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.

Hey there, i've got inspired to make a khorne army, and i'm looking for including renegades as a detachment. The only problem is that their hq choises kinda sucks. So my question is that, can I build a detachment with hq from csm codex, and the rest from renegades?

No, it cannot, due to Special Snowflake FAQ. RaW you can, but Special Snowflake FAQ overrides the RaW (even I accept that). We've had this discussion before I shall try and find you the thread.

Edit: Here you go: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/757916.page

tl;dr: RaW: Yes. Special Snowflake FAQ: No. People (incorrectly) try to say the Special FAQ doesn't apply when it does. You're going to have to break up your detachments like everyone else. KHORNE is not the same as <MARK OF CHAOS>, even if you pick KHORNE for <MARK OF CHAOS>.

BCB is incorrect, as that FAQ doesn’t apply, as reasoned against him in that thread. That we shan’t reenact here.

KHORNE is KHORNE is KHORNE. You just lose any pure detachment benefits, as you’re not picking from one Codex.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
BCB is incorrect, as that FAQ doesn’t apply, as reasoned against him in that thread. That we shan’t reenact here.

KHORNE is KHORNE is KHORNE. You just lose any pure detachment benefits, as you’re not picking from one Codex.

So by that logic ULTRAMARINES is ULTRAMARINES, and I can make my Leman Russes reroll hits and wounds thanks to Towboat Girlyman?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, it cannot, due to Special Snowflake FAQ. RaW you can, but Special Snowflake FAQ overrides the RaW (even I accept that). We've had this discussion before I shall try and find you the thread.

Edit: Here you go: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/757916.page

tl;dr: RaW: Yes. Special Snowflake FAQ: No. People (incorrectly) try to say the Special FAQ doesn't apply when it does. You're going to have to break up your detachments like everyone else. KHORNE is not the same as <MARK OF CHAOS>, even if you pick KHORNE for <MARK OF CHAOS>.

What's a "Special Snowflake FAQ"?

Your answer is confusing. The response the OP is looking for is "no".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
BCB is incorrect, as that FAQ doesn’t apply, as reasoned against him in that thread. That we shan’t reenact here.

KHORNE is KHORNE is KHORNE. You just lose any pure detachment benefits, as you’re not picking from one Codex.

So by that logic ULTRAMARINES is ULTRAMARINES, and I can make my Leman Russes reroll hits and wounds thanks to Towboat Girlyman?

Oh so you’re trying to reenact it with bonus fallacies. No thanks. Not biting.

Edit: that last thread was already repetitious...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
BCB is incorrect, as that FAQ doesn’t apply, as reasoned against him in that thread. That we shan’t reenact here.

KHORNE is KHORNE is KHORNE. You just lose any pure detachment benefits, as you’re not picking from one Codex.

So by that logic ULTRAMARINES is ULTRAMARINES, and I can make my Leman Russes reroll hits and wounds thanks to Towboat Girlyman?

Oh so you’re trying to reenact it with bonus fallacies. No thanks. Not biting.

Edit: that last thread was already repetitious...

It's only repetitious because people argue what the want the rules to be, not what they are. The RaW is explicitly clear, as is the FAQ that ignores RaW.

It’s funny how you’re somehow interpreting “don’t make up unintended synergies by making a Chapter a Regiment” as “you can’t pick the same predefined thing from a finite set list of options and make it mean the same thing even though it’s the same thing” and claiming I’m playing “how I wish the rules were written”.

 Spreelock wrote:
Hey there, i've got inspired to make a khorne army, and i'm looking for including renegades as a detachment. The only problem is that their hq choises kinda sucks. So my question is that, can I build a detachment with hq from csm codex, and the rest from renegades?

The answer wasn't given in the recent Big FAQ. There are two main arguments, so discuss with your opponents and a TO beforehand. I've had the TO side in my favour on this one, and no one I've brought the list against (which uses Nurgle for the keyword, by bringing both Mortarion and Poxbringers in a Nurgle Daemon Supreme Command detachment) has had any issue with it.

Argument 1: "KHORNE"="KHORNE, regardless of what gives it KHORNE." The codexes give you the option to replace the <<Mark of Chaos>> or the <<Allegiance>> faction keywords with some specific choices, of which KHORNE is one of them. Once switched to KHORNE, you have the KHORNE keyword for all intents and purposes, including creating detachments from multiple different codexes. You're normally allowed to replace things like <<Chapter>> with your own creation, so you can't name both your Space Marines ULTRAMARINES and your Astra Militarum Regiment ULTRAMARINES in order to have them both benefiting each other (you can find that FAQ on GW's FAQ page), but you can do this with <<Mark of Chaos>> and <<Allegiance>>, because both don't give you an option of what to name them (you can't make up your own), and both specifically replace it with the same name.

