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.

The way 8th was written with many slight variations between otherwise very similar rules and wargear; followed by a slight read-between-the-lines in the notes: the core of 8th and GWs current attitude with the rules seems to expect the players to not be d-bags and use common sense in their intent.

RAW, applied in an all cases type simply does not work; but I don't think it was ever intended to.

Let me show some examples:
1) the chainsword/choppa/similar debate of use-required or simply ability functions when conditions are met. A consistent approach leaves us with 2 options: ignore the RAW of the ability, or apply conditional trigger across the board leading to plasma supercharge overheating as soon as the model rolls a 1 to hit in melee or with any weapon then slaying the model as soon as any shots from the plasma weapon are resolved or phosphor weapons completely removing cover bonuses for the rest of the game if they are attacked with that weapon.

2)the designer's note on faction <keywords>:basically, "you know what we intend, dont be a douche; but since you already are being a douche, the answer is no". This shows us that we are to use a little common sense, that the intent behind the rules are clear(they really are),and that we need to police ourselves.

3) the lack of hard, consistent rules: Us players have cried out that GW cannot write rules for crap forever. Each edition sine 3rd has added more and more detail to the rules which many tried to lawyer-up in order to game the game. 8th said "feth it" basic outline rules. And I congratulate them for it. They could not write clear vehiclw movement rules that were not open to abuse while still being restrictive; so they ditched them altogether. Players argued copula's as top-hatches for a little more range in their guns so they ditched fire-points. Super-friends deathstars were the name if the game, so they ditched ICs as they were. Players cried about balance, so they did something about that(it isn't perfect but is much closer than it was), PL, and sweeping changes to stats and wargear didn't quite level the playing field but it did nock some mountains into the valleys.

Sorry ranting.

The point is that with the notes the whole rules system can be summed up to: if it isn't plainly stated and seems really powerful in a way of reading it(especially if you have to manipulate or justify that way of reading), then it does not work that way.

Clearly they do not understand their customer base.

Huh, I actually got a pretty different impression. It seemed to me that they were generally willing to go pretty far to tell people to play more-or-less by the RAW unless that was just very obviously not intended.

Like, what big "no we didn't mean what we wrote -- use your common sense" rulings were there other than "you can't re-roll your opponent's dice" and "use keywords the way they were obviously intended"? I don't really remember anyone arguing that either of these was intended; surely almost everyone always knew how this was supposed to work and was expecting FAQ answers like these. Certainly nobody thought the keyword thing was going to survive a FAQ.

Meanwhile the answers say to play by the RAW in several cases that seem pretty weird to lots of people. And then there's a weird mixture of RAW and completely new rules that didn't seem intended in the original text about dice roll modifiers.

You'd think after 8 editions and a few decades of experience they'd know how to write a tight ruleset.

 Blacksails wrote:
You'd think after 8 editions and a few decades of experience they'd know how to write a tight ruleset.

Except same designers haven't done 8th edition so prior experience doesnt' count and GW doesn't want to spend money to hire guys who could help writing tight ruleset.

 Blacksails wrote:
You'd think after 8 editions and a few decades of experience they'd know how to write a tight ruleset.

You would think, although you could always take the view if they could not manage a decent rule set in 1-7 then why expect anything different in 8th.

Ultimately GW look at there sales and figure after AoS they can gak on a napkin and call it done and people will buy it. At the moment there still riding the hype wave but I figure they have 3-4 weeks before people start asking for faq's and GW will then happily advise them they will be able to buy them soon.

Sorry my phone browser throws the post button in the middle of the text box and if I finished typing I wouldn't have been able to post. Please see first post for edit with the finish.

Does anyone have an example of a tight ruleset with a similar scope as 40k? I haven't seen any without at least some post-print clarifications needed.

What they seem to lack is a quality technical editor (with a mind for gaming). You can see it in a lot of their products. You can see it numerous times in the rules from their consistent use of the word "can", which is almost never used correctly and should, in most instance, be "may", etc.

While the rules writing from GW has always been lax, it's a huge benefit if you attend the Church of "Don't be a douche" and game with like-minded people. It's one of the reasons that I have a core group of friends who frequently get together for a first play-test of almost any game we buy.

