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.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Or howabout the organizers simply are misapplying a rule?

The sheer incompetence and lack of understanding of game mechanics required to misapply it that way is not believable for a well-known tournament group. This is like someone claiming that space marines have a 5+ armor save because they don't have the TAU keyword, but only mentioning the ruling in a private email to one player.

The key thing is that they do not believe a <Keyword> is a faction keyword unless GW states it is explicitly.

Once again: this does not matter. CHAOS is a faction keyword so two detachments which both have CHAOS are a legal battle-forged army. This is indisputable fact and no tournament organization as large and well known as ATC is going to fail to understand this.

The ONLY reason whether or not TZEENTCH, NURGLE, etc are faction keywords would be relevant is if you're trying to put knights into the same detachment as CSM or demons (since CHAOS is not sufficient there). The obvious explanation here is that in your friend's communication with ATC he made the same mistake that you're making here, using "detachment" when you mean "army", and ATC thought he was asking about putting knights into a CSM detachment.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Or howabout the organizers simply are misapplying a rule? The key thing is that they do not believe a <Keyword> is a faction keyword unless GW states it is explicitly. They look at the rule sited as being exclusive rather than inclusive. As such if the <keyword> is not on the list as a faction keyword then it can not be used as a faction keyword. Also, to support their case, apparently, GW's app does not list <keyword>s like Tzeentch or Nurgle as faction keywords but just as keywords (the App does specify Faction Keyword or just Keyword in the unit's description.

I don't have either the 1k Sons or Chaos Knights books to check - so take this with a grain of salt - but "Nurgle" definitely shows in the "Faction Keyword" section of datasheets in the 9th ed Death Guard book, while each of the Gods shows in that section for datasheets within the Chaos Daemons dex, and I see no reason why that would be different for 1k Sons, CSM or CK.

As has been pointed out, though, the Battle-Forged Armies section of the rulebook (page 56 in the mini-rulebook; I don't have the hardback to hand) is explicit as to how Army Factions work (all units in the army share a Faction Keyword), while the Muster armies step i the Eternal War mission pack is clear that it is talking about individual detachments - I don't have the latest GT Scenario Pack to check if the wording there is different.

@CSB - Leo stated earlier that his friend sent a full army list to the ATC EOs. If we assume that was done with a logical presentation, then there shouldn't be any way that the EO staff are getting confused by the situation.

By logical, I mean something like...

Army - Chaos Soup
Army Faction Keyword - Tzeentch

Detachment 1 - Batallion
Codex - Thousand Sons
[Unit details]

Detachment 2 - Super Heavy Auxillary
Codex - Chaos Knights
[Unit details, including the flag of them getting Tzeentch as a keyword, however that works]

I do agree that if they were intending to make a change to army construction like this, it is something that should be called out clearly in advance, which is why I think they've made a mistake, and/or are getting bad advice from these so-called "experienced players" that they're apparently falling back on. It definitely sounds like they're not checking the physical books to check what is and isn't actually a Faction Keyword option, rather than just a Keyword.

 Dysartes wrote:
@CSB - Leo stated earlier that his friend sent a full army list to the ATC EOs. If we assume that was done with a logical presentation, then there shouldn't be any way that the EO staff are getting confused by the situation.

I don't think that assumption is valid. Which is more believable: that the ATC staff don't know that CHAOS is a valid shared keyword between two detachments in an army, a concept that has been a core part of the game since 8th edition introduced keywords, or that OP's friend presented the information in a confusing way and got an answer to the wrong question.

It definitely sounds like they're not checking the physical books to check what is and isn't actually a Faction Keyword option, rather than just a Keyword.

But, again, faction keyword status is irrelevant. CHAOS is sufficient to make the list legal and that is indisputably a faction keyword that has been used as one for years.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
@CSB - Leo stated earlier that his friend sent a full army list to the ATC EOs. If we assume that was done with a logical presentation, then there shouldn't be any way that the EO staff are getting confused by the situation.

