AoS 2 - Disciples of Tzeentch Discussion

[Grimrock]

2 hours ago, angrycontra said:

Shield of fate spell (5+ ward) can be used on tzeentch units, not just disciples of tzeentch. Gaunt summoners can deepstrike them and lord of change/kairos hands out +1 cast to all tzeentch wizards.

Unfortunately the way the Marks of Chaos rule is written currently  in the upcoming slaves to darkness book units only get marks when taken in a slaves to darkness army. It says:

... When you pick a Slaves to Darkness unit that has the Mark of Chaos keyword to be a part of a Slaves to Darkness army, you must give it one of the following keywords: Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Slaanesh or Undivided and write it down on your roster. 

Not impossible that they FAQ it and change the wording later, but as it stands now slaves units brought into Tzeentch (or any other got marked army for that matter) will get precisely nothing. Might still be worth it as chaos warriors, chosen, and knights are all significantly better than they were before, but it'll be a tough call for sure.
 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Grimrock

[Sinfullyvannila]

31 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Unfortunately the way the Marks of Chaos rule is written currently slaves to darkness units only get marks when taken in a slaves to darkness army. It says:

... When you pick a Slaves to Darkness unit that has the Mark of Chaos keyword to be a part of a Slaves to Darkness army, you must give it one of the following keywords: Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Slaanesh or Undivided and write it down on your roster. 

Not impossible that they FAQ it and change the wording later, but as it stands now slaves units brought into Tzeentch (or any other got marked army for that matter) will get precisely nothing. Might still be worth it as chaos warriors, chosen, and knights are all significantly better than they were before, but it'll be a tough call for sure.
 

Our coalition rules are written quite clearly to give them(exclusively) the Tzeentch keyword when taken as Coalition units in a DoT army. It's on page 65.

What it says in the Slaves to Darkness Army rules is 0% relevant. The only thing that matters is if it has the Mark of Chaos keyword in its warscroll.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sinfullyvannila

[Nightseer2012]

I was under the impression that Legions of Chaos in DoT gave StD units with Mark of Chaos the Tzeentch keyword itself.

[Grimrock]

17 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:

Our coalition rules are written quite clearly to give them(exclusively) the Tzeentch keyword when taken as Coalition units in a DoT army.

The rule in the Tzeentch book currently says:

2 in every 4 units in the army can be a coalition unit from the Slaves to Darkness faction that has the Mark of Chaos keyword. Those units must be given the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword. 

That works with the current rules for Marks of Chaos because they're written on each individual warscroll and aren't reliant on being taken in a given allegiance, the keyword is assigned at list creation step regardless of what army you're playing. In the new book they dropped all the warscroll rules and moved it to an allegiance ability specifically for the S2D faction. Once the new S2D book releases the current rules for S2D coalition units won't be valid anymore due to the conflict of being forced to take something that is impossible to take. If they want to give S2D units the relevant marks in the different god marked books (which is pretty likely honestly) they'll either have to fix the coalition rules in the god marked books and make an exception, or change the rules in the S2D book to add a clause for giving marks when they're taken as coalition units.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Grimrock

[Sinfullyvannila]

26 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

The rule in the Tzeentch book currently says:

2 in every 4 units in the army can be a coalition unit from the Slaves to Darkness faction that has the Mark of Chaos keyword. Those units must be given the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword. 

That works with the current rules for Marks of Chaos because they're written on each individual warscroll and aren't reliant on being taken in a given allegiance, the keyword is assigned at list creation step regardless of what army you're playing. In the new book they dropped all the warscroll rules and moved it to an allegiance ability specifically for the S2D faction. Once the new S2D book releases the current rules for S2D coalition units won't be valid anymore due to the conflict of being forced to take something that is impossible to take. If they want to give S2D units the relevant marks in the different god marked books (which is pretty likely honestly) they'll either have to fix the coalition rules in the god marked books and make an exception, or change the rules in the S2D book to add a clause for giving marks when they're taken as coalition units.