The four of us tend to be just about perfect at playing through a game, stopping, discussing and figuring out rules. We sacrifice the first game or two to "get it right". We do the same with board games, etc. We may do the same thing with 8th ed. Get together, play, and come to a common sense reading of each rule - and change them if necessary (or simply make an arbitrary decision how we will use said rule).

Sadly none of that really works/applies if you're aimed at tournaments (admittedly something 40K was never intended for - though it seems they tried to address it this go round).

No one would have to worry about being labelled a douche if they just wrote tight rules. For every poorly written rule that has a clear RAI, there's another that doesn't. In those cases, there is no common sense or going by the intent, and therefore needs a clear set of rules.

Simple stuff. There is quite literally no drawbacks to writing a tight game and anything less should not be congratulated. The largest wargaming company should have the resources to write a tight set of rules. There are no excuses.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
the core of 8th and GWs current attitude with the rules seems to expect the players to not be d-bags and use common sense in their intent.

Yes, yes, and thrice yes!

This has always lurked within GW's rules, but has really come out with both 8th and AoS. Rule Number One has become: Try not to be a twonk. Rule Number Two: Don't abandon common sense for advantage.

It was with some dismay I saw the thread that detailed the 'possible' abuse of naming your own keywords, so if Space Marines and Guard all had the same keyword in their <Chapter> and <Regiment>, they were using the same rules. That violates both rules one and two. I also see a thread has just popped up about bastions, and I have a nasty feeling that someone is going to suggest all four Heavy Bolters can fire upon the same target for no other reason than the rules say so.

This also somewhat comes to the fore in the Great Power Levels Debate, and I have a suspicion there that the main issue is that people simply do not trust their opponents not to stuff them over. But I digress.

Can't we all just be nice to each other when we play?

We could create a Rule Number Three: If you are trying to read something into the rules for no other reason than to gain an advantage, you are probably going down the wrong track. Don't do it, and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
For every poorly written rule that has a clear RAI, there's another that doesn't. In those cases, there is no common sense or going by the intent, and therefore needs a clear set of rules.

Give us an example, we'll make a ruling for you

The problem is that without clear rules you'll always have that douchebag who argues that the wording is X which means Y, even when intent is clear, because unfortunately "intent" is not a valid defense to argue a point. And the fact often times things are inconsistent across rules doesn't help. There's a debate in AOS that comes up every so often regarding keywords vs. unit names, where some new battalions technically can't be used by RAW because they have units with names that have an addendum (e.g. "Prosecutors with Celestial Hammers") and the battalion requires just "Prosecutors" (not a keyword) so people argue constantly that you can't legally field the battalion without house rules.

Things like that are why clear rules are so necessary, and why it's obvious GW just doesn't care to do it because they refuse to write rules as though it was an instruction manual, not a conversation. While the actual rules were far from perfect, games like Warmahordes never have this problem; there is no such thing as "intent" or spending time arguing what the designers meant in that game; the rules are explicitly clear as to what it meant. Sometimes the intent would be changed (a few instances spring to mind) but the rules were still clear.

Wayniac wrote:
The problem is that without clear rules you'll always have that douchebag who argues that the wording is X which means Y, even when intent is clear, because unfortunately "intent" is not a valid defense to argue a point.

Its not even about douchebags or donkey-caves. Its that without clear rules you might have two sensible people who happen to have two very different, but equally sensible and reasonable views about an unclear wording. Clear rules benefit everyone equally without a single downside.

Sure, everyone could skip merrily through the flowers and agree on absolutely everything in magic land, but unfortunately I don't have a pet unicorn or live in a house made of gingerbread, so clear rules will have to suffice.

 Blacksails wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The problem is that without clear rules you'll always have that douchebag who argues that the wording is X which means Y, even when intent is clear, because unfortunately "intent" is not a valid defense to argue a point.

Its not even about douchebags or donkey-caves. Its that without clear rules you might have two sensible people who happen to have two very different, but equally sensible and reasonable views about an unclear wording. Clear rules benefit everyone equally without a single downside.

Sure, everyone could skip merrily through the flowers and agree on absolutely everything in magic land, but unfortunately I don't have a pet unicorn or live in a house made of gingerbread, so clear rules will have to suffice.

