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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

P 366 rules glossery under :Keywords - Multiples as originally quoted by deathreaper i use multi keyword as shortform for "keyword -multiples" (because keyword-multiples sounds klunky)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to death reaper you have provided no relevant RAW quote therefore all you have provided is a statement saying you have provided the RAW without a quote yet again just means you have not provided it yet again

if you can show a quote giving permission or refuseing permission you refute my position the direction of that proof is not relevant you have provided neither

U02dah4 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

P 366 rules glossery under :Keywords - Multiples as originally quoted by deathreaper i use multi keyword as shortform for "keyword -multiples"

No. Stop. That is about rules specifying multiple keywords and them all being required, not one keyword being multiple. That rule does not mean that Supreme Grandmaster is Supreme, Grandmaster as Supreme Grandmaster is a keyword, not a rule.

U02dah4 wrote:
As to death reaper you have provided no relevant RAW quote

therefore all you have provided is a statement saying you have provided the RAW without a quote yet again just means you have not provided it yet again

if you can show a quote giving permission or refuseing permission you refute my position the direction of that proof is not relevant you have provided neither

False. I have. The rules for Keywords have been posted. It proves your argument false.

But you are ignoring it, so this is sorted.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

P 366 rules glossery under :Keywords - Multiples as originally quoted by deathreaper i use multi keyword as shortform for "keyword -multiples"

No. Stop. That is about rules specifying multiple keywords and them all being required, not one keyword being multiple. That rule does not mean that Supreme Grandmaster is Supreme, Grandmaster as Supreme Grandmaster is a keyword, not a rule.

So,U02 thinks a rule about "intercessor" and "intercessors" being the same has anything at all to do with the fact, indisputable, that "supreme grandmaster" is a single keyword, that cannot be broken up into anything?

Blimey.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

P 366 rules glossery under :Keywords - Multiples as originally quoted by deathreaper i use multi keyword as shortform for "keyword -multiples"

No. Stop. That is about rules specifying multiple keywords and them all being required, not one keyword being multiple. That rule does not mean that Supreme Grandmaster is Supreme, Grandmaster as Supreme Grandmaster is a keyword, not a rule.

So,U02 thinks a rule about "intercessor" and "intercessors" being the same has anything at all to do with the fact, indisputable, that "supreme grandmaster" is a single keyword, that cannot be broken up into anything?

Blimey.

Not quite. They're referring to the section about rules which reference multiple keywords, specifically when it does not comma separate them which indicates that the rule only affects models/units which have all of the specified keywords, as opposed to if a rule references a comma-separated list, in which case any units/models with one of the specified keywords is affected.

It is still very wrong.

Ah yes, that's hilariously wrong.

I will freely admit that GW should be taken to the woodshed for using multiword keywords. However, that in no way does not mean that clearly delineated keywords from the keyword list of a unit can be broken down into individual keywords. The rules neither dictate that a keyword is only one word, nor that it can be multiple words. That is a failing of the rules. Still, the datasheets themselves are very clear:

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

You can argue until you are blue in the face that somehow the clearly listed Supreme Grand Master includes the not listed Grand Master. Grand Master not one of the 11 Keywords on the data sheet. Therefore Draigo is not a subject to any rules for Grand Master.

Which alextoy proves my point that since their is a failure in the RAW to delineate whether they can or cannot be broken down any decision to do or not do so is based on a RAI interpretation not RAW proving my argument

As I have said from the start we all agree on outcome this an argument about whether that outcome occurs from RAW or RAI

U02dah4 wrote:
Which alextoy proves my point that since their is a failure in the RAW to delineate whether they can or cannot be broken down any decision to do or not do so is based on a RAI interpretation not RAW proving my argument

As I have said from the start we all agree on outcome this an argument about whether that outcome occurs from RAW or RAI

Nothing says a six sided die only has six sides! A 12 sided die has 6 sides twice! There's no official quote!

