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.

Does Draigo count as your Grandmaster if you take him? He has Supreme Grandmaster as a keyword but, he doesn't have it in his name.

 CKO wrote:
Does Draigo count as your Grandmaster if you take him? He has Supreme Grandmaster as a keyword but, he doesn't have it in his name.

If something depends on the Supreme Grandmaster keyword, then he would definitely be able to use those rules/Strats.

What specific rule are you inquiring about? Is it a strat or something else?

This is a grey area as with cannonness Superior and cannoness

The default is to say he doesn't count as a grandmaster as he does not have the grandmaster keyword

But if your going to a tournament check with your TO

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Does Draigo count as your Grandmaster if you take him? He has Supreme Grandmaster as a keyword but, he doesn't have it in his name.

If something depends on the Supreme Grandmaster keyword, then he would definitely be able to use those rules/Strats.

What specific rule are you inquiring about? Is it a strat or something else?

You are only allowed 1 Grandmaster per detachment/brotherhood. Chapter 2022 says you can only use one brotherhood now. He doesn't have a brotherhood but he has Supreme Grandmaster as a keyword so I don't know if I can take him and a grandmaster.

Yes as i stated earlier this is a known Grey area at an event ask the TO outside an event default is he does not have grandmaster keyword so is not effected by any rule stratagem or ability directly effecting grandmasters as he is not one

Supreme Grand Master and Grand Master are not the same keyword. Therefore you can have both in the same detachment. This is not a check with your TO question, it is black and white rules.

That is an interpretation and their is no official faq saying one way or the other

 alextroy wrote:
Supreme Grand Master and Grand Master are not the same keyword. Therefore you can have both in the same detachment. This is not a check with your TO question, it is black and white rules.

This is correct and has been played as such since day one in majors and super majors alike.

That's why it's default but it is an interpretation unless you can you show me any official rules quote or faq specifically stateing one way or the other

Stateing that majors play by that interpretation is not evidence its the rule

The WTC faq for many majors/GT's states no fortifications that doesn't mean the rules say you cant play fortifications quite the opposite

U02dah4 wrote:
That's why it's default but it is an interpretation unless you can you show me any official rules quote or faq specifically stateing one way or the other

Stateing that majors play by that interpretation is not evidence its the rule

The WTC faq for many majors/GT's states no fortifications that doesn't mean the rules say you cant play fortifications quite the opposite

KEYWORDS
All datasheets have a list of keywords, separated into Faction keywords and other keywords. The former can be used as a guide to help decide which models to include in your army, but otherwise both sets of keywords are functionally the same. In either case, keywords appear in KEYWORD BOLD in the rules. Keywords are sometimes linked to (or ‘tagged’ by) a rule. For example, a rule might say that it applies to ‘INFANTRY units’. This means it only applies to units that have the INFANTRY keyword on their datasheet. The pluralisation (or not) of keywords does not affect which units the rule in question applies to.

so now, let's take their example, and swap the keyword...

For example, a rule might say that it applies to ‘GRANDMASTER units’. This means it only applies to units that have the GRANDMASTER keyword on their datasheet.

Nowhere do we have permissions to split keywords, and if there was somehow an implied permission to do so, there are TONS of redundant keywords out there. INFANTRY SQUAD would count for INFANTRY already, DAEMON ENGINE would count for DAEMON, etc.

I don't have an FAQ, but if having Supreme Grand Master as a keyword means you have Grand Master as a keyword, please explain the following:

Assault Intercessors have the keywords of Intercessors and Assault Intercessors Squad. Isn't Intercessors redundant?

How about the Land Speeder Storm that has Land Speeder and Land Speeder Storm keywords?

Or the Venerable Dreadnought withe the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought keywords?

I can go on for pages if you like? You don't get to breakdown a keyword into component bits on the datasheet. Kaldor Dragio is not subject to rules that call for the keywords of Supreme, Grand, Master, Supreme Grand, Grand Master, or Supreme Master. He is only subject to those that call for Supreme Grand Master.

As above, as that's how keywords actually work. Saying otherwise shows a fundamental ignorance of the way the rule set is constructed.

 alextroy wrote:
I don't have an FAQ, but if having Supreme Grand Master as a keyword means you have Grand Master as a keyword, please explain the following:

Assault Intercessors have the keywords of Intercessors and Assault Intercessors Squad. Isn't Intercessors redundant?

How about the Land Speeder Storm that has Land Speeder and Land Speeder Storm keywords?

