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.
2018/04/19 07:22:06
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
Simple question, when determining if a detachment is legal under the beta Battle Brothers rule, does selecting <ALLEGIANCE> from the Chaos Daemons Codex and <MARK OF CHAOS> from the Chaos Space Marines Codex to be the same work allow for them to be included in the same detachment?
For reference:
BATTLE BROTHERS All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your Army Faction.
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 <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> 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.
Particular emphasis is indicated in Yellow.
As such, my reading is that even if you select <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> to both be KHORNE, they are not the "same" keyword (Basically they are treated like ALLEGIANCE: KHORNE and MARK OF CHAOS: KHORNE), thus you cannot have Codex Daemon KHORNE mixed with Chaos Space Marine KHORNE in the same detachment. Just wanna make sure I got this right for a thing I am writing.
Also, to preempt the "RaW loophole waa", this is explicitly a RaI Special Snowflake situation since RaW the keywords should work like that, but the FAQ is a simple anti-Wu-Tang-Klan cludge, and Special Snowflake FAQs are basically errata done poorly.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 07:24:41
2018/04/19 07:43:05
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
<ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> interact in the same way that e.g. <CHAPTER> and <REGIMENT> do, unless there's a more specific exception that says otherwise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 07:43:45
2018/04/19 08:33:43
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
For units with inflexible keywords, how do you know whether it is an allegiance or a Mark? For instance, can Mortarion be combined in a single detachment with Poxbringers? Assuming they didn't share the Heretic Astartes keyword, could he be combined in a detachment with a Nurgle Sorcerer?
I would make the argument that an identical allegiance and Mark of Chaos are the same keyword. We have been forbidden to create our own unique keywords, the "Emperor's Finest" situation, but nothing suggests that keywords which happen to be the-same-but-different which we did not create are also beholden to this rule.
Triggerbaby wrote:In summary, here's your lunch and ask Miss Creaver if she has aloe lotion because I have taken you to school and you have been burned.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:I too can prove pretty much any assertion I please if I don't count all the evidence that contradicts it.
2018/04/19 09:15:33
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
So, if a datasheet has the actual KHORNE keyword (rather than a fill-it-in-yourself <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> keyword), how do you know for certain whether it means <MARK OF CHAOS>: KHORNE or <ALLEGIANCE>: KHORNE?
Sure, you can assume that only DAEMONS have <ALLEGIANCE> and only HERETIC ASTARTES have <MARK OF CHAOS>, but that's an attempt to reason out RAI, not a pure RAW argument.
You cannot actually know by pure RAW that a Khorne Berzerker's KHORNE keyword and a Bloodletter's KHORNE keyword are different things.
If all you own is the CSM codex, not the Daemons codex, then you don't even know <ALLEGIANCE> is a thing. KHORNE can only ever be <MARK OF CHAOS>: KHORNE as far as you can possibly know from the RAW in the codex you are actually using.
Whole thing is a fething mess.
But I will point out that the context of that FAQ answer is making up your own fill-in-the-blank keywords. It is possible that GW don't intend their reply there to apply to their own canonical subfaction keywords like KHORNE. But there's that RAI thing again.
A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry.
2018/04/19 10:07:06
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
Duskweaver wrote: So, if a datasheet has the actual KHORNE keyword (rather than a fill-it-in-yourself <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE> keyword), how do you know for certain whether it means <MARK OF CHAOS>: KHORNE or <ALLEGIANCE>: KHORNE?
Sure, you can assume that only DAEMONS have <ALLEGIANCE> and only HERETIC ASTARTES have <MARK OF CHAOS>, but that's an attempt to reason out RAI, not a pure RAW argument.
You cannot actually know by pure RAW that a Khorne Berzerker's KHORNE keyword and a Bloodletter's KHORNE keyword are different things.
If all you own is the CSM codex, not the Daemons codex, then you don't even know <ALLEGIANCE> is a thing. KHORNE can only ever be <MARK OF CHAOS>: KHORNE as far as you can possibly know from the RAW in the codex you are actually using.