Very true. However GW has since I can remember (started WHFB in 1996 and 40k in 1997) relied a lot on "intent of the rules" or "spirit of the game" as a writing style instead of being clear. Is it any wonder why half the questions in those designer notes were trying to abuse the intent?

That is the thing though; most of the rules are pretty clear.

Some are intentionally vague(ish), but applying a little common sense mekes them very functional(indexes that talk about a specific armylist; like the 4 devoted legions and their specific units. Nothing in the rules say you cannot take those units in a non-legion army/detachment, but the intended implication is there in the legion army rules allowing you to take that unit).

There are some actual cock-ups, but those are either glaring issues or typos(gsc vanquisher cannon having a different strength that IGs, no "unique-type" rule on saint celestine, I vaguely recall some half-written special rule in an entry,etc)

I have been writing up rules for an RPG somewhat similar to GURPS only a little more "user friendly" for a few years now in my spare time, one of the first page rules is: "While I have tried to write a tight rules system, much of the customization and multiple rulea interactions are simply going to be open to abuse; your GM has the final say, but as a general rule: if it seems too powerful of a combination of rules, it is and this is not the intention of these interactions."

An RPG has the advantage of a GM who will ultimately have the final say. In the context of 40k, published by a multi-million dollar company with decades of experience, there's no reason for there to be vague rules at all, intentional or otherwise. There's no good reason to even have an intentionally vague rule.

Most of the rules are clear; its fundamentally a functional ruleset. The issue, as ever, is with details and specific cases. In GW's case, context is important. We're on the 8th edition of a game from the largest wargming company with the longest experience making dozens of games. In every edition, there have been plenty of cases of glaring rules oversights, poor balance, or areas that don't work at all. By now, I expect them to be able to roll out an edition where basic things like army construction is crystal clear with no ambiguity, vagueness, or confusion.

Its a matter of expecting a quality product from the get go in order to ease gaming interactions. I don't know how or why anyone would defend poor rules writing as it provides literally zero benefits. If the rules were written better, we wouldn't be here having this discussion at all, there'd be no finger pointing over 'those donkey-caves are ruining the game!', there's be no lengthy discussions and waiting for a FAQ, we'd just have rules that work and we'd all be happy.

Simple stuff.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That is the thing though; most of the rules are pretty clear.

Preach it, Brother, exalting you all the way.

In our group, 7th ed (and Fantasy Battle especially) could easily break down into a rules-debate - however, that has just about been completely eliminated in AoS and (now) 8th edition. A common mindset is the root of that, but we have avoided many of the 'issues' that have sprung up on these forums simply because no one is trying to get an advantage from the rules themselves.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

I have been writing up rules for an RPG somewhat similar to GURPS only a little more "user friendly" for a few years now in my spare time, one of the first page rules is: "While I have tried to write a tight rules system, much of the customization and multiple rulea interactions are simply going to be open to abuse; your GM has the final say, but as a general rule: if it seems too powerful of a combination of rules, it is and this is not the intention of these interactions."

Now, that is interesting - I am an RPG writer myself (right now working on the Great Rift box set for Traveller, just swung by here for a break!), and find myself coming down on your side of things. A coincidence? Does your group engage more in the narrative side, or are you pure Matched Play?

Wayniac wrote:
Is it any wonder why half the questions in those designer notes were trying to abuse the intent?

Forget abusing intent - the Keyword/Faction debate was pure twonkishness. Put another way, if someone arrives at your table and pulls that one, absent FAQ, you have to question if you are going to go ahead and play him - after all, what else is he going to pull?

There is an old saying among roleplayers - no gaming is better than bad gaming. Don't put up with the gaming twonks just because they turn up. You can always find another player.

Put another way... I have met the chaps who write these rules (and, on a very few occasions, worked alongside them), and I get where they are coming from. They (most... maybe) don't want to get bogged down in the kind of twonkish minutiae rules debating because they genuinely feel (he said, not entirely comfortable about talking for someone else - but I have had games with them) you will have more fun if you approach the games as they do. There is a reason they bang on about 'forging the narrative'. They want you to enjoy these games as much as they do and not spend your time arguing with your opponent about whether your combined Eldar and Militarum force are, in fact, Ultramarines because your Keywords say so.