Or the Venerable Dreadnought withe the Dreadnought and Venerable Dreadnought keywords?

I can go on for pages if you like? You don't get to breakdown a keyword into component bits on the datasheet. Kaldor Dragio is not subject to rules that call for the keywords of Supreme, Grand, Master, Supreme Grand, Grand Master, or Supreme Master. He is only subject to those that call for Supreme Grand Master.

No under the alternate interpretation intercessors would apply to any type of intercessor and assault intercessor would only apply to assault intercessors

If it targeted a land speeder it would be any land speeder unit but a land speeder storm only land speeder storm units

( class of unit vs individual) etc etc

Obviously competitively this needed a resolution because that is some significant interaction with the rules and so we go to RAI and convention. But there is a huge difference between stateing something is the rules categorically and then being completely unable to support that position with any quote and saying it is done by default/convention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above, as that's how keywords actually work. Saying otherwise shows a fundamental ignorance of the way the rule set is constructed.

No it shows fundamental bad writing by GW. If your able to provide a quote to support your position do so. If not then then the only ignorance is on behalf of the one stateing convention is the same as a rule

Sisters of Battle have a similar rule and working that makes both RAI and RAW obvious. Hospitallers say: "For each Detachment that includes either a CANONESS or CANONESS SUPERIOR unit..."

They're distinct units that need to be mentioned sepetately. If a Canoness Superior were a Canoness, the rules wouldn't call out Canoness Superiors.

The Supreme Grandmaster keyword is not the same as the Grandmaster keyword.

Outside of a rule saying you may only take one model which either includes the Supreme Grandmaster or the Grandmaster keyword, you can take both.

Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand how the keyword system works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
That is an interpretation and their is no official faq saying one way or the other

There is no FAQ because it doesn't need one. The only keywords which count as other keywords for rules purposes are pluralisations. So Vehicle and Vehicles, Beast and Beasts etc.

Yep, as above it's the basics of how keywords work. Each key word is a singular entity. It doesn't get split up any more than any other proper noun gets split up.

A supreme grand master is, definitively, NOT a grandmaster.

Look we are agreeing on outcome

I have stated this is by convention as it is not stated anywhere, you have stated it is RAW. So the argument is only about why it is the correct answer

And it is easily solvable either you provide a quote supporting your position or you are wrong. Anything that is not a quote is irrelevant to the disagreement and is infact evidence of my position.

However I strongly suspect given neither of you have provided any rules quote or FAQ quote supporting your position we can be clear the answer isn't RAW because if it was you would have provided the quote. You have had ample opportunity and have not done so.

Therefore the only conclusion based on presented evidence is that you are wrong and that we all agree the outcome so it doesn't matter that your reasoning is flawed

U02dah4 wrote:
Look we are agreeing on outcome

I have stated this is by convention as it is not stated anywhere, you have stated it is RAW. So the argument is only about why it is the correct answer

And it is easily solvable either you provide a quote supporting your position or you are wrong. Anything that is not a quote is irrelevant to the disagreement and is infact evidence of my position.

However I strongly suspect given neither of you have provided any rules quote or FAQ quote supporting your position we can be clear the answer isn't RAW because if it was you would have provided the quote. You have had ample opportunity and have not done so.

Therefore the only conclusion based on presented evidence is that you are wrong and that we all agree the outcome so it doesn't matter that your reasoning is flawed

All datasheets have a list of keywords

For example, a rule might say that it applies to ‘INFANTRY units’. This means it only applies to units that have the INFANTRY keyword on their datasheet. The pluralisation (or not) of keywords does not affect which units the rule in question applies to.

The GRAND MASTER keyword is not present in the list of keywords on the data sheet of Kaldor Draigo. The Brotherhood Command detachment rule applies to 'GRAND MASTER' units, therefore it only applies to units that have the GRAND MASTER keyword on their datasheet. Since the Kaldor Draigo datasheet does not have the GRAND MASTER keyword listed, the Brotherhood Command rule does not apply.

Entirely irrelevant

Demonstrating it doesn't have the keyword which is required by your interpretation and is already agreed on is not relevant.

All it demostrates is circular reasoning.

If you conclude it's needed you therefore conclude as you did if you conclude it is contained within you conclude the opposite

Again I restate that distinction is made by convention

U02dah4 wrote:
Entirely irrelevant

Demonstrating it doesn't have the keyword which is required by your interpretation and is already agreed on is not relevant.

All it demostrates is circular reasoning.

