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.

Say I create my own Craftworld and call it <POXMONGERS> would I not have a over-arching faction key word with my Death Guard <POXMONGERS> plague company for example?

I'm sure this is not allowed, but I couldn't find the rule for it.

They specifically said that this is not allowed, but I couldn't tell you where

 Bilge Rat wrote:
They specifically said that this is not allowed, but I couldn't tell you where

It's SOMEWHERE in an FAQ.

But yeah, it's not allowed.

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.

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 and/or 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.

I found these in an FAQ for 8th edition, seems weird they did not carry over this speficiation to the 9th edition rules text.

 M0ff3l wrote:
I found these in an FAQ for 8th edition, seems weird they did not carry over this speficiation to the 9th edition rules text.

So technically allowed by GW oversight? I had a similar thought a while ago with named characters. Eg, who says that Guilliman can't join my Ultramarine Guardsmen. Or more interestingly, running my "Fly" regiment (or something of that nature).

While I wasn't able to find anything against it specifically, it's certainly against the spirit of the rule, and I suspect the large majority of opponents would take issue with it.

It was faq'd there is a common understanding of how its meant to be applied under RAI

It's not an option

U02dah4 wrote:
It was faq'd there is a common understanding of how its meant to be applied under RAI

It's not an option

I agree, but I wonder where the line is for using old FAQs to resolve new rules, typical GW move to FAQ this and then not add a short header about it or something in the new edition.

FAQs from an older edition are no longer valid for the current edition.

 p5freak wrote:
FAQs from an older edition are no longer valid for the current edition.

Show me where the Astra Militarum 9th Ed Codex is. I’ll wait. This FAQ applies, as it is for the current Codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 M0ff3l wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It was faq'd there is a common understanding of how its meant to be applied under RAI

It's not an option

I agree, but I wonder where the line is for using old FAQs to resolve new rules, typical GW move to FAQ this and then not add a short header about it or something in the new edition.

Tbh outside of someone trying to be clever this simply doesn’t come up. It’s not a lack of rules clarity. It’s someone trying to do something completely flying in the face of lore. Which is important, maybe not to the RAW-touchers, but it’s what the game is built on before you even get to rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
FAQs from an older edition are no longer valid for the current edition.

Show me where the Astra Militarum 9th Ed Codex is. I’ll wait. This FAQ applies, as it is for the current Codex.

The quotes posted by M0ff3l are from the Designers' Commentary, not the Codex Astra Militarum FAQ (either 8th or 9th edition).

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
FAQs from an older edition are no longer valid for the current edition.

Show me where the Astra Militarum 9th Ed Codex is. I’ll wait. This FAQ applies, as it is for the current Codex.

The quotes posted by M0ff3l are from the Designers' Commentary, not the Codex Astra Militarum FAQ (either 8th or 9th edition).

In case there is confusion for anyone, that commentary is for 8th edition, not 9th. So considered no longer relevant.

The keyword system is a leaky boat that is easy to abuse, but that abuse is often quite plain for anyone to see.

@Jhonny, apart from unwirtten rules and morale outrage, what rules would you consider exist to restrict the below situation:

I create the <Chapter> "Adeptus Astartes" with their own succesor chapter tactics. I include special Characters from Ultramarines, Blood Angles, etc, all of whom have the chapter faction keyword "Adeptus Astartes", and as a result they benifit from the successor tactics.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The quotes posted by M0ff3l are from the Designers' Commentary, not the Codex Astra Militarum FAQ (either 8th or 9th edition).

In case there is confusion for anyone, that commentary is for 8th edition, not 9th. So considered no longer relevant.

Considered no longer relevant? By whom? Do not make that statement as fact without anything to back it up.

Any proof that we should not use it, or was that just your opinion not established by the rules?

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The quotes posted by M0ff3l are from the Designers' Commentary, not the Codex Astra Militarum FAQ (either 8th or 9th edition).

In case there is confusion for anyone, that commentary is for 8th edition, not 9th. So considered no longer relevant.

Considered no longer relevant? By whom? Do not make that statement as fact without anything to back it up.

Any proof that we should not use it, or was that just your opinion not established by the rules?

By GW, it's no longer published.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The quotes posted by M0ff3l are from the Designers' Commentary, not the Codex Astra Militarum FAQ (either 8th or 9th edition).

In case there is confusion for anyone, that commentary is for 8th edition, not 9th. So considered no longer relevant.

Considered no longer relevant? By whom? Do not make that statement as fact without anything to back it up.