Surely we can all agree that the keyword/faction question should never have been asked and (like the eight Bloodthirster force in AoS) would never have cropped up in the real world? People saw a possible exploit and immediately worried themselves that a future opponent would try to do it when, in reality, anyone with the slightest idea of the lore behind 40k knew that was precisely not how to approach it. Surely?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

Its a matter of expecting a quality product from the get go in order to ease gaming interactions. I don't know how or why anyone would defend poor rules writing as it provides literally zero benefits. If the rules were written better, we wouldn't be here having this discussion at all, there'd be no finger pointing over 'those donkey-caves are ruining the game!', there's be no lengthy discussions and waiting for a FAQ, we'd just have rules that work and we'd all be happy.

I do get where you are coming from, I really do.

What I (and I think Kommissar Kel) are trying to say is that, in our own groups, we don't run into these issues and if we could just get you round to one of our games nights, we could prove it to you

It becomes more about watching/getting cool things to happen on the tabletop, to the extent that winning is not even secondary - it really does not matter at all. I know that is going to seem odd to some people reading this, because I have been down the same road.

That is not to say we are 'bad' players, or noncompetitive. Meet me at a GW tournament and I'll take your army apart

But once you start down this path, life gets so much easier around the table top. No stress gaming, I call it - and GW's approach to their rules writing fits in with it very, very nicely. I might even say perfectly.

MongooseMatt: Mostly narrative play. Fluffy armies, terrain with thematic sense, love SWA, and I plan to re-work 4th edition kill-teams for 8th(if you recall it was rag-tag suicide squads vs 3-model mooks and a boss model); which has a new points system to make it very easy to retun to. Finally, after putting the kill teams into proposed rules, I am going to do a quick explanation in there for using the 8th points system in narrative play to use your killteam models from there and SWA in full 8th play as a single(possibly mixed) squad.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
MongooseMatt: Mostly narrative play. Fluffy armies, terrain with thematic sense, love SWA, and I plan to re-work 4th edition kill-teams for 8th(if you recall it was rag-tag suicide squads vs 3-model mooks and a boss model); which has a new points system to make it very easy to retun to. Finally, after putting the kill teams into proposed rules, I am going to do a quick explanation in there for using the 8th points system in narrative play to use your killteam models from there and SWA in full 8th play as a single(possibly mixed) squad.

I do recall that.

Our first games of 8th were Matched Play with points (well, Power Levels), but we have started re-fighting the Badab War. Which I figure will keep us going for a year or so

 Blacksails wrote:
No one would have to worry about being labelled a douche if they just wrote tight rules. For every poorly written rule that has a clear RAI, there's another that doesn't. In those cases, there is no common sense or going by the intent, and therefore needs a clear set of rules.

Simple stuff. There is quite literally no drawbacks to writing a tight game and anything less should not be congratulated. The largest wargaming company should have the resources to write a tight set of rules. There are no excuses.

Conversely, if it wasn't for That Guy, the rules wouldn't need to be air tight. I'm lucky in that my gaming circle only has one douchnozzle. The rest of us come into the game with the intention of both players having fun. Most of us played the aforementioned donkeycave exactly once before we figured out he was going to twist every possible gap in the rules to his advantage (and in some cases straight up lie about the rules). The rest of us can look at a possible exploit and say "Nope. That's not what they meant." or at least have a civil discussion and come up with a house rule in those cases where the intent is unclear. I'll never understand how some groups can't do the same.

I feel bad even bringing it up at this point, but I feel the keyword debate had one faction where it wasn't just "twonkishness" - imperial Guard.

Specifically, they list as examples of "Regiments" the following: Militarum Tempestus and Vostroyans. Those are the TWO examples they give, and ONE of those is absolutely not a "Regiment" strictly speaking.

They then say that the ONLY thing you can't choose as your regiment is "Militarum Tempestus".

In the book, there are 5 instances where *it seems* that a unit has a pre-assigned <regiment> tag that affects their rules.

1) Cadian. Obviously a regiment. Affects named characters doing stuff.

2) Catachan. Still clear.

3) Militarum Tempestus -> We know the game considers this a regiment but it disallows you from choosing it. Ok, everythings still fine.