If you conclude it's needed you therefore conclude as you did if you conclude it is contained within you conclude the opposite

Again I restate that distinction is made by convention

I'm demonstrating that it doesn't have the keyword period, per the definition of keywords by the rules. The distinction is made by the rules. Units have a list of keywords on their datasheets.

THIS IS A KEYWORD, THIS IS A DIFFERENT KEYWORD IN THE LIST

You have effectively written a cat is a quadraped, a dog is a different quadraped

I have therefore defined what a quadraped is and why they are different per the definition of quadraped

That is not a demonstration it ignores the only bit that actually matters

So your problem is that the rules never define what a list is therefore you can't, within the rules, parse keywords?

Because to you, within the rules, it's equally valid to parse
GRAND MASTER, INFANTRY
as the keywords
GRAND, MASTER, and INFANTRY
and as the keywords
GRAND MASTER, and INFANTRY.

Because both are interpretations by convention because the word "list" is never defined within the rules?

No im stateing that the rules don't define anywhere that a shorter keyword contained within a longer keyword is not effected by abilities that reference to the smaller keyword or that they are. It is just not mentioned

The community adopted a response which is to state they are seperate keywords but it is not a RAW one

U02dah4 wrote:
No im stateing that the rules don't define anywhere that a keyword contained within a longer keyword is not effected by references to the smaller keyword

Yes, they do. There is no such thing as a "smaller keyword", only keywords. Keywords appear in lists. SUPREME GRAND MASTER, and GRAND MASTER, are definitively within the rules different keywords, as are INFANTRY and INFANTRY SQUAD, WARLORD and WARLORD TITAN, etc, etc.

Every separate listing is a unique keyword. Rules which specify keywords only apply to models which have those keywords. The only way you can argue otherwise is if you are suggesting that the rules need to define what a list is, which if that is your stance than the ruleset is played almost entirely by convention because a LOT of undefined words appear within the ruleset.

As above. It is a keyword. Singular. It is atomic. There is no rule allowing you to divide that keyword.

Well yes either you can provide me a direct quote stating that SUPREME GRAND MASTER, and GRAND MASTER, or equivalent are listed as different keywords or that a SUPREME GRANDMASTER or equivalent is not in the same list as GRAND MASTER and we have a RAW answer

Again all you need is a direct quote to that effect

Yes if you can't because you cant actually evidence what a list is because its not defined we can only go to RAI and in this instance RAI has been agreed by convention. Which is what I have argued from the start.


As to Nosferatu do you even know what evidence is?

U02dah4 wrote:
Well yes either you can provide me a direct quote stating that SUPREME GRAND MASTER, and GRAND MASTER, or equivalent are listed as different keywords or that a SUPREME GRANDMASTER or equivalent is not in the same list as GRAND MASTER and we have a RAW answer

Again all you need is a direct quote to that effect

Yes if you can't because you cant actually evidence what a list is because its not defined we can only go to RAI and in this instance RAI has been agreed by convention. Which is what I have argued from the start.

All datasheets have a list of keywords

That's the direct quote to that effect.

no thats a quote that they have a list of keywords.

again never been in doubt we cant be arguing about keywords if they don't exist and are not listed on datasheets

the definition you need is what constitutes an item on the list of keywords or,

Are SUPREME GRAND MASTER and GRANDMASTER different specific keywords or does SUPREME GRANDMASTER encapsulate GRANDMASTER within it

just what is the definition of a specific keyword + Quote?

U02dah4 wrote:
no thats a quote that they have a list of keywords.

again never been in doubt we cant be arguing about keywords if they don't exist and are not listed on datasheets

the definition you need is what constitutes an item on the list of keywords or,

Are SUPREME GRAND MASTER and GRANDMASTER different specific keywords or does SUPREME GRANDMASTER encapsulate GRANDMASTER within it

just what is the definition of a specific keyword + Quote?

"what constitutes an item on the list of keywords"?

The English Language takes care of that for us.

In the English language, if there is a list of things, each item (usually separated by a comma) is a different thing.

E.G. Each item in this list of items associated with the game of baseball is a different thing:

Baseball, Baseball glove, Baseball diamond, Baseball stadium, Baseball bat, Uniform, Home plate.

Yep, seems like, you want a lost defined for you. Well, it has been

Each item on the list is it's own element. By literal definition. We know that every element of that list is a keyword, because gw tells us that. Thus, every element of the list is a keyword, singular, and that keyword is indeed a singular entity.

You're done I think.