Any proof that we should not use it, or was that just your opinion not established by the rules?

By GW, it's no longer published.

Seems that it is not published any longer.

However, we know the intent, and should use that as a guide for RAW as that is the RAI.

Since GW does not keep a list of valid rules sources, the best we can do is go by what is currently published.

My way of thinking about "rule legality" is to look at it like a new player. You could be reasonably expected to buy the books and locate the FAQ and Downloads pages on WarCom. You would not be expected to read every article on WarCom.

Yes, technically that PDF is still "published" in that there is a link to it on an official GW platform, but it would not be reasonable to expect a player to know that they should go hunting through GW's blog for mentions of FAQs outside what's posted on the FAQ page.

RAW, nothing stops you from choosing a subfaction keyword that is the same as an existing faction keyword in a different book. GW should close this loophole (again), even if "everyone knows" it shouldn't be played that way.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
FAQs from an older edition are no longer valid for the current edition.

Show me where the Astra Militarum 9th Ed Codex is. I’ll wait. This FAQ applies, as it is for the current Codex.

The quotes posted by M0ff3l are from the Designers' Commentary, not the Codex Astra Militarum FAQ (either 8th or 9th edition).

In case there is confusion for anyone, that commentary is for 8th edition, not 9th. So considered no longer relevant.

The keyword system is a leaky boat that is easy to abuse, but that abuse is often quite plain for anyone to see.

@Jhonny, apart from unwirtten rules and morale outrage, what rules would you consider exist to restrict the below situation:

I create the <Chapter> "Adeptus Astartes" with their own succesor chapter tactics. I include special Characters from Ultramarines, Blood Angles, etc, all of whom have the chapter faction keyword "Adeptus Astartes", and as a result they benifit from the successor tactics.

I'd ask you how many DETACHMENTs you are taking, and if you say you're running them unbound I'd be cool with it until you try using Strategems.

 Cheex wrote:
Yes, technically that PDF is still "published" in that there is a link to it on an official GW platform, but it would not be reasonable to expect a player to know that they should go hunting through GW's blog for mentions of FAQs outside what's posted on the FAQ page.

That particular Designers' Commentary has no link on Warhammer Community. The Designers' Commentary on Warhammer Community deals strictly with 'Always Fights First/Last'.

 carldooley wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
FAQs from an older edition are no longer valid for the current edition.

Show me where the Astra Militarum 9th Ed Codex is. I’ll wait. This FAQ applies, as it is for the current Codex.

The quotes posted by M0ff3l are from the Designers' Commentary, not the Codex Astra Militarum FAQ (either 8th or 9th edition).

In case there is confusion for anyone, that commentary is for 8th edition, not 9th. So considered no longer relevant.

The keyword system is a leaky boat that is easy to abuse, but that abuse is often quite plain for anyone to see.

@Jhonny, apart from unwirtten rules and morale outrage, what rules would you consider exist to restrict the below situation:

I create the <Chapter> "Adeptus Astartes" with their own succesor chapter tactics. I include special Characters from Ultramarines, Blood Angles, etc, all of whom have the chapter faction keyword "Adeptus Astartes", and as a result they benifit from the successor tactics.

I'd ask you how many DETACHMENTs you are taking, and if you say you're running them unbound I'd be cool with it until you try using Strategems.

For this discussion, let's say it's one battalion. Why would you assume the army is unbound? I can already unify a detachment under the Adeptus Astartes keyword without abusing the <Chapter> tag, while still getting access to strategems. In other words, having unique Adeptus Astartes characters from multiple chapters in one detachment is currently legal and is sufficient to unlock strategems.

In the situation I described previously, you would need to abuse the <Chapter> keyword to meet the conditions to have Chapter Tactics.

Honestly, the whole conversation isn’t worth giving any time. In a private game, whatevs, do what you both consider fun. In any other context? Hah, good luck getting your opponent to agree to this wElL aCkShUaLlY… just won’t happen. Sometimes the unwritten rules are the most important. Enjoy your pointless argument. ;-)

As above. Do what you like ina private game, as long as you and your opponent agree. Not a single tournament will allow it, regardless of sophistry.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Do what you like ina private game, as long as you and your opponent agree. Not a single tournament will allow it, regardless of sophistry.

Were it a false argument then you would be able to demonstrate it as of such.