4) Ministorum Auxilia. Ogryns/Bullgryns/Ratlings. the only rule-affecting thing you could do with naming a unit to the Ministorum Auxilia is an officer, who could then give orders to auxilia troops. We know that the Auxilia has special officers who train the Ogryn units, they exist in the fluff. Is it intended that you should be able to buy special officers just to order your ogryns and nobody else? Maybe. Fluff seems to support it, there seems to be a trade-off built in, but we are not told whether or not the Ministorum is or isn't a regiment, or whether that is "abusing the system" or just "Using the system" in the same way you might use the system by naming your guys Cadian so they can work with Creed and Pask.

5) Aeronautica Imperialis. Would allow units to take the mini-order from the Officer of the Fleet. is this a built in way for players to create an imperial navy oriented force? Can I have a Hydra anti-air battery under the command of the Navy? Or is it just intended to be a buff for specifically valkyries?

If the rule had just said "You can name your regiment any of the regiments of the astra militarum, such as Cadian, Vostroyan, Catachan, Armageddon Steel Legion, or any other Regiment of your own creation" then I would have absolutely 100% zero problem going "yep, those are obviously not intended to be Regiments and they are fixed". But they went out of their way to list the Militarum Tempestus as a regiment when they're not technically a regiment, and then only disallow you from choosing the MT as your regiment, and not the other 2.

Exept the Militarum Auxilia and Aeronautica Imperialis are not regiments. The Auxillia are a subdivision of the AM, and the Aeronautica aren't even a part of the AM at all, they are part of the Navy.

They are under the Astra Militarum section though, so rules wise you could interpret them as being a <regiment>.
Keep in mind that for the keyword rules they explicitly forbid Tempestus and not the other groups, even though, unless I'm mistaken, the Tempestus is also not a regiment but another organisation with ties to the Schola Progenium.

 EnTyme wrote:

Most of us played the aforementioned donkeycave exactly once before we figured out he was going to twist every possible gap in the rules to his advantage (and in some cases straight up lie about the rules).

Just to prove everything is not all sunshine down our way, we had this exact problem - not just the twisting, but the flat out lying as well. And it wasn't because they were old or feeble (though that card got played), it came down to an attitude of 'it is not cheating if I don't get caught'. Every game becomes a set of arguments as you constantly have to parry the attempts at cheating.

He got ejected in the end, but it took way too long to do so. Forgot the mantra of 'no gaming is better than bad gaming'.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
No one would have to worry about being labelled a douche if they just wrote tight rules. For every poorly written rule that has a clear RAI, there's another that doesn't. In those cases, there is no common sense or going by the intent, and therefore needs a clear set of rules.

Simple stuff. There is quite literally no drawbacks to writing a tight game and anything less should not be congratulated. The largest wargaming company should have the resources to write a tight set of rules. There are no excuses.

Conversely, if it wasn't for That Guy, the rules wouldn't need to be air tight. I'm lucky in that my gaming circle only has one douchnozzle. The rest of us come into the game with the intention of both players having fun. Most of us played the aforementioned donkeycave exactly once before we figured out he was going to twist every possible gap in the rules to his advantage (and in some cases straight up lie about the rules). The rest of us can look at a possible exploit and say "Nope. That's not what they meant." or at least have a civil discussion and come up with a house rule in those cases where the intent is unclear. I'll never understand how some groups can't do the same.

Its not about That Guy or not, its about having clear rules that make it easy for even easygoing friends to have a game without having to sit down and agree on house rules or tweaks.

The argument for air tight rules has nothing to do with people being donkey-caves. They help prevent that behaviour from becoming a problem mid-game by preventing potential rules abuse at the source, they make the game faster and simpler for all, it prevents unnecessary mid-game stops to scratch ones head and have the discussion to even find out if you both agree on the interpretation, and frankly, it should be expected that a product is held to a high standard and should strive to be a clear as possible.

Again, it benefits everyone at no cost and downside. I've never had any issues with the people I game with, but it doesn't mean I want the rules to be all loosy goosy just because my friends and I can work through them. A tight ruleset would keep our heads in the game than in the books, which is a better experience for everyone.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They are under the Astra Militarum section though, so rules wise you could interpret them as being a <regiment>.
Keep in mind that for the keyword rules they explicitly forbid Tempestus and not the other groups, even though, unless I'm mistaken, the Tempestus is also not a regiment but another organisation with ties to the Schola Progenium.