The units in the new book still have the Slaves to Darkness and Mark of Chaos keywords listed in their keywords section on their warscrolls. Thats and the units having an entry on the Slaves to Darkness pitched battler profile are all that matters.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sinfullyvannila

[Grimrock]

10 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:

The units in the new book still have the Slaves to Darkness and Mark of Chaos keywords listed in their keywords section on their warscrolls. Thats all that matters.

I'd disagree because the Mark of Chaos keyword won't do anything outside of the S2D allegiance. The current coalition rule doesn't grant the Tzeentch keyword, it stipulates how the current Mark of Chaos rule on the warscroll must be used if the units are taken in a Tzeentch army. It says they must be given the keyword, but the mechanism for giving keywords outside a S2D army won't exist. Maybe it's just me being picky on wording, but if they changed the Tzeentch rule to something like 'Slaves to darkness units taken as a coalition unit in a Disciples of Tzeentch army are given the Tzeentch keyword' then it would work properly.

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Grimrock

[Sinfullyvannila]

12 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

I'd disagree because the Mark of Chaos keyword won't do anything outside of the S2D allegiance. The current coalition rule doesn't grant the Tzeentch keyword, it stipulates how the current Mark of Chaos rule on the warscroll must be used if the units are taken in a Tzeentch army. It says they must be given the keyword, but the mechanism for giving keywords outside a S2D army won't exist. Maybe it's just me being picky on wording, but if they changed the Tzeentch rule to something like 'Slaves to darkness units taken as a coalition in a Disciples of Tzeentch army are given the Tzeentch keyword' then it would work properly.

 

Its absolutely you being picky about wording because the mechanism for giving the keyword is very clearly included on page 65 of our Battletome.

"...must be given the **Tzeentch** mark of chaos keyword"

The must is coercive/compelling. It means that its is given regardless of any other options that are normally considered.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sinfullyvannila

[Grimrock]

Just now, Sinfullyvannila said:

Its absolutely you being picky about wording because the mechanism for giving the keyword is very clearly included on page 65 of our Battletome.

Last post from me on this. From my reading the current rule in the Tzeentch book doesn't grant the keyword, it makes a requirement that the unit must have the keyword in order for it to be included in the army. Those are two very different things. Units aren't included in the army arbitrarily, they are only included if they can meet the requirements laid out in the coalition rules. If it says they must be given a keyword but there is no way to give them that keyword then they don't just magically get the keyword. It's just like any other rule that stipulates a requirement, if the requirement can't be met you don't just get to do it anyway. 

 

[Sinfullyvannila]

9 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Last post from me on this. From my reading the current rule in the Tzeentch book doesn't grant the keyword, it makes a requirement that the unit must have the keyword in order for it to be included in the army. Those are two very different things. Units aren't included in the army arbitrarily, they are only included if they can meet the requirements laid out in the coalition rules. If it says they must be given a keyword but there is no way to give them that keyword then they don't just magically get the keyword. It's just like any other rule that stipulates a requirement, if the requirement can't be met you don't just get to do it anyway. 

 

Can you give me 3 examples of rules written under conditions of your last sentence?

This simply isn't how interpretation is practiced. If there are multiple linguistic interpretations and only one of them precludes the rules from ever functioning, you use an interpretation that only precludes it from functioning in certain cases.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sinfullyvannila

[Grimrock]

20 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:

Can you give me 3 examples of rules written under conditions of your last sentence?

I'm not going to waste a ton of time digging up 3 rules for you, but I'll give you one simple one. Shooting a unit with ranged attacks. In the core rules you pick a unit in section 13.1. Then in 13.1.1 the first line of the second paragraph says:

The target of a shooting attack must be within a number of inches of the attacking model equal to the Range characteristic.