Whole thing is a fething mess.
But I will point out that the context of that FAQ answer is making up your own fill-in-the-blank keywords. It is possible that GW don't intend their reply there to apply to their own canonical subfaction keywords like KHORNE. But there's that RAI thing again.
If you read the codexes, this is answered in the rules for <ALLEGENCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> A fixed keyword is still very much an <ALLEGIANCE> or <MARK OF CHAOS> keyword. GW might hire oxygen starved beagles as rules editors, but give credit where credit is due, they didn't mess this one up.
Codex: Chaos Daemons Page 84 wrote:Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH..
Codex: Heretic Astartes Chaos Space Marines Page 116 wrote:Some datasheets specify the Mark of Chaos for a unit (e.g. Khârn the Betrayer has the KHORNE keyword). If a Heretic Astartes datasheet does not specify which Mark of Chaos a unit has, it will have the <MARK OF CHAOS> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Mark of Chaos that unit has. You then simply replace the <MARK OF CHAOS> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with one of the following: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH. Note that PSYKERS cannot have the KHORNE keyword.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 10:11:43
2018/04/19 10:29:33
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
From my understanding, <MARK OF CHAOS> Units cannot mix with any other type of <FACTION> fill in the gap. This was in an early FAQ. From what I remember “if I call my army ‘super troopers’ can I fill the gap of <REGIMENT>, <LEGION> and <HIVE FLEET> units with ‘super troopers’ and have them in the same detachment?” “No, but if you decide to call your army ‘super troopers’ that name can fill in the gap of 1 ‘fill in the gap’ allegiance. So you can have an detachment of space marines where the <CHAPTER> fill in the gap is ‘super troopers’ but, if it is a ‘super troopers’, they cannot mix with the <CHAPTER> ‘super troopers’. However these units can mix in a IMPERIUM detachment.”
Complicated I know but basically, in your case, you can mix KHORNE units into a KHORNE detachment, but not <MARK OF CHAOS> KHORNE units and <ALLEGIANCE> KHORNE units.
This is because a detachment uses a keyword and everyone in that detachment must have it.
By my understanding of the designers commentary.
I may be wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Codex: Chaos Daemons Page 84 wrote:Most datasheets specify which Chaos God the unit owes allegiance to (e.g. a Great Unclean One has the NURGLE keyword, so owes allegiance to Nurgle). If a Chaos Daemons datasheet does not specify which Chaos God it owes allegiance to, it will have the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must choose which of the Chaos Gods it owes its allegiance to. It then replaces its <ALLEGIANCE> keyword in every instance on its datasheet with the name of its patron Chaos God: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH..
Codex: Heretic Astartes Chaos Space Marines Page 116 wrote:Some datasheets specify the Mark of Chaos for a unit (e.g. Khârn the Betrayer has the KHORNE keyword). If a Heretic Astartes datasheet does not specify which Mark of Chaos a unit has, it will have the <MARK OF CHAOS> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Mark of Chaos that unit has. You then simply replace the <MARK OF CHAOS> keyword in every instance on that unit’s datasheet with one of the following: KHORNE, TZEENTCH, NURGLE or SLAANESH. Note that PSYKERS cannot have the KHORNE keyword.
Aha. I was wrong. This means they CAN be mixed together
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 10:32:51
No, it means they can't and it is clear they can't. "It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 10:44:01
2018/04/19 11:01:32
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
So if I'm a new player just starting 40K with a shiny new CSM codex and I want to include some Bloodletters (using the datasheet in the codex I own, not some other codex I have no reason to assume is relevant to my CSM army) alongside my Berzerkers, what RAW is there to tell me that's illegal?
If I don't own the Daemons codex (and why would I if I'm playing CSM?), I could have no idea that the KHORNE keyword could ever be anything other than a <MARK OF CHAOS>. The CSM codex includes some daemon datasheets, but absolutely no mention of the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword.