I was just stating that replacing a <regiment> keyword with something that isn't a regiment is a bit weird. Tempestus is a bit of an odd one. Whilst the "Militarum Tempestus" itself is not a regiment, there are many regiments within it, such as the 55th Kappic Eagles or the 101st Betic Dragons.

This chart may be useful:

 Blacksails wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
No one would have to worry about being labelled a douche if they just wrote tight rules. For every poorly written rule that has a clear RAI, there's another that doesn't. In those cases, there is no common sense or going by the intent, and therefore needs a clear set of rules.

Simple stuff. There is quite literally no drawbacks to writing a tight game and anything less should not be congratulated. The largest wargaming company should have the resources to write a tight set of rules. There are no excuses.

Conversely, if it wasn't for That Guy, the rules wouldn't need to be air tight. I'm lucky in that my gaming circle only has one douchnozzle. The rest of us come into the game with the intention of both players having fun. Most of us played the aforementioned donkeycave exactly once before we figured out he was going to twist every possible gap in the rules to his advantage (and in some cases straight up lie about the rules). The rest of us can look at a possible exploit and say "Nope. That's not what they meant." or at least have a civil discussion and come up with a house rule in those cases where the intent is unclear. I'll never understand how some groups can't do the same.

Its not about That Guy or not, its about having clear rules that make it easy for even easygoing friends to have a game without having to sit down and agree on house rules or tweaks.

The argument for air tight rules has nothing to do with people being donkey-caves. They help prevent that behaviour from becoming a problem mid-game by preventing potential rules abuse at the source, they make the game faster and simpler for all, it prevents unnecessary mid-game stops to scratch ones head and have the discussion to even find out if you both agree on the interpretation, and frankly, it should be expected that a product is held to a high standard and should strive to be a clear as possible.

Again, it benefits everyone at no cost and downside. I've never had any issues with the people I game with, but it doesn't mean I want the rules to be all loosy goosy just because my friends and I can work through them. A tight ruleset would keep our heads in the game than in the books, which is a better experience for everyone.

It really sucks when you have to stop a game to look up the rules, adding in badly worded rules just makes everything worse.
The reason for the complete dropping of GW for my group was almost entirely the rules, Just isnt worth playing the game when other games are better.
We like to get the rules right, Since it helps when looking at units to know how they will possibly run in game.
And i do not think anyone here likes it when they get something new, only to have to then hash out a bunch of house rules just to play.

The "don't be a douche" thing is irrelevant to how well written the rules are, it should be a given regardless. A tightly, technically written ruleset is better as it lessens confusion and leads to a more smoothly flowing game; conflicts in rules will always come up and while it's good to discuss it with your opponent the more this happens the more slowed down the game becomes and while it's resolved by having a gaming group you continually play with it's horrible for pick up games.

The problem GW has always had is their rules guys are not good at technical writing. Rather than somewhat give up like this they could have tightened them up a bit more while simplifying it; simply going <chapter> becomes chapter: your dudes is like a 3 second addition that allows them to get the feel they want by letting you personalise your guys but while also stopping TFG from even opening his stupid mouth about it. 40k was bloated and clunky and while they've fixed it for now I feel by cutting down the rules a bunch they've not fixed one of the core issues and it's likely that may come back to haunt the game later on.

No addition to the <keyword> is necessary if you use a little common sense.

Even if <regiment> and <chapter> are both set to Gribblies by you; they are still 2 different uses of the word Gribblies. 1 is Chapter Gribblies and the other is Regiment Gribblies. This is because the Chapter replacement is a replacement for when an effect occurs on <chapter> models. It was only ever TFGs that tried to use the replacement in both instances as a single shared keyword.

A little nitpick I have with the <Regiment> systems is that it doesn't actually care about regiments so much as about homeworlds.

For example, Knight Commander Pask is in a tank regiment, because the fluff says that tanks, while sometimes attached to infantry regiments, are in their own regiments. Conversely, Creed is in an infantry regiment (the Cadian 8th), which is not a tank regiment.

Seeing them together on the same table means they ought not to share the <Regiment> keyword, and in fact it is heresy if they do so without being in a sanctioned Battlegroup.

It would be much easier of they just put <Homeworld>.

But again, minor nitpick.