I don't think that assumption is valid. Which is more believable: that the ATC staff don't know that CHAOS is a valid shared keyword between two detachments in an army, a concept that has been a core part of the game since 8th edition introduced keywords, or that OP's friend presented the information in a confusing way and got an answer to the wrong question.

It definitely sounds like they're not checking the physical books to check what is and isn't actually a Faction Keyword option, rather than just a Keyword.

But, again, faction keyword status is irrelevant. CHAOS is sufficient to make the list legal and that is indisputably a faction keyword that has been used as one for years.

It's not unheard of for TOs to make stupid, incorrect rulings. I don't think we can just dismiss it out of hand because you'd prefer to believe they are infallible. Personally, this seems like an entirely plausible decision.

Slipspace wrote:
It's not unheard of for TOs to make stupid, incorrect rulings. I don't think we can just dismiss it out of hand because you'd prefer to believe they are infallible. Personally, this seems like an entirely plausible decision.

It's not about infallibility, it's that this supposed ruling is profound stupidity. It's like asking a TO for clarification on what save value tactical marines have and getting 5+ as an answer. Maybe a complete newbie would get this question wrong but there is no way anyone involved in running a major tournament with years of success is going to make such an obvious error. It's far more likely that OP's friend, like OP, mixed up some terms in their question and asked something very different from what they thought they were asking.

It is completely believable that the TOs are drooling morons tbh.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It is completely believable that the TOs are drooling morons tbh.

If they were as stupid as OP is claiming their event would have died a long time ago. And given that OP doesn't even understand the rule issue they're complaining about I'm going to give ATC the benefit of the doubt here.

Why don't any of you test this?

Write up a 1k Sons + Knights list & submit it for approval.
See what answer comes back.

ccs wrote:
Why don't any of you test this?

Write up a 1k Sons + Knights list & submit it for approval.
See what answer comes back.

Because we'd need to join a team and buy a ticket (and have a time machine, as the submission deadline has passed...)

Having a quick look at their Event Pack - each faction can only be used once per team, so I'm wondering if either someone on the same team is using Knights or they have indeed banned soup but done a poor job of communicating.

 Dysartes wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Or howabout the organizers simply are misapplying a rule? The key thing is that they do not believe a <Keyword> is a faction keyword unless GW states it is explicitly. They look at the rule sited as being exclusive rather than inclusive. As such if the <keyword> is not on the list as a faction keyword then it can not be used as a faction keyword. Also, to support their case, apparently, GW's app does not list <keyword>s like Tzeentch or Nurgle as faction keywords but just as keywords (the App does specify Faction Keyword or just Keyword in the unit's description.

I don't have either the 1k Sons or Chaos Knights books to check - so take this with a grain of salt - but "Nurgle" definitely shows in the "Faction Keyword" section of datasheets in the 9th ed Death Guard book, while each of the Gods shows in that section for datasheets within the Chaos Daemons dex, and I see no reason why that would be different for 1k Sons, CSM or CK.

While it isn't actually relevant, when Chaos Knights take the options that give them <insert Chaos God here> Keywords, it states you add them as a Keyword but doesn't state that they're Faction Keywords. So the Tzeentch options give you Tzeentch as a keyword but not explicitly technically as a Faction Keyword(not that I've seen anyone ever actually make that distinction matter for list build as you'd still share the Tzeentch Keyword in some manner across all models).

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Or howabout the organizers simply are misapplying a rule? The key thing is that they do not believe a <Keyword> is a faction keyword unless GW states it is explicitly. They look at the rule sited as being exclusive rather than inclusive. As such if the <keyword> is not on the list as a faction keyword then it can not be used as a faction keyword. Also, to support their case, apparently, GW's app does not list <keyword>s like Tzeentch or Nurgle as faction keywords but just as keywords (the App does specify Faction Keyword or just Keyword in the unit's description.