U02dah4, I should introduce you to my custom Space Marine chapter. The Primaris Veteran Assault Intercessor Squad Mk X Gravis Vehicle Machine Spirit Dreadnought Chaplin Warlord Biker Land Speeder Storm Speeder Jump Pack Core Whirlwind Reiver Infantry chapter. It's cool, because I can play heaps of stratagems on all of my units that other chapters can't (like boring Ultramarines). Plus we are the masters of transport and can do things other chapters can't. You should see my opponents face when 10 Dreadnoughts pop out of the Drop Pod (because it can carry 10 Infantry, which matches my chapter)

I think we can all accept that the rules get silly if you decided that a keyword can be broken down into it's component parts and used as additional keywords. So let's play it that each comma separated keyword is it's own complete entity, and cannot be broken apart for additional keywords (such as in the example of Supreme Grand Master).

Custom keywords don't gain the keywords or synergies of any of the names you put on it.

It's the same reason I can't name my guard regiment <blood angels> and gain the blood angels buffs and synergies

It has no bearing on how gw intended keywords to function just an example of a waac player trying to cheat the system in a way the rules already recognise is a flaw in the original system and so was faq'd pretty quickly


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Which alextoy proves my point that since their is a failure in the RAW to delineate whether they can or cannot be broken down any decision to do or not do so is based on a RAI interpretation not RAW proving my argument

As I have said from the start we all agree on outcome this an argument about whether that outcome occurs from RAW or RAI

Nothing says a six sided die only has six sides! A 12 sided die has 6 sides twice! There's no official quote!

Funnily enough I believe the "6" in "6 sided dice" tells me adequately how many sides it has.

While a basic understanding of maths tell you can divide a 12 sided dice into two lots of 6 if you chose. For example odds and evens what's your point. You would see this if given such a dice it is an intrinsic property of the object

U02dah4 wrote:
Which alextoy proves my point

Just because you claim something does not make it true.

U02 -
Rove that you can bread down a keyword, a keyword is singular, so what is this sub unit of a keyword called? It cannot still be a keyword, it has to be something else. Because you're told what a keyword is, and your made up out of whole cloth sub unit is definitely NOT a keyword .

So go on. What is it?

Also, can you decompose an element )seriously, look up what ELEMENT means!) of a list such as canoness in the same way your made up rule allowing you to decompose supreme grandmaster ? If not, why not? Is the space leading you to think that this singular ELEMENT of the list, that thing that is by definition ATOMIC because that's what a field in a record is ( I really hope you don't do any work on data...) is somehow divisible, despite that being forbidden by the nature of it being a singular entity?

Do you in fact have any rules support whatsoever for your contention, or does your bad faith arguing / hilariously inept understanding of how a list of elements can only be broken down into the elements continue to be unsupported?

So in otherwords a string if bad fath arguments and still no quote provided, evidencing it's not raw

I'm saying you can break it down or not its not relevant only whether there is a specific rule telling you

I don't think you know what a bad faith argument is, as you're the one making it.

Again

Keyword

What part of that name tells you that a single keyword is actualy multiple? Go on. Page and graph. I've got a rule telling me it's singular...

Not a lot to be defined just the one thing that matters and you haven't yet provided.

We are back to "baseball bat," still being a "bat" despite being separated by a comma and you having no quote to distinguish otherwise just the statement that it's the case which is not raw and clearly doesn't occur under any definition of basic English because it is clear to everyone that on your list under basic english a baseball bat doesn't stop being a bat because of the comma. An adjective doesn't stop a noun being a noun It just describes it.



My position has been you dont have one as its RAI your position is you have one because its RAW so to be right you need to provide one if not its RAI and I'm right. if you do have please provide the exact quote say nothing else as nothing else is required. Say anything else and we can all agree that is because you have no proof and as such are wrong it is not RAW.

Ah, ok, so you don't think a keyword is a singular item.

Despite it being defined as such. By being singular. It's not keywords, but keyword. Each keyword, singular, is separated by a comma. You have no rule allowing you to take a list element and decompose it.

Yep. Good grief.

Bye.

What i think is irrelevant if you have proof its raw

If you do not it's rai

Where's your quote

U02dah4 wrote:
Not a lot to be defined just the one thing that matters and you haven't yet provided.

