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.
The first image is the Rites of Battle ability of a named Captain from the Salamanders chapter. Unlike the generic Rites of Battle, which mentions the <CHAPTER> keyword, this one specifically mentions the SALAMANDERS keyword. As seen in the second image, the Astra Militarum Salamander Scout Tank has the SALAMANDER keyword (for some reason). The third picture is a fragment of a FAQ saying that there's no difference between plural and singular keywords (SALAMANDERS and SALAMANDER). Does this mean that the IG tank can get rerolls from the named SM Captain? RaI probably not, but RaW it seems so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the images, since I forgot about them, apparently.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Technically, stratagems that work on SALAMANDERS also work on those IG tanks, provided that you have both a Space Marine detachment and an Astra Militarum detachment in your army, and the keywords match up. Such as:
"THE CRUCIBLE OF BATTLE
Use this Stratagem in the Shooting or Fight phase, when a SALAMANDERS unit from your army is chosen to shoot or fight with. Until the end of that phase, when resolving an attack made by a model in that unit, add 1 to the wound roll. "
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/11 00:58:15
1. Keywords cannot be used in manners that would otherwise circumvent restrictions or limitations.
2. SALAMANDERS unit = unit whose faction keyword includes SALAMANDERS. Otherwise it would be written "for friendly SALAMANDER"
No. And btw, this is just below the FAQ you quoted.
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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 04:00:27
p5freak wrote: No. And btw, this is just below the FAQ you quoted.
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.
That FAQ doesn't apply here. The SALAMANDER(S) keyword on either model is not one you choose.
To the OP: Yes, you are correct. RaW it affects Salamander Scout Tanks. It's hilarious. Anyone who says otherwise is, in a word, incorrect when it comes to the Rules as Written.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: 1. Keywords cannot be used in manners that would otherwise circumvent restrictions or limitations.
2. SALAMANDERS unit = unit whose faction keyword includes SALAMANDERS. Otherwise it would be written "for friendly SALAMANDER"
Both points are categorically false. There is no such rule saying keywords cannot be used like this, only an faq for keywords you can pick. Secondly there is an faq explicitly stating that faction and non faction keywords are identical during a game, they only differ for list building.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/02/11 05:37:43
RAW you can argue it does, but it's totally clear to absolutely anyone that the Salamanders keyword for the Marines is actually a completely different keyword from the Salamander keyword for the tank. They just happen to share the same name by total coincidence. But they're two totally distinct keywords with no actual overlap.
I would say this is one of those situations where it is so clear the keyword is not the same that to insist it is doesn't make sense even in the most technical RAW argument.
I'd argue that RAW arguments tend to be quite binary: It either is something or it isn't. In this case it is, just because "SALAMANDER" is a term that happens to be shared by two completely different units in two completely different armies.
But yes, no one would ever play it that way (although you could make some weird fluff justification for it - the Sallies respecting the Guard for naming a tank after them, even if they didn't!).
Oh man... that makes me wonder that if Russ ever does come back, he'd have the keyword Leman Russ. That'd create some oddities.
p5freak wrote: Keywords from one faction cannot bei used on another faction. The FAQ i quoted made that clear, even if it says its about self created chapters.
The death guard faq contradicts that. You can use psychic powers that state NURGLE on both faction and non faction NURGLE. Likewise auras can affect both SALAMANDERS Faction and SALAMANDER (as per the plural faq) non faction keyword. The Faq provided by OP explicitly states he is permitted to do this.
As per the faq keywords and faction keywords have no difference once the game begins.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/11 09:32:10
p5freak wrote: Keywords from one faction cannot bei used on another faction. The FAQ i quoted made that clear, even if it says its about self created chapters.
The death guard faq contradicts that. You can use psychic powers that state NURGLE on both faction and non faction NURGLE. Likewise auras can affect both SALAMANDERS Faction and SALAMANDER (as per the plural faq) non faction keyword. The Faq provided by OP explicitly states he is permitted to do this.
As per the faq keywords and faction keywords have no difference once the game begins.
The chaos daemons FAQ contradicts that as well. Stratagems from the chaos daemons Codex can only be played on units with the daemon faction keyword. Welcome to the world of contradicting FAQs If you say this is a special snowflake FAQ, i say yours is one as well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/11 12:44:24
p5freak wrote: Keywords from one faction cannot bei used on another faction. The FAQ i quoted made that clear, even if it says its about self created chapters.
The death guard faq contradicts that. You can use psychic powers that state NURGLE on both faction and non faction NURGLE. Likewise auras can affect both SALAMANDERS Faction and SALAMANDER (as per the plural faq) non faction keyword. The Faq provided by OP explicitly states he is permitted to do this.
As per the faq keywords and faction keywords have no difference once the game begins.