You don't pick up the target unit and put them into range of your ranged attack. The target doesn't magically change to be in range of the unit because the rule says they must be in range. The rule is saying they must be in range in order to proceed with the attack. Same thing with the coalition rules. There the rule is saying that the unit must be given the Tzeentch keyword, not that they are given the keyword. If they aren't given the keyword then you don't get to take them in your list using the coalition rules.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Grimrock

[Sinfullyvannila]

10 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

I'm not going to waste a ton of time digging up 3 rules for you, but I'll give you one simple one. Shooting a unit with ranged attacks. In the core rules you pick a unit in section 13.1. Then in 13.1.1 the first line of the second paragraph says:

The target of a shooting attack must be within a number of inches of the attacking model equal to the Range characteristic.

You don't pick up the target unit and put them into range of your ranged attack. The unit doesn't magically change to be in range of the unit because the rule says they must be in range. The rule is saying they must be in range in order to proceed with the attack. Same thing with the coalition rules. There the rule is saying that the unit must be given the Tzeentch keyword, not that they are given the keyword. If they aren't given the keyword then you don't get to take them in your list using the coalition rules.

 

 

The rule doesn't say "pick a unit, the unit must be made a target within the shooting range". Must is used qualitatively here.

"Must" can be used qualitatively or coercively. Like I said, if a rule exists and the language allows it to be completely non functional or functional depending on linguist factors, you pick the interpretation where it functions. Rules exist to function.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sinfullyvannila

[Sinfullyvannila]

And I will also give you an example of "must" used coercively in-game.

The Bray-Shaman's Devolve states:

"Your opponent must move..."

Even though you can't reference rules that explicitly cover this movement, your opponent is compelled to do it.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Sinfullyvannila

[Oreaper84]

wait why are we arguing about S2D rules?....I mean they wouldn't be in the effing book if you couldn't include them. Archy already has the warmaster ability so he doesn't need a clarification...and he's the only innate tzeentch model in S2D. I think its a bit of an asinine argument to try and make that they cant be used in the new disciples book...right?!? Am I being obtuse or does anyone else see this as a non-argument? Can we move on to some better content, like why host arcanum screamers are the best summon in the book?

[Halkbat]

Why specifically host arcanum summons vs regular screamer summons?

[Sinfullyvannila]

2 hours ago, Oreaper84 said:

wait why are we arguing about S2D rules?....I mean they wouldn't be in the effing book if you couldn't include them. Archy already has the warmaster ability so he doesn't need a clarification...and he's the only innate tzeentch model in S2D. I think its a bit of an asinine argument to try and make that they cant be used in the new disciples book...right?!? Am I being obtuse or does anyone else see this as a non-argument? Can we move on to some better content, like why host arcanum screamers are the best summon in the book?

It seems like the other guy is the only one who thinks it's an argument.

But Blue or Pink Horrors in Conflagration are better summons.

[Duke of Mousillon]

To be fair I do understand him. I would personally also prefer different wording on the ability because the mark of chaos keyword is now an allegiance ability of STD and normally allegiance abilities only work in the army that owns them. That being said. They will clarify and faq that as soon as it comes out. No doubt.

I think we are also waiting for something similar (not quie the same) with the Lord of Change/Blue Scribes. When other armies ally the Blue Scribes. They theoretically know the entire spell lores says their warscroll ability but that spell lore is part of our allegiance ability. So do they get access to the spell lore if he is allied into another army? Theoretically not. Same with the Chaos Mark. Because it specifically says to give them the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword. But any Mark of Chaos keyword is now an STD allegiance ability. 

The chaos mark one though is more obviously just awkward wording. They clearly intend for us to use STD and have them given the Tzeentch keyword. The Lord of Change spell lore one I could actually see them go either way there in the faq. 

@Halkbatbecause they are veterans inside Host Arcanum. I think even the summoned ones if I am not mistaking. But I also think Blue horrors will stay the one of if not the best and most frequent summon. With or without Eternal Conflagration. 

