your interpretation directly contradicts an example from the same document, I think I have to agree with JohnnyHell, you are wrong on this.

I don't think that anyone is disputing that both the Khorne <Mark of Chaos> and the Khorne <Allegiance> both use the word Khorne. If "Daemon" can refer to either a Faction Keyword or a non-Faction Keyword, then I think it's pretty obvious that "Khorne" can refer to either the <Mark of Chaos> or the <Allegiance>. But is that good enough to form a detachment? I would argue that it is not, as they are clearly different keywords.

From a strictly-RAI interpretation, it's pretty clear (to me, at least, which is the problem with RAW) that GW considers the <Mark of Chaos> and the <Allegiance> to be the same. This much is incredibly obvious, and anyone who is trying to make a RAW argumentation based upon RAI need not waste their time. The question is what is allowed in the rules, by RAW, because some people prefer to play the game (and run their tournaments) using strict RAW.

The answer to that has been given in my last post.
RAW, replacing Khorne is always the same as Khorne, no matter what you are using it for.

Assuming that "Khorne" is not "Khorne", or as in my previous questions, that "Nurgle" is not "Nurgle" contradicts the RAW and is therefore wrong.

The only time when two keywords identical are not interchangeable is when you are
a) Creating both them yourself
AND
b) You are using them to circumvent limitations

If this is the case the two keywords are never considered to be equal.

b) would only apply if Khrone Heralds were in fact unable to buff Possessed. Since they can do this by RAW, an Allegiance to Khorne is in fact 100% equal to a Mark of Khorne by RAW.

 MinMax wrote:

I don't think that anyone is disputing that both the Khorne <Mark of Chaos> and the Khorne <Allegiance> both use the word Khorne. If "Daemon" can refer to either a Faction Keyword or a non-Faction Keyword, then I think it's pretty obvious that "Khorne" can refer to either the <Mark of Chaos> or the <Allegiance>. But is that good enough to form a detachment? I would argue that it is not, as they are clearly different keywords..

Now try to prove that it's as clear for NURGLE using only the Death Guard Codex, or TZEENTCH using only the Thousand Sons Codex.

Considering that this "special snowflake" FAQ only ever affects units with placeholder keywords, the only daemons affected would be soul grinders, furies and the like. All others have set keywords.

If you start arguing that "Nurgle" means something different for two datasheets on the same page of one codex, like seen in both TS and DG codex, you might as well argue that "Chaos" is not the same for two different datasheets, making all armies consisting of more than one datasheet illegal.

I'm actually arguing that NURGLE = NURGLE. My reply was to MinMax, not to you.

 doctortom wrote:

 MinMax wrote:

I don't think that anyone is disputing that both the Khorne <Mark of Chaos> and the Khorne <Allegiance> both use the word Khorne. If "Daemon" can refer to either a Faction Keyword or a non-Faction Keyword, then I think it's pretty obvious that "Khorne" can refer to either the <Mark of Chaos> or the <Allegiance>. But is that good enough to form a detachment? I would argue that it is not, as they are clearly different keywords..

Now try to prove that it's as clear for NURGLE using only the Death Guard Codex, or TZEENTCH using only the Thousand Sons Codex.

If we're talking about buffs or stratagems that target specifically Nurgle units (such as from a Herald, as I was talking about) then I don't need to prove anything. They have "Nurgle" as one of their keywords. It doesn't matter if it's a Faction Keyword or not.

But forming a detachment is different than receiving buffs or targeting units, as GW themselves has made clear.

KHARN! That is all.

 MinMax wrote:
But forming a detachment is different than receiving buffs or targeting units, as GW themselves has made clear.

Please quote the corresponding rule. Otherwise, you're wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:

 MinMax wrote:
But forming a detachment is different than receiving buffs or targeting units, as GW themselves has made clear.

Please quote the corresponding rule. Otherwise, you're wrong.

I mean there is a difference, as forming a detachment Always uses Faction keywords, whereas (most) buffs and targeting is either type of keyword, but that's not really relevant here.

His claim is that two identical faction keywords are not the same based on context.

There is no difference in how keywords and faction keywords are compared to another keyword of the same type.

The argument seems to come down to which of the two tables are the correct interpretation whilst building detachments




Whilst Khorne is still Khorne in both cases, the first means there is a distinction based on context, the other means its just a word.

Fictional wrote:
The argument seems to come down to which of the two tables are the correct interpretation whilst building detachments




Whilst Khorne is still Khorne in both cases, the first means there is a distinction based on context, the other means its just a word.

FAQ defines it as the upper.