Argument 2: "KHORNE =/= KHORNE, since their sources are different." When you have something like KHORNE on your datasheet, it's not really KHORNE, but <<Mark of Chaos>> or <<Allegiance>>, which you replace with KHORNE later. Many Chaos Daemon or Heretic Astartes units that already have the KHORNE faction keyword actually have the <<Mark of Chaos>> keyword with the keyword replaced already, but it's still technically <<Mark of Chaos>> or <<Allegiance>>, as per whichever codex it appears from. Note, this means that which you can include Daemons from the Heretic Astartes codex in your list (because their KHORNE is a <<Mark of Chaose>>, and not an <<Allegiance>&gt, as that's the codex it's coming from, and not from the Daemons codex.



Tried to do that as fairly as possible between both arguments. Personally, I believe Argument 1 is correct, since it requires the fewer hoops to jump through, and doesn't require the suspension of disbelief that KHORNE =/= KHORNE.

Instead of regurgitating this debate, just know that you are unlikely to find anyone else besides BCB willfully misinterpreting a FAQ to tell you that you can not use KHORNE or any of the other Chaos Gods as a keyword for your detachment.

Whoa, ok then. I'll probably check that rules again.. take it easy fellows..

This is one of BCB's favourite bad-faith arguments - no surprise to see him charging in like that.

KHORNE is KHORNE, whether taken as <ALLEGIANCE>, <MARK OF CHAOS>, or as a default faction keyword, and you are able to take a detachment with KHORNE as the faction keyword.

You will, however, lose out on certain detachment bonuses for doing that.

Aelyn wrote:
This is one of BCB's favourite bad-faith arguments - no surprise to see him charging in like that.

KHORNE is KHORNE, whether taken as <ALLEGIANCE>, <MARK OF CHAOS>, or as a default faction keyword, and you are able to take a detachment with KHORNE as the faction keyword.

You will, however, lose out on certain detachment bonuses for doing that.

ULTRAMARINES is ULTRAMARINES , whether taken as <CHAPTER>, <REGIMENT>, or as a default faction keyword, and you are able to take a detachment with ULTRAMARINES as the faction keyword.

This is indeed the case RaW, however the Designers Commentary forbids both cases.

"Bad-faith" doesn't mean "An argument I don't like" or "overly pedantic". It means they're attempting to subvert the argument.

Being overly pedantic to subvert the argument is "bad faith", but being overly pedantic in an attempt to further the argument is not trying to subvert it. It's in "good faith".

BCB is being "overly pedantic", and has a reputation for that. But as long as he's attempting to further the argument, he's acting in good faith.

What's really happening is that you and he (in the general sense) are arguing different things. What he's arguing is a very valid more pedantic viewpoint.

So reference his viewpoints as 'overly pedantic' or 'tautological' or 'devoid of <whatever>'. But it's either inaccurate or in bad faith to claim his arguments are in 'bad faith'.

(I believe this post is at the correct level of pedantry. You can disagree, of course.)

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
This is one of BCB's favourite bad-faith arguments - no surprise to see him charging in like that.

KHORNE is KHORNE, whether taken as <ALLEGIANCE>, <MARK OF CHAOS>, or as a default faction keyword, and you are able to take a detachment with KHORNE as the faction keyword.

You will, however, lose out on certain detachment bonuses for doing that.

ULTRAMARINES is ULTRAMARINES , whether taken as <CHAPTER>, <REGIMENT>, or as a default faction keyword, and you are able to take a detachment with ULTRAMARINES as the faction keyword.

This is indeed the case RaW, however the Designers Commentary forbids both cases.

ULTRAMARINES is not explicitly listed as an option for <REGIMENT>, so you would need to make it up as your own regiment to gain a bonus from an Astartes unit such as Guilliman. This is banned by the Designer's Commentary.

The DC, however, only bans making up your own options to benefit in this way. It says nothing about taking the same legal choice from two predefined lists.

That's the difference.

Bharring wrote:
"Bad-faith" doesn't mean "An argument I don't like" or "overly pedantic". It means they're attempting to subvert the argument...

I am aware. It's not bad-faith because I disagree; it's bad-faith because BCB has never (in all the threads I've seen, around four or five by this point I think) acknowledged the whole "made up yourself" part of the DC, despite this being pointed out to him multiple times. Instead he just shouts the same thing louder. That means he's not interested in debating, and that's why it's a bad-faith argument.

EDIT: If he has addressed this in the past, than I retract the bad-faith comment. I still disagree, but would be happy to debate this.

Aelyn wrote:
ULTRAMARINES is not explicitly listed as an option for <REGIMENT>, so you would need to make it up as your own regiment to gain a bonus from an Astartes unit such as Guilliman. This is banned by the Designer's Commentary.

