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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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. 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.

I see your example perfectly agree with my position. Under English language the fact it is listed as a baseball stadium does not mean it is no longer a stadium just as it is listed as a baseball bat does not mean it is a bat - a heavy flamer is still a flamer the first word is an adjective the second determines what it is .

by your own example supreme is an adjective and grandmaster a noun so a supreme grandmaster would still be a grandmaster.

However that is based on an english language interpretation not a direct rule.

If you disagree I will be very interested in how you argue a baseball stadium is not a stadium

There is no FAQ. There is only the evidence of the existing datasheets that contains which would be redundant keywords if multi-word keywords can be broken down along with past evidence of GW removing such a keyword from a unit to remove a unexpected interaction (Whirlwind Scropius was using a Whirlwind stratagem to devastating effect, so they removed the Whirlwind keyword from the unit. It still had the Whirlwind Scropius keyword).

Literally the whole game relies on "an english language interpretation" because the 40K game does not define many terms.

I disagree, because Baseball stadium is a specific thing, whereas stadium means something entirely different. Not every pro baseball team plays in a stadium, some play in fields, (The St. Louis Cardinals play at Busch Stadium, but the Mets play at Citi Field). And some do not play in either (The Pirates play at PNC park, and the A's play at Oakland Coliseum), but i digress.

Though real life examples are not exactly congruent, as 40K is not real life. I was just trying to illustrate that in a list of things, each entry is a seperate thing. Thus if you have a Stadium on a list, and a Baseball Stadium on that same list would indeed be two different places.

But if you disagree with that, then you disagree with how the English language works.

 alextroy wrote:
There is no FAQ. There is only the evidence of the existing datasheets that contains which would be redundant keywords if multi-word keywords can be broken down along with past evidence of GW removing such a keyword from a unit to remove a unexpected interaction (Whirlwind Scropius was using a Whirlwind stratagem to devastating effect, so they removed the Whirlwind keyword from the unit. It still had the Whirlwind Scropius keyword).

Well that is not evidence of raw only rai keywords could be redundant or different but in a square Is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square kind of way neither is confirmation.

Equally GW removing words because unforseen interactions could just be for clarity or most likely balancing its not RAW proof which is the point there is no proof only convention


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

U02dah4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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. 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.

I see your example perfectly agree with my position. Under English language the fact it is listed as a baseball stadium does not mean it is no longer a stadium just as it is listed as a baseball bat does not mean it is a bat - a heavy flamer is still a flamer the first word is an adjective the second determines what it is .

by your own example supreme is an adjective and grandmaster a noun so a supreme grandmaster would still be a grandmaster.

However that is based on an english language interpretation not a direct rule.

If you disagree I will be very interested in how you argue a baseball stadium is not a stadium

Literally the whole game relies on "an english language interpretation" because the 40K game does not define many terms.

I disagree, because Baseball stadium is a specific thing, whereas stadium means something entirely different. Not every pro baseball team plays in a stadium, some play in fields, (The St. Louis Cardinals play at Busch Stadium, but the Mets play at Citi Field). And some do not play in either (The Pirates play at PNC park, and the A's play at Oakland Coliseum), but i digress.

Though real life examples are not exactly congruent, as 40K is not real life. I was just trying to illustrate that in a list of things, each entry is a seperate thing. Thus if you have a Stadium on a list, and a Baseball Stadium on that same list would indeed be two different places.

But if you disagree with that, then you disagree with how the English language works.

I am also useing an English language definition

The idea that a baseball stadium is still a stadium is an English language definition

I'm not saying they can't play in fields I'm saying their is no definition of what a stadium is in this context only convention

U02dah4 wrote:

I am also useing an English language definition

The idea that a baseball stadium is still a stadium is an English language definition

I'm not saying they can't play in fields I'm saying their is no definition of what a stadium is in this context only convention

All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.

This of course doe s not apply to 40K keywords, as they are something different. Real life examples are not exactly congruent, as 40K is not real life. In a list of things, if you list baseball stadium, and stadium, they would be different objects, if they weren't there would be no need to list them both them. I was just trying to illustrate that in a list of things, each entry is a separate thing.