But it sounds like most posters agree. Reasonable opponents would uphold the intention from the 8th edition design document that, even if you use the same word to replace <regiment> and <chapter> ("Ultramarines", for example), that they are still considered different keywords 90% of the time. It gets weird on the Chaos side though where <mark of chaos> and <allegiance> are considered the same for aura abilities like the Locus of Khorne (which works on Khorne Daemon units, like Khorne Obliterators), so sometimes the substituted keywords are the same and sometimes they aren't.

It's the same as an argument saying you're allowed to use a d6 with the numbers going 6,6,6,6,6,6 because gw doesn't define it has to have the numbers 1-6 on it.

Or that gw doesn't state they're using the SI definition of an inch and therefore using a tape measure where 1" is 1' is fine.

Consider these two situations:

You have Roboute Guilliman, who's XIII Primarch aura affects ULTRAMARINES CHARACTER units (plus others).
You have a <REGIMENT> CHARACTER and a <CHAPTER> CHARACTER. <REGIMENT> and <CHAPTER> are replaced with ULTRAMARINES. I have seen people assert that only one gets affected by the Aura.

Yet,

You have a Herald of Khorne who's Locus of Khorne aura affects KHORNE DAEMONS.
You have a <MARK OF CHAOS> DAEMON (Obliterator) and a <ALLEGIANCE> DAEMON (Soul Grinder). <MARK OF CHAOS> and <ALLEGIANCE> are replaced with KHORNE. I have seen people assert that both get the benefit of the Aura.


It's not unreasonable to say that the rules around substituted keywords is unclear as to what is allowable and what isn't. At what point is it unreasonable to match a substituted keyword with a fixed keyword? Most people would draw the line at substituting for FLY, or other such keywords, but the core rules and current designer commentary doesn't actually provide any guidance as far as I can tell.

JakeSiren wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Do what you like ina private game, as long as you and your opponent agree. Not a single tournament will allow it, regardless of sophistry.

Were it a false argument then you would be able to demonstrate it as of such.

Your false argument is that a designer commentary for a previous edition of the game is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Was the keyword system redesigned since then? No, it wasn't.
Is there any evidence that the designer intent changed since that document was published? No, there isn't.

That just leaves the appearance that you're choosing to ignore that document because it's inconvenient to you, and then claiming that GW hasn't said anything about the situation.

Wow. This thread is the best example why some parts of the community will always cry, that the rules are a badly written mess

Some people seriously need to take a step back and realise, that this is not law or life and death contexts we're discussing on this forum, but a game of toy soldiers. This is probably the most obvious "loophole" to deal with in real gaming life I have ever encountered.

 solkan wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Do what you like ina private game, as long as you and your opponent agree. Not a single tournament will allow it, regardless of sophistry.

Were it a false argument then you would be able to demonstrate it as of such.

Your false argument is that a designer commentary for a previous edition of the game is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Was the keyword system redesigned since then? No, it wasn't.
Is there any evidence that the designer intent changed since that document was published? No, there isn't.

That just leaves the appearance that you're choosing to ignore that document because it's inconvenient to you, and then claiming that GW hasn't said anything about the situation.

Did you cut of the rest of the quote just to be argumentative?

JakeSiren wrote:
*snip*
But it sounds like most posters agree. Reasonable opponents would uphold the intention from the 8th edition design document that, even if you use the same word to replace <regiment> and <chapter> ("Ultramarines", for example), that they are still considered different keywords 90% of the time. It gets weird on the Chaos side though where <mark of chaos> and <allegiance> are considered the same for aura abilities like the Locus of Khorne (which works on Khorne Daemon units, like Khorne Obliterators), so sometimes the substituted keywords are the same and sometimes they aren't.

In terms of the keyword system, from 8th to 9th edition, 9th edition core rules says around four times more on keywords than 8th edition. To me, that's a substantial change.

The reality is, it's entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to go back to a document for an edition that is now 2 years out of date to understand how they keyword system should be used, and what limits exist, when this should have been included in the current editions rules or commentary. The 8th edition designers commentary is as irrelevant to 9th, just as the 7th edition designers commentary was irrelevant to 8th. That's not a false argument, that's just the truth.

I do however fully acknowledge that due to social convention, most players would uphold the intention of the 8th edition commentary - even if they never read it, because the more experienced players would say "oh no, you can't do that". However, that's not because of any explicit rules or currently expressed intention by GW.

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.

The proud troopers of the 244th Blood Angel Rifles and the 92nd Death Guard Grenadiers are highly offended but this random internet person's presumption!

Oddly enough "The Emperor's Finest" actually is the name of my homebrew chapter...