[Beliman]

I'm going to side with the group that allows people to still mark their units when they are coalition units:

Quote

- 2 in every 4 units in the army can be a coalition unit from the Slaves to Darkness faction that has the Mark of Chaos keyword. Those units must be given the XXXXXXX Mark of Chaos keyword.

To me, this Errata is all about using coalition units with a corresponding keyword. Of course they can't use any buffs from the Slaves to Darkness buffs, but they should get their kewyord.

[Duke of Mousillon]

Ofcourse it is intended to give us units and give those units the tzeentch keyword. Thats why I am convinced that it will be a FAQ as soon as their new book drops. Nevertheless to play a bit more devils advocat here and so old Grimrock is not cornered alone. 

Imagine it like this. And be a bit pragmatic here. More like a computer algorithm that tries to apply our rules. All rules our army knows is written in our book, the core rules or on warscrolls. Now we try applying our Coalition rule as it is written right now and with the soon coming new STD rules.

1) Two of every four units can be STD with the Mark of Chaos keyword.

Ok. I take one Chaos Knights unit. Great. It has the Mark of Chaos keyword. No problem.

2) Those units must be given the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword.

Error. I do not know what a Mark of Chaos keyword is. Nowhere in the rules I am allowed to use or on the warscrolls it is explained what a Mark of Chaos keyword is.

I know what a Tzeentch keyword is. I could give it that but that is not what the rule asks for. The following Beasts of Chaos coalition rule asks for a normal keyword. Not this one. This one wants a Mark of Chaos keyword.

I know what a Mark of Chaos keyword is. But that is not what the rule asks for. What is a Mark of Chaos keyword (emphasise on this not being bold). In particular, what is then the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos Keyword. I dont know. My books and warscrolls don't tell me. I cannot follow this instruction.

End of thought experiment. As said I am playing the devils advocat here. We all can agree that it is intended to just give the STD coalition units the Tzeentch keyword and be done with it. But I hope this was able to explain the criticism in the phrasing of the rules as they are right now for us and will be for STD. And we know why this problem exists. Because our coalition rule was written with the old (or now available) STD rules in mind. Where our Coalition units had the Mark of Chaos ability written on their warscroll. This phrasing was and still is necessary to stop the Chaos Knights unit from getting the Khorne keyword in a tzeentch army. We cannot just give tjem the Tzeentch keyword. We needed to stop them from choosing anything else with their ability. For the new and upcoming STD book the phrasing like in the Beasts of Chaos coalition rule would be more adequat for the second half.

[Sinfullyvannila]

I understand the argument and agree it could have been better worded but the rule should still be valid as self-inclusive and a faq is unnecessary simply because a rule is never intended to be 100% unfunctional and is a valid read in conversational English. No TO or judge would ever forbid you from including Chaos Knights with the Tzeentch, although I could see some WAAC players insisting on the on it. And if they do you should not validate them by continuing to participate.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Sinfullyvannila

[Duke of Mousillon]

The point is not if you could include the unit. You can even under rules as written. It is about the included unit not getting the Tzeentch keyword. That is what rules as written could be problematic. Which would make ex. Shield of Fate unusable on them. That needs a FAQ. 

[Sinfullyvannila]

4 minutes ago, Duke of Mousillon said:

The point is not if you could include the unit. You can even under rules as written. It is about the included unit not getting the Tzeentch keyword. That is what rules as written could be problematic. Which would make ex. Shield of Fate unusable on them. That needs a FAQ. 

"TZEENTCH" and "TZEENTCH Mark of Chaos keyword" would function identically in our army, because as per 1.3.2 in the CRB, Keywords appear in Keyword Bold. So the default font "Mark of Chaos keyword" is not bestowed upon the Keyword entry.

[Duke of Mousillon]

 

29 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:

would function identically in our army,

And here I have to disagree. In this moment you assume they would function identically. I will stay on the pragmatic level of rules here to stay true to my argumentation. 