In 40K the KEYWORDS for Kaldor Draigo are: INFANTRY, CHARACTER, PSYKER, PSYK-OUT GRENADES, SUPREME GRAND MASTER, TERMINATOR, HONOURED KNIGHT, KALDOR DRAIGO

By your incorrect definition, he is GRENADES, as well as PSYK-OUT as well as PSYK-OUT GRENADES, which is of course false.

Each item in that list is its own thing, there is no rule that allows you to separate "SUPREME GRAND MASTER" into anything else.

P.S. Check P 366 under :Keywords - Multiples" for why this is true, and your interpretation is false.

E


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

I am also useing an English language definition

The idea that a baseball stadium is still a stadium is an English language definition

I'm not saying they can't play in fields I'm saying their is no definition of what a stadium is in this context only convention

All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.

This of course doe s not apply to 40K keywords, as they are something different. Real life examples are not exactly congruent, as 40K is not real life. In a list of things, if you list baseball stadium, and stadium, they would be different objects, if they weren't there would be no need to list them both them. I was just trying to illustrate that in a list of things, each entry is a separate thing.

In 40K the KEYWORDS for Kaldor Draigo are: INFANTRY, CHARACTER, PSYKER, PSYK-OUT GRENADES, SUPREME GRAND MASTER, TERMINATOR, HONOURED KNIGHT, KALDOR DRAIGO

By your incorrect definition, he is GRENADES, as well as PSYK-OUT as well as PSYK-OUT GRENADES, which is of course false.

Each item in that list is its own thing, there is no rule that allows you to separate "SUPREME GRAND MASTER" into anything else.

P.S. Check P 366 under :Keywords - Multiples" for why this is true, and your interpretation is false.

So first I'm told I'm wrong because of the English language definition, then I point out mine is how English language works... which it does and and so now this is 40k so it doesn't matter how English language works....

Except it does in so far as if that is how the English language normally works and 40k is built on the English you have to demonstrate that it doesn't or your still wrong.

Yes in my definition if you had a rule that referred to grenades (keyword) that would indeed work for him

Psykout is adjective though to describe the grenades so psykout grenade keyword would work but psykout would not. But whether it does or does not is not relevant you have proved nothing and my standpoint is there is no proof one way or another.

Then you do the usual provide a definition each item on the list... Yawn no quote no evidence still wrong.


Then wait what's this....

Is that a quote and so close but still a miss just a page reference. Strange I wonder why that is its almost like it doesn't support your position

"Keywords multiples: - a rule with multiple adjacent keywords e.g. aeldari guardians only matches a model or unit if that model or unit matches each of those keywords."

So a rule that referred to SUPREME GRANDMASTER would not apply to GRANDMASTER

So where's the mention of the opposite a rule referring to a single keyword interacting with a unit with multiple adjacent keywords as that's what would matter

Oh look it'd not there..... shocker

Well done you have again some so close and yet proved only that you 1) don't know what a quote I'd 2) have no actual evidence to support your argument and 3) therefore im right as you couldn't evidence your position. (As my position isn't that your wrong only that yours is by interpretation and based on convention and not evidence)

Is U02 still arguing that the elements of a list, defined to be a singular "thing" by GW stating that it is one keyword per entry in that list, and we know that supreme grandmaster is its own entry in the list and is therefore singular and indivisible because that's literally how a list of elements works, can be divided?

Because that's now how lists work.

"Supreme grandmaster" can be no more divided than "canonness" can be decomposed into "canon".... it's an utterly asinine argument that can be safely ignored.

No I am categorically not arguing that

That us just an example of an alternate interpretation still not disproved

I am arguing that you can't prove that statement of how it works through any rules or faq quote

And that it therefore works that way only through convention and RAI vs people maintain it is RAW

The asinine part is that people still maintain your argument despite not one quote yet supporting that position

Ah, so you don't get how lists work

That's fine

Going to ask what sides exist on a d6 next? They're also not defined by a rules quote, for a fair,y obvious reason

Your rules for Keywords are:

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.