Also, the Lord of Skulls: is its KHORNE keyword a <MARK OF CHAOS> or an <ALLEGIANCE>? It has both the DAEMON and HERETIC ASTARTES faction keywords, so good luck figuring out which set of rules are supposed to apply!
To reiterate, it is a fething mess.
A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry.
2018/04/19 11:09:29
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
If you don't own the Daemons Codex, then you're only using the Daemons in the CSM codex, who's KHORNE is a MARK OF CHAOS: KHORNE keyword, so it would be legal.
Also I just realised this makes the seemingly identical Daemon Entries different now, the CSM versions have a different KHORNE to the ones in the Chaos Daemons codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 11:10:05
2018/04/19 11:59:53
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
BaconCatBug wrote: Also I just realised this makes the seemingly identical Daemon Entries different now, the CSM versions have a different KHORNE to the ones in the Chaos Daemons codex.
Exactly. They're in different books, with different rules surrounding them, therefore they're not identical. Is this an issue? No. Just pick the one from the book where all the other guys from that detachment are coming from.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Duskweaver wrote: So if I'm a new player just starting 40K with a shiny new CSM codex and I want to include some Bloodletters (using the datasheet in the codex I own, not some other codex I have no reason to assume is relevant to my CSM army) alongside my Berzerkers, what RAW is there to tell me that's illegal?
If I don't own the Daemons codex (and why would I if I'm playing CSM?), I could have no idea that the KHORNE keyword could ever be anything other than a <MARK OF CHAOS>. The CSM codex includes some daemon datasheets, but absolutely no mention of the <ALLEGIANCE> keyword.
Also, the Lord of Skulls: is its KHORNE keyword a <MARK OF CHAOS> or an <ALLEGIANCE>? It has both the DAEMON and HERETIC ASTARTES faction keywords, so good luck figuring out which set of rules are supposed to apply!
To reiterate, it is a fething mess.
DAEMON and HERETIC ASTARTES have nothing to do with <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE>.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 12:01:25
2018/04/19 13:51:47
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
Dude, if <Mark of Chaos> and <Allegience> are REPLACED by <Khorne> than the keyword is <KHORNE> NOT <Mark of Chaos: Khorne> or <Allegience: Khorne>. It's just <KHORNE>. Stop making stuff up (or rather making of things that aren't actually there)
If you have Heretic Astartes and Daemons that all shared the <Khrone> keyword, then they can indeed be in the same detachment as they shared a keyword other than <Chaos>
BaconCatBug wrote: Also I just realised this makes the seemingly identical Daemon Entries different now, the CSM versions have a different KHORNE to the ones in the Chaos Daemons codex.
Seriously? by this logic, "Soup" lists have been impossible this whole time because the <Imperium> keyword in the Space Marine Codex is not the same as the <Imperium> keyword in the Guard codex. Come on, man that's just silly
-
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 13:59:55
Galef wrote: Dude, if <Mark of Chaos> and <Allegience> are REPLACED by <Khorne> than the keyword is <KHORNE>
NOT <Mark of Chaos: Khorne> or <Allegience: Khorne>. It's just <KHORNE>. Stop making stuff up (or rather making of things that aren't actually there)-
There's a FAQ that tells us otherwise, see above for a quotation on that.
<Chapter> and <Regiment> are different, therefore the Chapter TALLARN and the Regiment TALLARN are not the same. You can't have e.g. a TALLARN Captain from Codex:Space Marines buff all your TALLARN Artillery Tanks from Codex:Astra Militarum.
The same is true for any other "variable keyword".
BaconCatBug wrote: Also I just realised this makes the seemingly identical Daemon Entries different now, the CSM versions have a different KHORNE to the ones in the Chaos Daemons codex.
Seriously? by this logic, "Soup" lists have been impossible this whole time because the <Imperium> keyword in the Space Marine Codex is not the same as the <Imperium> keyword in the Guard codex. Come on, man that's just silly
-
Get your facts straight. IMPERIUM is a fixed keyword. <CHAPTER> is a variable keyword, so is <MARK OF CHAOS>. The FAQ applies to the later type.