The DC, however, only bans making up your own options to benefit in this way. It says nothing about taking the same legal choice from two predefined lists.

That's the difference.

And if that was all it said, I would whole heartedly agree with you. However, you're intentionally omitting the final line of the FAQ.

It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

Setting <MARK OF CHAOS> to KHORNE and <ALLEGIANCE> to KHORNE so you can have one detachment like the OP is saying is, by definition, attempting to "circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment."

It says "also", which means this is in addition to the previous sentences.

Do I think it's stupid? Of course I do. GW should write their rules properly. But if we're going to be ignoring RaW with FAQs, we have to do it for all FAQs, not just the ones we like.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And if that was all it said, I would whole heartedly agree with you. However, you're intentionally omitting the final line of the FAQ.

It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

Setting <MARK OF CHAOS> to KHORNE and <ALLEGIANCE> to KHORNE so you can have one detachment like the OP is saying is, by definition, attempting to "circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment."

It says "also", which means this is in addition to the previous sentences.

That line you've quoted is still in response to the question about making up your own regiment. It applies in that context. Not in the context of selecting something from a predefined list. Or are you arguing that, by the same logic, you can't take Guilliman in a <CHAPTER>: ULTRAMARINES detachment?

Designer's Commentary wrote: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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
ULTRAMARINES is not explicitly listed as an option for <REGIMENT>, so you would need to make it up as your own regiment to gain a bonus from an Astartes unit such as Guilliman. This is banned by the Designer's Commentary.

The DC, however, only bans making up your own options to benefit in this way. It says nothing about taking the same legal choice from two predefined lists.

That's the difference.

And if that was all it said, I would whole heartedly agree with you. However, you're intentionally omitting the final line of the FAQ.

It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

Setting <MARK OF CHAOS> to KHORNE and <ALLEGIANCE> to KHORNE so you can have one detachment like the OP is saying is, by definition, attempting to "circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment."

It says "also", which means this is in addition to the previous sentences.

Do I think it's stupid? Of course I do. GW should write their rules properly. But if we're going to be ignoring RaW with FAQs, we have to do it for all FAQs, not just the ones we like.

Does the Death Guard Codex differentiate between MARK OF CHAOS: NURGLE and ALLEGIANCE: NURGLE on its datasheets, or does it say only NURGLE (as well as DEATH GUARD)?

Hey Spreelock, dont take rule bickering so hard, with Khorne you are gonna get shot to pieces anyway, do as you please and lean to the side you feel is best representing your army.

Ugh, haven't we already had two threads that have proven BCB wrong on this?

It boils down to this
1) BCB missunderstands the designer commentary on purpose to have an argument in the first place. The documents simply disallows replacing the <REGIMENT> placeholder with ULTRAMARINE keyword. You simply cannot do that. Period.
2) The second FAQ only applies when quote "naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation". You have no permission to name new chaos gods of your own creation, you must pick them from a list provided in each codex. RAW the designer commentary does not apply to Allegiances, Marks of Chaos or whatever TS and DG have.
3) If you assume that NURGLE != NURGLE, this contradicts FAQs that explicitly tell us that units from Codex: Death Guard are valid targets for things that look for NURGLE units, both from Codex: CSM and Codex: Chaos Daemons.

Therefore KHORNE == KHORNE.

BCB is aware of this because he bails from threads whenever this is brought up and yet brings it up back again whenever the next person asks. I really think mods should not tolerate this intentional misleading of people who are seeking honest rules advice.

 Jidmah wrote:
Ugh, haven't we already had two threads that have proven BCB wrong on this?

It boils down to this
1) BCB missunderstands the designer commentary on purpose to have an argument in the first place. The documents simply disallows replacing the <REGIMENT> placeholder with ULTRAMARINE keyword. You simply cannot do that. Period.
2) The second FAQ only applies when quote "naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation". You have no permission to name new chaos gods of your own creation, you must pick them from a list provided in each codex. RAW the designer commentary does not apply to Allegiances, Marks of Chaos or whatever TS and DG have.
3) If you assume that NURGLE != NURGLE, this contradicts FAQs that explicitly tell us that units from Codex: Death Guard are valid targets for things that look for NURGLE units, both from Codex: CSM and Codex: Chaos Daemons.

Therefore KHORNE == KHORNE.

BCB is aware of this because he bails from threads whenever this is brought up and yet brings it up back again whenever the next person asks. I really think mods should not tolerate this intentional misleading of people who are seeking honest rules advice.

And again, you've conveniently committed the final sentence of the FAQ.

This would appear to have been answered, and the previous discussion linked, so I think we can move on.