Draigo's Keywords are:

FACTION KEYWORDS: IMPERIUM, SANCTIC ASTARTES, GREY KNIGHTS
KEYWORDS: INFANTRY, CHARACTER, PSYKER, PSYK-OUT GRENADES, SUPREME GRAND MASTER, TERMINATOR, HONOURED KNIGHT, KALDOR DRAIGO

As you can see, each keyword in the list of keywords is separated by a comma, which is how you create a list in English. Therefore all three words of Supreme Grand Master are a singular item of the list and therefore a singular keyword. There is no need to provide an FAQ or further rules citation. The very first sentence of the Keywords rule tells you all you need to know once you look at the datasheet.

I see no point in the keywords definition that you have quoted makeing any reference to keywords bring separated by a comma

Even if your assumption is correct you have not proven a supreme grandmaster is not also a grandmaster as a baseball stadium is still a stadium under English writing (the noun is still a noun regardless of adjective)

We have however proven a grandmaster is not a supreme grandmaster that is all

As to the very first sentance tells you what you need to know- it's not relevant

"All datasheets have a list of keywords," yes we all agree

"separated into Faction keywords and other keywords" yes we all agree

It just doesn't impact the question either you have a rule stateing what exactly a keyword is that differentiates between a supreme grandmaster and grandmaster

You do not ... that is quote evident

All you can make is a circular argument of assuming I am right and commas seperate different keywords these have seperate commas therefore they are distinct and seperate keywords and I'm right.

Missing that you have not proven that you are right, that commas seperateing keywords is the definition or that supreme grandmasters cannot also be grandmasters which is still possible even if commas were the seperateing mechanism in line with all squares are rectangles not all rectangles are square

And the absence of that proof is proof your wrong

It is clear you do not understand the definition of list, so your arguments are automatically false.

You said "I see no point in the keywords definition that you have quoted makeing any reference to keywords bring separated by a comma" this makes it clear you do not understand the definition of list. The game does not define that, because basic English comprehension does that for us.

Also, seriously read P. 366 under :Keywords - Multiples" for why your interpretation is false.

U02dah4 wrote:

I am also useing an English language definition

The idea that a baseball stadium is still a stadium is an English language definition

I'm not saying they can't play in fields I'm saying their is no definition of what a stadium is in this context only convention

Is a slave master a type of slave?

Adjective - noun

It is not a type of slave

It is a type of master






As to deathreaper what definition of list there isn't a 40k specific definition that's the point

Basic English comprehension states that an adjective noun on a list is still a noun a "giant ladder" is still a ladder it is not a giant a "pretty painting" is still a painting it is not a pretty

I read P. 366 under Keywords.... I quoted it I explained why it wasn't relevant all it shows is the reverse that a grand master is not a supreme grandmaster it has no reference on the other way round. You have not quoted it because it doesn't support you.

U02dah4 wrote:
Adjective - noun

It is not a type of slave

It is a type of master

Seriously read P. 366 under :Keywords - Multiples" for why your interpretation is false.

Please do this before continuing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Adjective - noun

It is not a type of slave

It is a type of master

Seriously read P. 366 under :Keywords - Multiples" for why your interpretation is false.

Please do this before continuing.

"Keywords multiples: - a rule with multiple adjacent keywords e.g. aeldari guardians only matches a model or unit if that model or unit matches each of those keywords."

So a rule that referred to SUPREME GRANDMASTER would not apply to GRANDMASTER

Which again makes sense

But where's the mention of the opposite a rule referring to a single keyword interacting with a unit with multiple adjacent keywords as that's what would matter

Oh look it's not there..... shocker

The full quote is there care to explain how its relevent

Obviously you can't prove a null. 40k is a ruleset defined by what you're allowed to do by the rules, not what the rules don't say you're not allowed to do.

You also won't find a citation in the rulebook that says you can't invent your own definition of an 'inch' and then use that to give all your weapons longer range. You won't find a citation that says synonym keywords don't count. You won't find a rule that says a dog isn't allowed to play warhammer.