We are back to "baseball bat," still being a "bat" despite being separated by a comma and you having no quote to distinguish otherwise just the statement that it's the case which is not raw and clearly doesn't occur under any definition of basic English because it is clear to everyone that on your list under basic english a baseball bat doesn't stop being a bat because of the comma. An adjective doesn't stop a noun being a noun It just describes it.


My position has been you dont have one as its RAI your position is you have one because its RAW so to be right you need to provide one if not its RAI and I'm right. if you do have please provide the exact quote say nothing else as nothing else is required. Say anything else and we can all agree that is because you have no proof and as such are wrong it is not RAW.

We have proven it, several times. A keyword can not be split into several words. If something has the Supreme Grandmaster keyword, it does not have the Supreme, or Grandmaster keywords just by virtue of having the Supreme Grandmaster keyword on its Dataslate.

If you disagree we are going to need to see a rules citation that proves that.

Furthermore, you said "We are back to 'baseball bat,' still being a 'bat' despite being separated by a comma" 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 separate thing.

Stop bringing up "baseball bat," still being a "bat" because Bats are different than Baseball bats. A baseball bat is used while playing the game of baseball. and most Bats have wings and are a nocturnal member of the Animalia Kingdom, Mammalia Class, Chiroptera Order, and the Rhinolophidae Family. And Batman flies through the night and drives a mobile.

U02 - quote was given. All that's needed. Keyword.

If you think more is needed, then I'm going to need to see your quote proving a d6 has sides numbered 1-6.


To everyone else. - it's clear U02 is trolling now. Agreed to just not respond further? Not worth the time.

No that is insufficient that takes you back to "baseball bat" still being a "bat"

Part proof is not RAW

Proving a d6 has six sides has no relevance on whether this particular situation is raw or rai its trolling and last resort of someone who knows they can't win the argument by trying to change it to something rediculous

You can fully prove or you cannot

So are you finally conceading you are unable to prove and that it is RAI or will you provide a quote

U02dah4 wrote:
No that is insufficient that takes you back to "baseball bat" still being a "bat"

Part proof is not RAW

Proving a d6 has six sides has no relevance on whether this particular situation is raw or rai its trolling and last resort of someone who knows they can't win the argument by trying to change it to something rediculous

You can fully prove or you cannot

So are you finally conceading you are unable to prove and that it is RAI or will you provide a quote

Stop bringing up "baseball bat," still being a "bat" because Bats are different than Baseball bats. A baseball bat is used while playing the game of baseball. and most Bats have wings and are a nocturnal member of the Animalia Kingdom, Mammalia Class, Chiroptera Order, and the Rhinolophidae Family. And Batman flies through the night and drives a mobile.

U02 - wrong.

A keyword is "supreme grandmaster"
Prove to us all, here, that you are given permission to treat it as two keywordS.

I have permission to treat it as one.
Becsue it is called a keyword, singular.

Over to you.

Full proof is given so far for my position. Your counter is so far completely lacking and I'm pretty sure you know it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Oh, and it had nothing to do with six sides, it was about the numbering. Provide the 40K rule stating a d6 is numbered 1 to 6 and not, for example, 7-12)

Your claim around singulars is Disproven - baseball bat is still a bat despite being singular

You must prove via quote that it does not work that way for it to be RAW otherwise you have only presented a possibility not proven your case and that is RAI

Permission for something to be singular is not proof that it can't also have property's based on its component words

D6 not relevant to rai in this case

U02dah4 wrote:
Custom keywords don't gain the keywords or synergies of any of the names you put on it.

It's the same reason I can't name my guard regiment <blood angels> and gain the blood angels buffs and synergies

Can you provide a citation for this statement? I don't see it anywhere in any official GW rulebook.

You can baselessly claim that I can't use stratagems from the CSM book on my custom Hive Fleet World Eaters Tyranids according to "RAI," but, of course, if we follow RAW, there is nothing which specifically states I cannot do so.

U02dah4 wrote:
Your claim around singulars is Disproven - baseball bat is still a bat despite being singular

No it is not.