"Keyword" is not the same as "Mark of Chaos keyword". What comes behind the "Tzeentch" matters. "Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword" is inherently different from a "Tzeentch keyword". How? Well we don't know the difference because we do not know what a Mark of Chaos keyword is. Nowhere in our rules is defined what this is. Therefor we must assume that it is different because it is not the same phrase. We only know the attributes of one not the other. So by that we must assume that both are not equal until proven otherwise because of their inherenr nature of being named differently. 

Now you might say well keyword is keyword what does it matter. As long as it is written bold we know that it refers to the keyword. Well let me ask you this. Let us assume right now the rule would be written as

"Those units must be given the Tzeentch keyword."

Ok. We know what to do. What if the rule said 

"Those units must be given the Tzeentch unit."

Wait. That makes no sense you say now. It makes no sense. Because we cannot give a unit a unit. And I agree! It makes no sense. Because "Tzeench unit" is no keyword. This phrase represents a unit with the Tzeentch keyword. Not the keyword itself. It only refers to the keyword written in bold.

Oh. So. It does matter what is written behind the keyword written in bold. Does it not? Yes. The Tzeentch in "Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword" refers to a keyword. But the whole phrase does not inherently represent just the keyword. Just like in the example above the used phrase with units does not represent the keyword. It only refers to the keyword.  "Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword" just refers to the keyword. But we do not know the definition of the phrase because it is nowhere in the rules we have access to.

By just assuming that the phrase "Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword" is equivalent to "Tzeentch keyword" without knowing the definition of both, you are guilty of an assumption that has no basis in the rules. That is why I cannot agree to your argumentation. We cannot use phrases without them being defined.

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Duke of Mousillon said:

Imagine it like this. And be a bit pragmatic here. More like a computer algorithm that tries to apply our rules. All rules our army knows is written in our book, the core rules or on warscrolls. Now we try applying our Coalition rule as it is written right now and with the soon coming new STD rules.

1) Two of every four units can be STD with the Mark of Chaos keyword.

Ok. I take one Chaos Knights unit. Great. It has the Mark of Chaos keyword. No problem.

2) Those units must be given the Tzeentch Mark of Chaos keyword.

Error. I do not know what a Mark of Chaos keyword is. Nowhere in the rules I am allowed to use or on the warscrolls it is explained what a Mark of Chaos keyword is.

Welcome to my Kharadron world!

1. Core rules says that we can leave a garrison at the end of the movement phase
2. My little stunties can leave before the ships move (or Fly High).
3. Error, if my ship moves, my units can't go down at the end of the movement phase, but not only that, but they can leave the ship before the End of the movement phase because...reasons!

Yep, we needed a FAQ, and we only had to wait 16 months to PLAY our army as GW intended to be played.

What I'm trying to say is good luck!! But at least to me, it's clear how this rule works!

[Sinfullyvannila]

18 minutes ago, Duke of Mousillon said:

. It does matter what is written behind the keyword written in bold

Only inasmuch as its gives context to the rule, in this case that it's referring to a keyword. I already have the basis for the rule in the previous one. Unbolded text is never intrinsically part of the keyword. There is no precedent for it as far as im aware. To call that an assumption rather than a judgement would be a disservice. And fortunately, judges are humans rather than computers and can make connections between abstract concepts through context without completely relying on hard definitions.

[Sinfullyvannila]

8 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Welcome to my Kharadron world!

1. Core rules says that we can leave a garrison at the end of the movement phase
2. My little stunties can leave before the ships move (or Fly High).
3. Error, if my ship moves, my units can't go down at the end of the movement phase, but not only that, but they can leave the ship before the End of the movement phase because...reasons!

Yep, we needed a FAQ, and we only had to wait 16 months to PLAY our army as GW intended to be played.

What I'm trying to say is good luck!! But at least to me, it's clear how this rule works!

Unless you're leaving something out unintentionally its crazy that ever got arbitrated as a rules conflict because there's are only permissions in both rules AND regardless of that the language for the CRB does not seem to be inviolate so the specific should overrule the general.