I can't seem to find the death guard FAQ you're referring to. The only FAQ in reference to a psychic power is in regards to whether psychic powers of the same name across two codex counts as same power or not for the purpose of psychic focus.
My apologies, I misremembered the stratagem faq to be a keyword faq. The keyword faq is in fact from the BRBfaq.
Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a
Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are
used when building an army; when Battle-forging an
army, for instance, you will often only be able to include
units in the same detachment if they share the same
Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched
play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this
is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units
in your entire army (with the exception of those that
are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is
no functional difference between a keyword and a
Faction keyword.
For example, when creating a Battle-forged army for matched
play, I take two Patrol Detachments; the first contains only units
with the Heretic Astartes Faction keyword, and the second
contains only units with the Daemon Faction keyword. My Army
Faction is ‘Chaos’ because this is a Faction keyword every unit
in the entire army shares.
Once the battle has begun, the distinction between keywords
and Faction keywords no longer has any effect – both are used
to interact with abilities identically. 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.
Sorry for the formatting, on mobile. As you can see, the fact SALAMANDERS is a faction keyword and SALAMANDER is not is entirely irrelevant, the anti wu-tang-clan faq is not applicable as no keywords are being substituted and the faq saying pluralisaton does not affect which units a rule affects is applicable.
Ergo, the aura stated in the OP categorically affects Salamander Scout Tanks, as per the rules of the game.
You cannot use the re-roll because SALAMANDERS for the character is not a plural. It is the Keyword. You can”t remove then final S to make it match up with the vehicle.
Combining the two FAQ's, (one about function of keyword, other about pluralization), yes, it works if you word play the literal RAW - SALAMANDERS and SALAMANDER keyword should interact because SALAMANDERS is SALAMANDER + S.
However, semiotic analysis would indicate the meaning of SALAMANDERS (as reference to the SM chapter SALAMANDERS) and SALAMANDER (as reference to the FWIG vehicle) are distinct. Therefore, while the word SALAMANDERS is grammatically sound pluralization (assuming the word SALAMANDER is not an irregular) of the word SALAMANDER, it is not a pluralization of SALAMANDER (the vehicle) in meaning but simply a homograph.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/11 19:04:23
alextroy wrote: You cannot use the re-roll because SALAMANDERS for the character is not a plural. It is the Keyword. You can”t remove then final S to make it match up with the vehicle.
It is the plural of SALAMANDER, thus via FAQ it applies. RaW it doesn't apply, but GW insist on using FAQs to fix rules instead of errata, and it leads to nonsense situations like this.
skchsan wrote: Combining the two FAQ's, (one about function of keyword, other about pluralization), yes, it works if you word play the literal RAW - SALAMANDERS and SALAMANDER keyword should interact because SALAMANDERS is SALAMANDER + S.
However, semiotic analysis would indicate the meaning of SALAMANDERS (as reference to the SM chapter SALAMANDERS) and SALAMANDER (as reference to the FWIG vehicle) are distinct. Therefore, while the word SALAMANDERS is grammatically sound pluralization (assuming the word SALAMANDER is not an irregular) of the word SALAMANDER, it is not a pluralization of SALAMANDER (the vehicle) in meaning but simply a homograph.
Yeah I think this is right on the money. The FAQ says the pluralization of the *same* keyword doesn't have any effect. Here, the keyword here *isn't* the same. The one happens to be a plural of the other, but they aren't two ways of saying the same keyword, they're clearly two totally different keywords with no actual relationship to one another.
skchsan wrote: Combining the two FAQ's, (one about function of keyword, other about pluralization), yes, it works if you word play the literal RAW - SALAMANDERS and SALAMANDER keyword should interact because SALAMANDERS is SALAMANDER + S.
However, semiotic analysis would indicate the meaning of SALAMANDERS (as reference to the SM chapter SALAMANDERS) and SALAMANDER (as reference to the FWIG vehicle) are distinct. Therefore, while the word SALAMANDERS is grammatically sound pluralization (assuming the word SALAMANDER is not an irregular) of the word SALAMANDER, it is not a pluralization of SALAMANDER (the vehicle) in meaning but simply a homograph.
That does make sense. However, I am discussing rawRaW. And RaW, what matters is whether or not the keywords match. The actual meaning of the words used as keywords does not matter in any written rules that I know of.
Yeah I think this is right on the money. The FAQ says the pluralization of the *same* keyword doesn't have any effect. Here, the keyword here *isn't* the same. The one happens to be a plural of the other, but they aren't two ways of saying the same keyword, they're clearly two totally different keywords with no actual relationship to one another.
The FAQ actually does not mention that it has to be the *same* keyword.
Here it is again. It says *a keyword*. So it does not need to be the same keyword as long as one is the pluralisation of the other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 23:54:54
Good lord people will twist anything for an edge case internet-points thread, won’t they?