*edit* to spell it out for you:
CHAOS, HERETIC ASTARTES, INFANTRY, <MARK OF CHAOS>
CHAOS, HERETIC ASTARTES, INFANTRY, KHORNE
KHORNE is a fixed MARK OF CHAOS in this instance.
IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES,INFANTRY, <CHAPTER>
IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES,INFANTRY, ULTRAMARINES
ULTRAMARINES is a fixed CHAPTER in this instance.
IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, INFANTRY, <REGIMENT>
IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, INFANTRY, CADIAN
CADIAN is a fixed REGIMENT in this instance
IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, INFANTRY, ULTRAMARINES
ULTRAMARINES is the REGIMENT, and DOES NOT mean the same nor interact with the CHAPTER of the same name.
CHAOS, DAEMON, <ALLEGIANCE>
CHAOS, DAEMON, KHORNE
KHORNE is a fixed ALLEGIANCE, not a MARK OF CHAOS
At least if GW treats all variable keywords the same, and I've not seen proof to the contrary.
And we know what type of "variable keyword" a given unit has by looking at which book we're holding. if all the other guys in my book have <MARK OF CHAOS>, and that keyword is explained in the book, it's that - for example.
--
BTW: Otherwise nothing would stop us Imperials from going "hey, y'know, if it's not a fixed CHAPTER but just a keyword called ULTRAMARINES, what's to stop me from running any imperial army as ULTRAMARINES and slap that totally-not-in-a-chapter Primarch into every single list?".
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 15:44:54
2018/04/19 15:52:56
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
nekooni wrote: BTW: Otherwise nothing would stop us Imperials from going "hey, y'know, if it's not a fixed CHAPTER but just a keyword called ULTRAMARINES, what's to stop me from running any imperial army as ULTRAMARINES and slap that totally-not-in-a-chapter Primarch into every single list?".
If what you are saying is true, it totally invalidates my Chaos Space Marine army. It had Chapter: Imperium and had Gulliman & Celestine using counts-as Alpha Legion tactics.
Which worked great, except against that Eldar list with Craftword: Orks, which had 6 units of Dark Reapers providing covering fire for 200 Ork Boys.
BaconCatBug wrote:If you don't own the Daemons Codex, then you're only using the Daemons in the CSM codex, who's KHORNE is a MARK OF CHAOS: KHORNE keyword, so it would be legal.
That's eminently sensible. But is it strictly correct RAW? Does the game really now have two visually identical but subtly distinct Bloodletter datasheets that potentially interact with other rules elements in different ways? Ignoring for the moment that they're a Troops unit, would they count as two different datasheets for the purposes of the Rule of 3? If a stratagem in the Daemons codex referenced 'Bloodletters' (by unit name rather than keyword), would it only be usable on the Bloodletters from that codex and not the Bloodletters from the CSM codex?
Also I just realised this makes the seemingly identical Daemon Entries different now, the CSM versions have a different KHORNE to the ones in the Chaos Daemons codex.
Bearing in mind that GW errata'd the CSM Bloodletters datasheet to make it identical to the one in the Daemons codex (by moving DAEMON from the keywords list to the faction keywords list), I suspect GW thinks they're the same datasheet.
nekooni wrote:DAEMON and HERETIC ASTARTES have nothing to do with <MARK OF CHAOS> or <ALLEGIANCE>.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Because the rules for <MARK OF CHAOS> and <ALLEGIANCE> do reference the HERETIC ASTARTES and DAEMON faction keywords ("Many Heretic Astartes units..." "If a Heretic Astartes datasheet..." etc.). It sure reads like those rules are intended only to apply to datasheets with the appropriate faction keyword.