Bats are different than Baseball bats. A baseball bat is used while playing the game of baseball. Bats have wings and are a nocturnal member of the Animalia Kingdom, Mammalia Class.

Stop bringing up "baseball bat," still being a "bat" because it is not, and "baseball bat," still being a "bat" has nothing to do with keywords in 40K.

It is the crux of this argument it is how lists work in English. You know full well a baseball bat does refer to the noun as in animal it refers to noun as in stick of wood for hitting balls. But if you want to use the same analogy with "baseball stadium" being a stadium for clarity be my guest.

You say it is different in 40k prove it via quote if not I'm right its RAI


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flipsiders wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Custom keywords don't gain the keywords or synergies of any of the names you put on it.

It's the same reason I can't name my guard regiment <blood angels> and gain the blood angels buffs and synergies

Can you provide a citation for this statement? I don't see it anywhere in any official GW rulebook.

You can baselessly claim that I can't use stratagems from the CSM book on my custom Hive Fleet World Eaters Tyranids according to "RAI," but, of course, if we follow RAW, there is nothing which specifically states I cannot do so.

If that is a genuine question put it in its own thread its not relevant here in the question of whether this instance is RAW or RAI but I suspect your trolling so I can't be bothered finding the reference

U02dah4 wrote:
It is the crux of this argument it is how lists work in English. You know full well a baseball bat does refer to the noun as in animal it refers to noun as in stick of wood for hitting balls. But if you want to use the same analogy with "baseball stadium" being a stadium for clarity be my guest.

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 separate thing.

Stop bringing up "baseball bat," still being a "bat" it does not help at all.

U02dah4 wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Custom keywords don't gain the keywords or synergies of any of the names you put on it.

It's the same reason I can't name my guard regiment <blood angels> and gain the blood angels buffs and synergies

Can you provide a citation for this statement? I don't see it anywhere in any official GW rulebook.

You can baselessly claim that I can't use stratagems from the CSM book on my custom Hive Fleet World Eaters Tyranids according to "RAI," but, of course, if we follow RAW, there is nothing which specifically states I cannot do so.

If that is a genuine question put it in its own thread its not relevant here in the question of whether this instance is RAW or RAI but I suspect your trolling so I can't be bothered finding the reference

While it is true that I am expressing my point in an intentionally humorous fashion, my statement in that comment relies on the same flavor of textual semantics as yours does.

Let me ask more blatantly: If a "supreme grandmaster" is a "grandmaster" because it is a position defined as a form of "grandmaster," just like how a "baseball bat" could be called a "bat" because it's a form of "bat," then an IG regiment dubbed the "blood angels" must count as "blood angels" because they are an organization defined by being "blood angels," correct? Could you find me something in RAW that states otherwise?

Note that I'm asking about the RAW ruling, here; whatever claim you make about how the two are different, I am unlikely to accept it if you don't back it up with a quote.

U02dah4 wrote:
It is the crux of this argument it is how lists work in English. You know full well a baseball bat does refer to the noun as in animal it refers to noun as in stick of wood for hitting balls. But if you want to use the same analogy with "baseball stadium" being a stadium for clarity be my guest.

Exactly. The crux is how you define a list.

The following list has 5 items: Peanut Butter, Chocolate, Vanilla, Caramel, Honey.

Is Butter on this list? No. It is not. Peanut Butter is not Butter. It is two words used to describe a singular thing that is a different thing than Butter.

That is the difference between the Supreme Grand Master and Grand Master keywords. Both are singular keywords on the specific datasheets lists of keywords. Take a moment to read the keywords on Kaldor Drag's and the Grand Master datasheets. Supreme Grand Master is not magically two different keywords, both Supreme Grand Master and Grand Master. So if a rule call for Grand Master, it doesn't apply to Supreme Grand Master.

This is also why many datasheets have to include things like, both Terminator and Brotherhood Terminator Squad in their list of keywords. Because the Terminator in Brotherhood Terminator Squad cannot be separated from the rest of the keyword because all three words are singular keyword in the list of keywords.