Trying to argue that something is technically RAW because you can't find a citation saying that it doesn't exist is absurd.

Lack of a rule, means you can not do something. The ruleset is permissive, you are only allowed to do what the rules say you can do.

It doesn't say I cant makes your argument automatically false. It doesn't say I cant put my models back on the table after they have been killed, but it doesn't mean I can do it.

I think it is safe to say we have reached that part of a discussion where one person is arguing for an interpretation that no one else agrees with. There is little point in continuing the discussion. Anyone who reads the thread will find more than enough information to make a decision as to which it the proper interpreation.

No im not arguing for an an interpretation I am stateing that you cannot prove yours under the rules

Which finally you have all admitted

Waaghpower - "Obviously you can't prove a null" exactly there is no rule defining it so you can't prove your position ergo it's not RAW its convention

Deathreaper - "Lack of a rule, means you can not do something. The ruleset is permissive, you are only allowed to do what the rules say you can do." Yes but as soon as you admit their is a lack of a rule you prove my point it is not RAW what a specific keyword it is it is a RAI convention so again you have proved me right

Alextoy- have you read anything I've written - I have not argued for that interpretaion, right from the start I have said it is resolved the way everyone else has said it is because of RAI and convention. Their no argument about what happens and hasn't been.


The argument is over whether it is done so because of RAW or whether it is done so because of RAI and convention and so far I've categorically been proved right because up to this point noone has been able to state any rule supporting their position.

We all agree the outcome -

the argument is over as soon as either the people arguing can 1) introduce a direct quote or FAQ supporting their position under the RaW in which case I admit they are right it is RAW or 2) they either stop or do the sensible thing instead of doubleing down on an unprovable position and admit they can't prove their position via RAW quote in which case I'm proved right its RAI and convention and we can go back to agreeing the outcome

It doesnt matter how many people agree on how it works 100% of people on this thread agree on how it works the question is why it works that way and even if 10000 people agree if that quote can't be provided it's still not RAW

Good grief.

That’s all I have to add here.

This discussion is ridiculous!

The rules are very clear that "Supreme Grand Master" is a different keyword to "Grand Master".

Further to that is the fact that the fluff backs this up. Draigo is the head of the entire Grey Knights Chapter, a Grandmaster is the head of a particular brotherhood - the rule is there so you can't have two grandmasters from the same brotherhood but its perfectly reasonable to have Draigo present with a grandmaster.

When you try to interpret a rule in a way that goes against the written rule, the common sense understanding of the rule and the fluff the rule is trying to represent then that is a clear indication that you are mistaken, in the wrong or just trolling - perhaps all three.

1)this argument isn't about what happens stateing it again is not relevant the argument isabout why that's the case is whether it's RAW or RAI and a raw quote can be provided or it can't and its interpretation.

2) if you use "a common sense interpretation" you agree with my position and are against theirs because my position is this is based on interpretation not RAW if its raw you need a quote and interpretation doesn't.

3) Don't bring fluff into a rules argument

Its against the tenets and based on assumptions about gw intention it has no place in a rules argument. You could counter argue that its to make sure theres only one head of a detatchment and if draigo were their he supplants the grandmasters position.

The second you get into fluff and rai to make a point you prove it's interpretation not RAW so again I thankyou for your support

So you don't know that a list is a list unless you're to,d that the list is a list?
What else do you think the commas are there for? Decoration?

It's been proven multiple times. You're not arguing in good faith

Back on ignore.

I know what a list is the question doesn't hinge on what a list is so an argument predicated on it is not in good faith

We all know what a list is,

To use some one else's analogy earlier about baseball

a list containing: baseball bat, baseball stadium, baseball player.

Notice how I separated these by commas

but a baseball stadium is still a stadium a baseball bat is still a bat and so on... just because its on a list with an adjective doesn't mean it loses the properties of the noun.