 MinMax wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 MinMax wrote:

I don't think that anyone is disputing that both the Khorne <Mark of Chaos> and the Khorne <Allegiance> both use the word Khorne. If "Daemon" can refer to either a Faction Keyword or a non-Faction Keyword, then I think it's pretty obvious that "Khorne" can refer to either the <Mark of Chaos> or the <Allegiance>. But is that good enough to form a detachment? I would argue that it is not, as they are clearly different keywords..

Now try to prove that it's as clear for NURGLE using only the Death Guard Codex, or TZEENTCH using only the Thousand Sons Codex.

If we're talking about buffs or stratagems that target specifically Nurgle units (such as from a Herald, as I was talking about) then I don't need to prove anything. They have "Nurgle" as one of their keywords. It doesn't matter if it's a Faction Keyword or not.

But forming a detachment is different than receiving buffs or targeting units, as GW themselves has made clear.

They have NURGLE as a faction keyword. As GW made clear, units with the same faction keyword can form a detachment.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fictional wrote:
The argument seems to come down to which of the two tables are the correct interpretation whilst building detachments




Whilst Khorne is still Khorne in both cases, the first means there is a distinction based on context, the other means its just a word.

FAQ defines it as the upper.

I quoted the FAQ saying the exact opposite. Again, you are wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fictional wrote:
The argument seems to come down to which of the two tables are the correct interpretation whilst building detachments




Whilst Khorne is still Khorne in both cases, the first means there is a distinction based on context, the other means its just a word.

FAQ defines it as the upper.

I quoted the FAQ saying the exact opposite. Again, you are wrong.

Agreed. BCB is ignoring the RAW of the FAQ because it doesn’t fit his likes.

I think it is safe to say this Thread has reached the end of useful conversation. There are two lines of thought:

1. If GW gives you 4 options for Allegiance and Mark of Chaos that are exactly the same Keywords, they are exactly the same Keywords.

2. The FAQ that states you can't create Keyword names that bridge different <Keyword> into the same keyword means <Allegiance> and <Mark of Chaos> can't be treated as the same Keyword, even if you are picking from the lists GW gave you.

We can leave it as a exercise to the reader of the thread to decide which is the proper RAW reading of the rules.

 alextroy wrote:
2. The FAQ that states you can't create Keyword names that bridge different <Keyword> into the same keyword means <Allegiance> and <Mark of Chaos> can't be treated as the same Keyword, even if you are picking from the lists GW gave you.

You do not have permission to create Allegiances or Marks of Chaos of your own, therefore the FAQ in question does not apply. On top of that, the very same document tells us that the Allegiance "Khorne" is the same as the Mark of Chaos "Khorne" (see quote above).
Claiming that an Allegiance is not the same as a Mark of Chaos of the same god is a direct violation of the RAW.

We can leave it as a exercise to the reader of the thread to decide which is the proper RAW reading of the rules.

I'm really confused how intent people are on declaring this as ambiguous even though RAW is 100% clear. Have 40k rules fallen below a certain threshold of unclear rules so people start seeing problems where there are none?

Beats me dude. You’ve posted cast iron proof and people are trying to argue rather than admit they were incorrect. Each to their own.

 Jidmah wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
2. The FAQ that states you can't create Keyword names that bridge different <Keyword> into the same keyword means <Allegiance> and <Mark of Chaos> can't be treated as the same Keyword, even if you are picking from the lists GW gave you.

You do not have permission to create Allegiances or Marks of Chaos of your own, therefore the FAQ in question does not apply. On top of that, the very same document tells us that the Allegiance "Khorne" is the same as the Mark of Chaos "Khorne" (see quote above).
Claiming that an Allegiance is not the same as a Mark of Chaos of the same god is a direct violation of the RAW.

We can leave it as a exercise to the reader of the thread to decide which is the proper RAW reading of the rules.

I'm really confused how intent people are on declaring this as ambiguous even though RAW is 100% clear. Have 40k rules fallen below a certain threshold of unclear rules so people start seeing problems where there are none?

I'm not. I totally agree with you. I'm just saying there are two ways to look at it and this thread has clearly stated both and is no longer moving forward constructively.

Of the "two ways to look at it" one has clearly been proven incorrect, as it directly contradicts the Designer's Commentary, the very document used to construct this imaginary rules problem by interpreting two other FAQs from that document incorrectly - FAQs that don't even apply to Marks of Chaos and Allegiances.

Therefore, no, there are no two ways to look at it.

The only way to move forward constructively is to accept that any interpretation of a rule that directly contradicts examples given in the same document are wrong.

The rules are 100% clear on this. If you look at them "in another way" you are simply breaking the rules as written and as intended. Might as well tell your opponent all your ones are sixes because "there are two ways to look at it".