It’s pretty clear how this one is supposed to work. Barely anyone runs Salamander tanks anyway. Certainly not alongside Salamanders Space Marines, as they’ll lose their Doctrines. Non-issue and unless posturing very clear to see the two Keywords don’t actually interact.
It’s so edge-y an edge case it’s virtually monomolecular.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
BlueRiddle wrote: The FAQ actually does not mention that it has to be the *same* keyword.
Here it is again. It says *a keyword*. So it does not need to be the same keyword as long as one is the pluralisation of the other.
But that's implying they are talking about two versions of the same keyword. Otherwise it would be two keywords, not "a" keyword.
They didn't say "any keyword that is a plural of another is the other keyword, and vice versa." They said that if you have the same keyword, whether it's plural or singular doesn't matter. If it's not the same, IMO it isn't covered by that. And clearly this is not the same keyword, it just happens to be that two totally different keywords are the plural and singular of one another.
alextroy wrote: You cannot use the re-roll because SALAMANDERS for the character is not a plural. It is the Keyword. You can”t remove then final S to make it match up with the vehicle.
It is the plural of SALAMANDER, thus via FAQ it applies. RaW it doesn't apply, but GW insist on using FAQs to fix rules instead of errata, and it leads to nonsense situations like this.
No it does not.
SALAMANDERS is not the plural of SALAMANDER in this case, as they are not the same faction, and as such SALAMANDER is not referencing the SALAMANDERS keyword at all.
They are two totally different keywords as per RAW, and as such do not interact at all.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
The whole 40k keywords are such a fustercluck, that I sometimes wonder, why they bothered at all, if they can't keep keywords unique via database or spreadsheet even.
Just keep the preposition of keywords that can be replaced and change it to "CHAPTER: SALAMANDERS". No more coincidental bungling of faction and unit keywords.
alextroy wrote: You cannot use the re-roll because SALAMANDERS for the character is not a plural. It is the Keyword. You can”t remove then final S to make it match up with the vehicle.
It is the plural of SALAMANDER, thus via FAQ it applies. RaW it doesn't apply, but GW insist on using FAQs to fix rules instead of errata, and it leads to nonsense situations like this.
No it does not.
SALAMANDERS is not the plural of SALAMANDER in this case, as they are not the same faction, and as such SALAMANDER is not referencing the SALAMANDERS keyword at all.
They are two totally different keywords as per RAW, and as such do not interact at all.
You are totally correct, RaW they don't interact. The special snowflake faq says otherwise. The Faq doesn't care about how it's pluralised, simply that it is.
alextroy wrote: You cannot use the re-roll because SALAMANDERS for the character is not a plural. It is the Keyword. You can”t remove then final S to make it match up with the vehicle.
It is the plural of SALAMANDER, thus via FAQ it applies. RaW it doesn't apply, but GW insist on using FAQs to fix rules instead of errata, and it leads to nonsense situations like this.
No it does not.
SALAMANDERS is not the plural of SALAMANDER in this case, as they are not the same faction, and as such SALAMANDER is not referencing the SALAMANDERS keyword at all.
They are two totally different keywords as per RAW, and as such do not interact at all.
You are totally correct, RaW they don't interact. The special snowflake faq says otherwise. The Faq doesn't care about how it's pluralised, simply that it is.
That is false, and you know it.
To say that they interact is ignoring the context of the rule.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/12 12:42:05
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
alextroy wrote: You cannot use the re-roll because SALAMANDERS for the character is not a plural. It is the Keyword. You can”t remove then final S to make it match up with the vehicle.
It is the plural of SALAMANDER, thus via FAQ it applies. RaW it doesn't apply, but GW insist on using FAQs to fix rules instead of errata, and it leads to nonsense situations like this.
No it does not.
SALAMANDERS is not the plural of SALAMANDER in this case, as they are not the same faction, and as such SALAMANDER is not referencing the SALAMANDERS keyword at all.
They are two totally different keywords as per RAW, and as such do not interact at all.
You are totally correct, RaW they don't interact. The special snowflake faq says otherwise. The Faq doesn't care about how it's pluralised, simply that it is.
That is false, and you know it.
To say that they interact is ignoring the context of the rule.
You are missing the point of BcB. He plays devil's advocate.
What he states isn't necessarily how he would play the game, people are smarter than that and discuss things with opponents and play RAI etc etc.
BcB merely brings to light the confusions and hypocritical rules that can result as a way of workshops rule writings. (I am a fan of workshop and want them to be better so I am okay with this because hopefully the stuff that is pointed out get's resolved)
So RAI and RAW from original BRB, you could not do this. After the FAQRAW you technically would have to allow this. But the intent is clear as such no one would ever play it like that. But the point in workshop need to be more diligent with their FAQ and rule writing at times.
If you say this is a special snowflake 
5500
2500 