I don't have either the 1k Sons or Chaos Knights books to check - so take this with a grain of salt - but "Nurgle" definitely shows in the "Faction Keyword" section of datasheets in the 9th ed Death Guard book, while each of the Gods shows in that section for datasheets within the Chaos Daemons dex, and I see no reason why that would be different for 1k Sons, CSM or CK.

While it isn't actually relevant, when Chaos Knights take the options that give them <insert Chaos God here> Keywords, it states you add them as a Keyword but doesn't state that they're Faction Keywords. So the Tzeentch options give you Tzeentch as a keyword but not explicitly technically as a Faction Keyword(not that I've seen anyone ever actually make that distinction matter for list build as you'd still share the Tzeentch Keyword in some manner across all models).

that doesnt matter tho, the <Tzeentch> keyword is irrelevant since knights cannot share the same detachment as any non LoW models. <Chaos> is all thats needed to bring Thousand sons and knights in the same army

CSB the list my friend submitted was done using the format that the ATC said to use. He is an experienced player and goes to local events quite regularly. The events usually require Best Coast Pairings be used to submit the Army list. In any event his second list was accepted using the same format.

Personally I think that the ATC EOs are being a bit too pendantic by saying that until GW explicitly states that some keyword is a faction keyword it will not be accepted as such. As proof of their position they pointed to the Warhammer App that shows that while some keywords are proceeded by the phrase FACTION KEYWORD others, such as Tzeentch are not. I think that they are forgetting that a lot of GW rules are played by GW as RAI rather than RAW. It's plain to me, that RAI Tzeentch is meant to be a faction keyword but it looks like RAW it's not since it's not explicitly stated to be one.

I don't know if the players' lists are published somewhere but if they are we can look and see how many players used SHAD in their forces. That would shed some light on whether my friend was a unique situation or whether it was a more blanket ruling.

The TZEENTCH keyword is quite relevant - a SHAD which shares a faction keyword with your Warlord's detachment other than CHAOS, IMPERIUM, ELDAR, or TYRANIDS costs 0 CP to include. One which only shares one of the above listed faction keywords costs 3 CP.

If OP's friend submitted a list which included the expenditure of 4+ pregame CP, thinking that the TZEENTCH Chaos Knights SHAD would cost 0, then it would be an illegal list.

I suspect this is the case.

 MinMax wrote:
The TZEENTCH keyword is quite relevant - a SHAD which shares a faction keyword with your Warlord's detachment other than CHAOS, IMPERIUM, ELDAR, or TYRANIDS costs 0 CP to include. One which only shares one of the above listed faction keywords costs 3 CP.

If OP's friend submitted a list which included the expenditure of 4+ pregame CP, thinking that the TZEENTCH Chaos Knights SHAD would cost 0, then it would be an illegal list.

I suspect this is the case.

Either something like this, or that they tried to take a Super Heavy detachment with 2 knights and Magnus thinking that they could share the TZEENTCH keyword for the detachment. More likely what you said but the OP has been so shaky about using game terms correctly that it's hard to say.

It's not a wild or even questionable ruling to say that a Keyword is not a Faction Keyword unless it is labeled as such. Didn't the competitive community all already have this debate with the Disciples of Belakor giving Keywords but not Faction Keywords?

 Rihgu wrote:

 MinMax wrote:
The TZEENTCH keyword is quite relevant - a SHAD which shares a faction keyword with your Warlord's detachment other than CHAOS, IMPERIUM, ELDAR, or TYRANIDS costs 0 CP to include. One which only shares one of the above listed faction keywords costs 3 CP.

If OP's friend submitted a list which included the expenditure of 4+ pregame CP, thinking that the TZEENTCH Chaos Knights SHAD would cost 0, then it would be an illegal list.

I suspect this is the case.