Galef wrote:Dude, if <Mark of Chaos> and <Allegience> are REPLACED by <Khorne> than the keyword is <KHORNE>
NOT <Mark of Chaos: Khorne> or <Allegience: Khorne>. It's just <KHORNE>. Stop making stuff up (or rather making of things that aren't actually there)
If you have Heretic Astartes and Daemons that all shared the <Khrone> keyword, then they can indeed be in the same detachment as they shared a keyword other than <Chaos>
That's certainly how I would play it if I ever included daemons in my CSM army (they're violently secularist Night Lords, so that will never happen). It's also what I believe to be the RAI. But BCB's version is a perfectly valid interpretation of that fill-in-the-keyword FAQ answer. I think GW meant it to apply only in the case of player-invented factions, but they didn't actually say that.
Seriously? by this logic, "Soup" lists have been impossible this whole time because the <Imperium> keyword in the Space Marine Codex is not the same as the <Imperium> keyword in the Guard codex. Come on, man that's just silly
The IMPERIUM keyword isn't a fill-in-your-own-subfaction keyword, though, so that FAQ answer wouldn't apply even under BCB's interpretation.
A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry.
2018/04/19 16:03:35
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
But my point is that "fill-in-your-own" keywords are NOT "fill-in-your-own" keywords. They are keywords that get REPLACED entirely with a "true" keyword. When you replace <Chapter Tactics> with <Ultramarines> it is exactly like the <Ultramarine> keyword list on Guiliman's datasheet, for example. It is not somehow <Chapter Tactics: Ultramarine>
That <Chapter> and <Regiment> keyword FAQ is messing this whole rule up. Also, I wasn't aware of a TALLARN chapter in the Space Marine codex. I've literally never heard of that. Is it a Forge World Chapter? If so, is that FAQ a FWFAQ? Just another instance of FW and GW not properly speaking to each other about how rules should be handled
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 16:05:21
Galef wrote: But my point is that "fill-in-your-own" keywords are NOT "fill-in-your-own" keywords. They are keywords that get REPLACED entirely with a "true" keyword.
When you replace <Chapter Tactics> with <Ultramarines> it is exactly like the <Ultramarine> keyword list on Guiliman's datasheet, for example.
It is not somehow <Chapter Tactics: Ultramarine>
That <Chapter> and <Regiment> keyword FAQ is messing this whole rule up.
Also, I wasn't aware of a TALLARN chapter in the Space Marine codex. I've literally never heard of that. Is it a Forge World Chapter?
If so, is that FAQ a FWFAQ?
Just another instance of FW and GW not properly speaking to each other about how rules should be handled
-
I'm sorry you find this all so confusing.
But it's pretty unambiguous for 99.9% of people, especially those who who read the FAQs and designer's commentary about keywords. Nothing is different between this now and when 8th edition was being previewed a year ago.
How can the community best support you on this? Would it help if there was a thread where you could post your keyword confusion questions for the rest of us to answer?
Galef has it right. Not sure why there's condescension here.
On the OP post, that faq quoted is clearly and explicitly only referring to make your own faction keywords and has no relevance for mark of chaos / allegience. Kinda disingenuous even posting it in the same topic.
IMO once assigned , Mark of chaos and allegience are identical for all purposes. Certainly for battle brothers, as they are identical faction keywords. Possible there are exceptions to this (I cant remember maybe one instance where it matters.. )
DFTT
2018/04/19 18:26:05
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
But it's pretty unambiguous for 99.9% of people, especially those who who read the FAQs and designer's commentary about keywords. Nothing is different between this now and when 8th edition was being previewed a year ago.
How can the community best support you on this? Would it help if there was a thread where you could post your keyword confusion questions for the rest of us to answer?
Oh, I am not confused. I see this issue pretty clearly. Please do not personally attack posters in this passive aggressive manner. It is not cool.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 18:29:17
BaconCatBug wrote: A Fill your own with a list is still a fill your own.
No it isn't. <Fill your own> is REPLACED by the new keyword. Once it is replaced, it is no longer <Fill your own>
So once <Mark of Chaos> or <Allegiance> are replaced by <Khorne>, they cease to be <Mark of Chaos> or <Allegiance> and become <Khorne> for all rules purposes.
You can have a detachment with CSM and Daemons in it so long as the shared keyword is not <Chaos>, but is <Khorne>,<Slaanesh>,<Tzeentch>, or <Nurgle>
Not only does this make perfect sense within the rules, but it allows perfectly fluffy lists.