So The fact keywords are listed doesn't answer the question its tangential it shows grandmaster and Superior grandmaster are keywords not how they interact

Because under the same logic a superior grandmaster, could also be a grandmaster it retains the noun

Its the same logic that gw uses when a stratagem that refers to when a unit throws "grenades" could be triggered on krak or Frag but that same rule referring to "Frag grenades" would not trigger on the unit throwing krak grenades

Now we all agree it is not the case that they are infact different clases and I have stated from the start that is because of rai and intention

You have stated its raw and not intention so you need to provide that raw and it should be easy if your right just provide the quote no other words required..... but you can't so you resort to smear and strawman arguments about lists and commas that you can easily defeat but don't prove anything. It has been repeatedly stated as RAW but no one has proven it by providing a RAW quote. Therefore the only thing that's proven is that your still wrong just doubleing down

I've provided the bloody RAW

Keyword
In a list

It is a keyword, singular. You ar not given permission to treat a single key word, ever, as multiple keywords.

Supreme grandmaster is a singular thing. It cannot be decomposed into constituents such as master, grand or mast, any more than canoness could be deconstructed into canon.

It is a keyword. The whole item is a single word. It isn't a collection of word, but a word.

I'd already shown this, and how each element in a list is exactly what "element" means. I'm sorry you don't seem to get this, but it's been proven multiple times now I think we can just leave you confused.

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

They did, multiple times, with the quotes from the book. Can you provide a direct quote staying they're not different? Are you demanding a level of "proof" you can't provide yourself?

Breton wrote:

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

They did, multiple times, with the quotes from the book. Can you provide a direct quote staying they're not different? Are you demanding a level of "proof" you can't provide yourself?

They have not provided any proof yet their quotes have not been relevant, as explained with quotes about keywords and lists only highlighting that they are keywords it doesn't distinguish interactions,

while the rules glossary page quote refers to interactions between a rule naming a multi-keyword not effecting a singular. However it makes no reference to whether a rule naming a single keyword effects a multi-keyword as in proof multi keywords are different entities to keywords and that a rule targeting a supreme grandmaster doesn't target grandmaster but no proof on grandmasters interaction with supreme grandmaster.

yes of course I'm demanding a different standard of proof. The argument is not over outcome its whether its RAW OR RAI. RAW and RAI have different standards of proof

Their saying its RAW- Standard of proof required - direct quote stating exactly that, not alluding to, or implying, or interpretable as. A DIRECT QUOTE!. which they haven't provided

I'm saying it's RAI evidence required - NO EXPLICIT RAW QUOTE being provided as that would overrule RAI. Then just whatever we think is most likely in this case that they are separate keywords that don't interact supported by conventional adoption by the tourney scene

I have clearly met the standard of proof for RAI as everyone on this thread agrees. Provided (no explicit RAW quote is provided). Ergo absence of proof in any direction is proof I'm correct. And the counter to mine would be a direct rules quote no other words required still waiting on that quote

There's no such thing as a "multi keyword" , that's a term you have completely made up.

Yiu have a key word

No matter how many words make up the keyword, it is A SINGULAR INDIVISIBLE KEYWORD.

Show where you have permission to chop a keyword in half. Prove it. For once.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I've provided the bloody RAW

Keyword
In a list

It is a keyword, singular. You ar not given permission to treat a single key word, ever, as multiple keywords.

Supreme grandmaster is a singular thing. It cannot be decomposed into constituents such as master, grand or mast, any more than canoness could be deconstructed into canon.

It is a keyword. The whole item is a single word. It isn't a collection of word, but a word.

I'd already shown this, and how each element in a list is exactly what "element" means. I'm sorry you don't seem to get this, but it's been proven multiple times now I think we can just leave you confused.

100% this.

This is the RAW, as proven several times.

U02dah4 your arguments are false, we have proven that. Your unwillingness to accept that is not on us.

The bottom line is that we are never given permission to treat a single key word as multiple keywords. Draigo has the Supreme Grandmaster Keyword. Draigo does not have the Grandmaster Keyword. this is 100% proven.

This matter is sorted. the RAW is solid and has been proven.