Either something like this, or that they tried to take a Super Heavy detachment with 2 knights and Magnus thinking that they could share the TZEENTCH keyword for the detachment. More likely what you said but the OP has been so shaky about using game terms correctly that it's hard to say.

It's not a wild or even questionable ruling to say that a Keyword is not a Faction Keyword unless it is labeled as such. Didn't the competitive community all already have this debate with the Disciples of Belakor giving Keywords but not Faction Keywords?

the belakor thing was clarified as not being a faction keyword in a faq (rendering the army unfluffy as feth)

That's what I thought. I know GW has ignored precedent before but that's a pretty strong indication that unless it says FACTION Keyword, it's just a Keyword, and can't be used as a FACTION Keyword.

Even if there is a use of the Keyword as a Faction Keyword elsewhere.

Send us your friend's list that he submitted.

It contained just Tsons in one detachment and just 2 war dogs in the SHAD. I don't remember what specific units were in the Tson detachment but it was all rubrics and sorcorers. The only named character was Ahriman.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It is completely believable that the TOs are drooling morons tbh.

If they were as stupid as OP is claiming their event would have died a long time ago. And given that OP doesn't even understand the rule issue they're complaining about I'm going to give ATC the benefit of the doubt here.

Okay, who are you a sockpuppet of, exactly? Just so we can keep your recent spamming of the boards clear. Ish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:Send us your friend's list that he submitted.

Allegedly.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It contained just Tsons in one detachment and just 2 war dogs in the SHAD. I don't remember what specific units were in the Tson detachment but it was all rubrics and sorcorers. The only named character was Ahriman.

I think you need to run 3 wardogs in a SHAD.

 Blndmage wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It contained just Tsons in one detachment and just 2 war dogs in the SHAD. I don't remember what specific units were in the Tson detachment but it was all rubrics and sorcorers. The only named character was Ahriman.

I think you need to run 3 wardogs in a SHAD.

You do not.

 Blndmage wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It contained just Tsons in one detachment and just 2 war dogs in the SHAD. I don't remember what specific units were in the Tson detachment but it was all rubrics and sorcorers. The only named character was Ahriman.

I think you need to run 3 wardogs in a SHAD.

You can run at MOST three War Dogs in a SHAD.
You could run as little as one, since 1-3 is the model count of a single unit of War Dogs.

 MinMax wrote:
The TZEENTCH keyword is quite relevant - a SHAD which shares a faction keyword with your Warlord's detachment other than CHAOS, IMPERIUM, ELDAR, or TYRANIDS costs 0 CP to include. One which only shares one of the above listed faction keywords costs 3 CP.

If OP's friend submitted a list which included the expenditure of 4+ pregame CP, thinking that the TZEENTCH Chaos Knights SHAD would cost 0, then it would be an illegal list.

I suspect this is the case.

This might explain it. OP and their friend are still hopelessly confused since the list issue would be excessive CP spent, not that it isn't a battle-forged list, but it would be a rule violation.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It contained just Tsons in one detachment and just 2 war dogs in the SHAD. I don't remember what specific units were in the Tson detachment but it was all rubrics and sorcorers. The only named character was Ahriman.

Without the specific list or the text of the email we don't know why they rejected it.

They told him out right that it was due to the fact that there was no faction keyword commonality. I don't understand what more you want me to say. They didn't refuse his list for any other reason other than the commonality rule.

I also don't see how a battalion and a SHAD would be over the CP limit since the battalion is free since the warlord is in it and the SHAD is, at most three CP. Maybe you are hopelessly confused about how to build a list.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They told him out right that it was due to the fact that there was no faction keyword commonality. I don't understand what more you want me to say. They didn't refuse his list for any other reason other than the commonality rule.

And, once again, the definition of faction keyword does not matter. CHAOS is indisputably a faction keyword that can be shared by CSM/demons/CK to make a legal army. Ruling otherwise would be so profoundly stupid and have such wide-ranging consequences that there is no way it is a believable explanation compared to you getting some concepts wrong, especially given your continued inability to understand the rules in this thread.