Galef wrote: But my point is that "fill-in-your-own" keywords are NOT "fill-in-your-own" keywords. They are keywords that get REPLACED entirely with a "true" keyword.
When you replace <Chapter Tactics> with <Ultramarines> it is exactly like the <Ultramarine> keyword list on Guiliman's datasheet, for example.
It is not somehow <Chapter Tactics: Ultramarine>
That <Chapter> and <Regiment> keyword FAQ is messing this whole rule up.
Also, I wasn't aware of a TALLARN chapter in the Space Marine codex. I've literally never heard of that. Is it a Forge World Chapter?
If so, is that FAQ a FWFAQ?
Just another instance of FW and GW not properly speaking to each other about how rules should be handled
-
It's not "messing this whole rule up", it's GWs take in the rules they wrote themself. And it clearly, unmistakely says that a <CHAPTER> that's assigned as e.g. ULTRAMARINES or GETYOUROWNNAME is not the same keyword as a <REGIMENT> that's assigned as ULTRAMARINES or GETYOUROWNNAME. They still have this weird property of being a CHAPTER or REGIMENT keyword.
The reason why they did that is simple - let's say I play Imperial Guard and Space Marines, but I've decided to run them as my own custom Chapter and Regiment. Normally you'd do something like this:
Let's say my Guard is from the planet Z'ha'dum, and they employ tactics similar to the ones found in Cadian regiments. I use the <REGIMENT> keyword SHADOWS with the Cadian doctrines - but I'm not able to bring e.g. Pask, since he has the <REGIMENT> keyword force-set to CADIAN. I could instead just use the CADIAN keyword, but that would be boring.
My marines however are from an ancient chapter fortress located in Epsilon Eridani so I'm using the <CHAPTER> keyword SHERIDANS with the Raven Guard tactics.
One of my Space Marine captains, for example, would buff all SHERIDANS by providing re-rollable 1s. Clearly he wouldn't affect the SHADOWS guardsmen nearby.
--
Now, if you wanted to game the system without the FAQ, you'd just assign both the <REGIMENT> and the <CHAPTER> keyword as BABYLONIANS.
If both simply turn into a "flat" keyword, they'd be the same - and therefore a BABYLONIANS Captain would buff BABYLONIAN Guardsmen.
Not only does this make perfect sense within the rules, but it allows perfectly fluffy lists.
-
It'd also allow perfectly fethed up lists such as Robby G. leading a force of ULTRAMARINE Wyches (rerolling things if Robby G is nearby), assisted by a few ULTRAMARINE Monoliths that probably are even capable of teleporting in ULTRAMARINE Skitarii.
Or just use FLY as your <CHAPTER>, and your Predators get to fire even if they'd fallen back.
That's why GW decided to shut this down. If you want fluffy lists you get two options: build your list according to the rules, or play narrative/open/house ruled. Your choice.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 21:30:23
2018/04/19 21:31:11
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
I am not talking about made up names and factions. I am talking about preexisting Faction names that confer specific rules and abilities.
Yes, I agree you cannot give a Space Marines unit Chapter <Blue Guys> and also give a Guard unit Regiment <Blue Guys> to game the system to allow them to be in the same detachment. That would break the whole system and make it possible to take literally ANY 40K unit and play them in the same army as any other unit. Nids with Necrons? Sure just give them the <Blank> keyword Obvious rules breakage is obvious
But when a Codex gives you SPECIFC keywords to use that come with rules and abilities that require that Keyword, and are also shared by another Codex that uses those SPECIFC keywords as well, it should be equally as obvious that those units share that same EXACT keyword.
What you guys are essentially saying is that detachments must be 100% from a single Codex. Units from other books cannot possibly share a keyword that isn't Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari or Ynnari. If that was the intention, than that is what the FAQ would say.
-
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 21:38:16
I am not talking about made up names and factions. I am talking about preexisting Faction names that confer specific rules and abilities.