If you want to disagree then post the original list exactly as submitted and the full contents of the email exchange with ATC. Until then the only reasonable conclusion is that you are simply not understanding something.

I also don't see how a battalion and a SHAD would be over the CP limit since the battalion is free since the warlord is in it and the SHAD is, at most three CP. Maybe you are hopelessly confused about how to build a list.

The suggestion, if you had bothered to read it, was that he had spent CP on pre-game stratagems as well as detachments.

As others have noted, we can't speak any more to what actually happened since we don't have the list as presented or the response to speak to.

That being said, my review of Chaos Knight rules from unknown sources indicates that while a Chaos Knight unit can gain the Tzeentch keyword, it is not bestowed as a Faction Keyword. This means any attempt to use Tzeentch as a faction keyword in list building would be invalid.

So if your friend submitted an army list that consisted of a Thousand Sons detachment and a Chaos Knights detachment that contained a unit with the Tzeentch keyword, it would be a Chaos army not a Tzeentch army. The rejection could have been as small as a technical rejection due to his mislabeling of list as a Tzeentch faction army.

Note that this is not dissimilar to units in the Codex Chaos Space Marines having the Daemon keyword as a non-faction keyword. They can benefit from abilities that target the keyword, but cannot be included in a Daemon or Chaos Daemon detachment.

 alextroy wrote:
That being said, my review of Chaos Knight rules from unknown sources indicates that while a Chaos Knight unit can gain the Tzeentch keyword, it is not bestowed as a Faction Keyword. This means any attempt to use Tzeentch as a faction keyword in list building would be invalid.

So if your friend submitted an army list that consisted of a Thousand Sons detachment and a Chaos Knights detachment that contained a unit with the Tzeentch keyword, it would be a Chaos army not a Tzeentch army. The rejection could have been as small as a technical rejection due to his mislabeling of list as a Tzeentch faction army.

This must be what it's all about. We knew that Chaos is not allowed to be the common word since this is match play but I wasn't aware that Tzeentch couldn't be a faction keyword (I don't think my friend knew this either). So, if what you are saying is correct then I guess I owe the ATC EOs an apology. They were right and I was wrong.

So how do you properly add a SHAD with a detachment of say, Tsons, and still keep the force warforged?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

We knew that Chaos is not allowed to be the common word since this is match play

as people have said, this is wrong. Chaos is 100% allowed to be the common keyword.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:


So how do you properly add a SHAD with a detachment of say, Tsons, and still keep the force warforged?

simple, you just take a detahcment of both :

Thousand Sons battalion + Chaos Knights SHAD

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
That being said, my review of Chaos Knight rules from unknown sources indicates that while a Chaos Knight unit can gain the Tzeentch keyword, it is not bestowed as a Faction Keyword. This means any attempt to use Tzeentch as a faction keyword in list building would be invalid.

So if your friend submitted an army list that consisted of a Thousand Sons detachment and a Chaos Knights detachment that contained a unit with the Tzeentch keyword, it would be a Chaos army not a Tzeentch army. The rejection could have been as small as a technical rejection due to his mislabeling of list as a Tzeentch faction army.

This must be what it's all about. We knew that Chaos is not allowed to be the common word since this is match play but I wasn't aware that Tzeentch couldn't be a faction keyword (I don't think my friend knew this either). So, if what you are saying is correct then I guess I owe the ATC EOs an apology. They were right and I was wrong.

Nope, they're still wrong. CHAOS cannot be the common keyword within a detachment, but it can be the common keyword across multiple detachments. It's the same rule that allows you to take Blood Angels and Ad Mech in the same army - they share the IMPERIUM keyword. You usually lose a bunch of abilities and special rules for each faction if you do this, but the Chaos Knights Codex has a specific rule that gets around this.