Yes, I agree you cannot give a Space Marines unit Chapter <Blue Guys> and also give a Guard unit Regiment <Blue Guys> to game the system to allow them to be in the same detachment. That would break the whoel system and make it possible to take literally ANY 40K unit and play them in the same army as any other unit.
Nids with Necrons? Sure just give them the <Blank> keyword
Obvious rules breakage is obvious
But when a Codex gives you SPECIFC keywords to use that come with rules and abilities that require that Keyword, and are also shared by another Codex that uses those SPECIFC keywords as well, it should be equally as obvious that those units share that same EXACT keyword.
-
But they're not the exact same keyword. One is an <ALLEGIANCE>, the other is a <MARK OF CHAOS>. Honestly - I'd agree with you if GW had called them the same. But they didn't. They chose to call them differently, therefore they are.
What you guys are essentially saying is that detachments must be 100% from a single Codex. Units from other books cannot possibly share a keyword that isn't Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari or Ynnari. If that was the intention, than that is what the FAQ would say.
that's basically what they did, yes. I can't even run my Ordo Xenos Inquisitor with my Deathwatch. Again: It's Matched Play. The point of it is balance, not narrative.
But let me ask you a different question: What exactly do you think was the point of having Chaos on that list?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 21:48:13
2018/04/19 21:56:48
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
But from a balance perspective, taking Khorne Daemons in the same detachment as Khorne CSM denies the CSM from taking the Legion traits as the whole detachment cannot be <World Eaters> for example. And it would be neither a Heretic Astartes nor Daemons detachment, thus denying access to BOTH sets of stratagems So even before the FAQ, it benefitted the player to take them in separate detachments already.
Overall, I like the "Battle Brothers" change as it forces players to actually take HQs and Troops (or some kind of "Core") of a certain faction instead of just cherry picking the 1 unit you want. But Khorne Daemons and Khorne CSM ARE part of the same faction beyond just Chaos.
Playing it the way you guys are suggesting doesn't affect my army in the slightest bit. I just cannot believe this is the way it is "supposed" to be played. I have several friends that play "Mono-god" Chaos lists that now have to rely on the <god of choice> keyword to have a cohesive detachment. I guess they'll have to take at least 2 detachments to get both CSM and Daemons in the same army with all "tax" unit needed.
They were probably doing so already for the reasons I listed above, but with what you guys are saying, rules from the Daemon Codex that affect <Nurgle Daemons> cannot affect <Nurgle Daemons> from the CSM Codex. And that is just dumb.
Here's a question: Can <Daemon> still unify a detachment? I think I know the answer, but I don't have the CSM Codex. I know Daemons actually have <Daemons> as a Faction keyword, but what about CSM units like Warp Talons, Heldrakes, Maulerfiends, etc? Those units also have the <Daemon> keyword, although I don't think it is a Faction keyword.
-
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 22:02:04
Galef wrote: But from a balance perspective, taking Khorne Daemons in the same detachment as Khorne CSM denies the CSM from taking the Legion traits as the whole detachment cannot be <World Eaters> for example. And it would be neither a Heretic Astartes nor Daemons detachment, thus denying access to BOTH sets of stratagems
So even before the FAQ, it benefitted the player to take them in separate detachments already.
Overall, I like the "Battle Brothers" change as it forces players to actually take HQs and Troops (or some kind of "Core") of a certain faction instead of just cherry picking the 1 unit you want.
But Khorne Daemons and Khorne CSM ARE part of the same faction beyond just Chaos.
Playing it the way you guys are suggesting doesn't affect my army in the slightest bit. I just cannot believe this is the way it is "supposed" to be played.
I have several friends that play "Mono-god" Chaos lists that now have to rely on the <god of choice> keyword to have a cohesive detachment.
I guess they'll have to take at least 2 detachments to get both CSM and Daemons in the same army with all "tax" unit needed.
They were probably doing so already for the reasons I listed above, but with what you guys are saying, rules from the Daemon Codex that affect <Nurgle Daemons> cannot affect <Nurgle Daemons> from the CSM Codex. And that is just dumb.
Here's a question: Can <Daemon> still unify a detachment?
I think I know the answer, but I don't have the CSM Codex. I know Daemons actually have <Daemons> as a Faction keyword, but what about CSM units like Warp Talons, Heldrakes, Maulerfiends, etc?
Those units also have the <Daemon> keyword, although I don't think it is a Faction keyword.
-
Does this also imply that i.e. a Daemon Prince from the CSM book cannot have his aura benefit Chaos Daemons from the Daemons codex?
14000
15000
4000
2018/04/19 22:09:38
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
Galef wrote: But from a balance perspective, taking Khorne Daemons in the same detachment as Khorne CSM denies the CSM from taking the Legion traits as the whole detachment cannot be <World Eaters> for example. And it would be neither a Heretic Astartes nor Daemons detachment, thus denying access to BOTH sets of stratagems
So even before the FAQ, it benefitted the player to take them in separate detachments already.
Overall, I like the "Battle Brothers" change as it forces players to actually take HQs and Troops (or some kind of "Core") of a certain faction instead of just cherry picking the 1 unit you want.
But Khorne Daemons and Khorne CSM ARE part of the same faction beyond just Chaos.
Playing it the way you guys are suggesting doesn't affect my army in the slightest bit. I just cannot believe this is the way it is "supposed" to be played.
I have several friends that play "Mono-god" Chaos lists that now have to rely on the <god of choice> keyword to have a cohesive detachment.
I guess they'll have to take at least 2 detachments to get both CSM and Daemons in the same army with all "tax" unit needed.
They were probably doing so already for the reasons I listed above, but with what you guys are saying, rules from the Daemon Codex that affect <Nurgle Daemons> cannot affect <Nurgle Daemons> from the CSM Codex. And that is just dumb.
Here's a question: Can <Daemon> still unify a detachment?
I think I know the answer, but I don't have the CSM Codex. I know Daemons actually have <Daemons> as a Faction keyword, but what about CSM units like Warp Talons, Heldrakes, Maulerfiends, etc?
Those units also have the <Daemon> keyword, although I don't think it is a Faction keyword.
-
Does this also imply that i.e. a Daemon Prince from the CSM book cannot have his aura benefit Chaos Daemons from the Daemons codex?
Indeed that is what they are saying. Which I can only respond with "poppycock!"
Galef wrote: But from a balance perspective, taking Khorne Daemons in the same detachment as Khorne CSM denies the CSM from taking the Legion traits as the whole detachment cannot be <World Eaters> for example. And it would be neither a Heretic Astartes nor Daemons detachment, thus denying access to BOTH sets of stratagems
So even before the FAQ, it benefitted the player to take them in separate detachments already.
The same applies to all the other factions affected, doesn't it?
Overall, I like the "Battle Brothers" change as it forces players to actually take HQs and Troops (or some kind of "Core") of a certain faction instead of just cherry picking the 1 unit you want.
But Khorne Daemons and Khorne CSM ARE part of the same faction beyond just Chaos.
So are Ordo Malleus and Grey Knights, for example.
Playing it the way you guys are suggesting doesn't affect my army in the slightest bit. I just cannot believe this is the way it is "supposed" to be played.
I have several friends that play "Mono-god" Chaos lists that now have to rely on the <god of choice> keyword to have a cohesive detachment.
I guess they'll have to take at least 2 detachments to get both CSM and Daemons in the same army with all "tax" unit needed.
So it's OK for others to be forced to bring HQs and troops, but not for chaos armies? Why?
They were probably doing so already for the reasons I listed above, but with what you guys are saying, rules from the Daemon Codex that affect <Nurgle Daemons> cannot affect <Nurgle Daemons> from the CSM Codex. And that is just dumb.
Is it a variable keyword, or is it just NURGLE DAEMON?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 22:34:49
2018/04/19 22:46:41
Subject: Do <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF CHAOS> count for Battle Brothers?
14000
15000
4000