black heart spearhear and black heart battalion

If you have a black heart spearhead and a black heart batalion, does the archons can buff units of both detachments?

Yes, But if one was Black Heart and the other was Fisher Cats which is your lesser known Kabal that utilizes the Black Heart Obsession they are not the same.

amorrowlyday wrote:

Yes, But if one was Black Heart and the other was Fisher Cats which is your lesser known Kabal that utilizes the Black Heart Obsession they are not the same.

then why even say that they are a different kabal? thats why this rule is stupid and no one should be lamyering that they cant buff eachother:
A:"this is a black heart detachment, and this is a very black heart detachment using the black heart obsession"
B:" allright but they dont buff eachother because akchually their keywords are diffrent
A:" well then both are a black heart detachment"
B" *dead shocked pikachu meme*

amorrowlyday wrote:

Yes, But if one was Black Heart and the other was Fisher Cats which is your lesser known Kabal that utilizes the Black Heart Obsession they are not the same.

Thats not quite how it works.
The only way to use the Black heart Obsession is to change your <KABAL> to <BLACK HEART> and be, for all intents and purposes, <BLACK HEART>.
If you are calling them something else, its irrelevant. If by the rules you have a Detachment you are using as <BLACK HEART>, and a second Detachment you are also using ads <BLACK HEART>, then under the rules they are both <BLACK HEART>, and they can effect each other with auras' etc.

If you call your Kabal something else, and purposefully label it as <SOMETHING ELSE>, then it can't use the Black Heart Obsession at all. Because its not <BLACK HEART>.

@Squidmaster that is false. Please see the Obsessions page were it explicitly tells you what to do if your Kabal/Cult/Coven of choice is not one of the 10 provided choices.

"If you have chosen a Kabal, Wych Cult, or Haemonculus Coven that does not feature on these lists you may choose the Kabal, Wych Cult, or Haemonculus Coven Obsession (respectively) that best suits the fighting styles and battlefield strategies of the warriors that hail from it."

That doesn't say <Something Else> becomes <Black Heart>, it says pick an obsession and associate those rules with <Something Else> and nothing about that provides for <Something Else> to interact with true <Black Heart>.

amorrowlyday wrote:

@Squidmaster that is false. Please see the Obsessions page were it explicitly tells you what to do if your Kabal/Cult/Coven of choice is not one of the 10 provided choices.

"If you have chosen a Kabal, Wych Cult, or Haemonculus Coven that does not feature on these lists you may choose the Kabal, Wych Cult, or Haemonculus Coven Obsession (respectively) that best suits the fighting styles and battlefield strategies of the warriors that hail from it."

That doesn't say <Something Else> becomes <Black Heart>, it says pick an obsession and associate those rules with <Something Else> and nothing about that provides for <Something Else> to interact with true <Black Heart>.

so youre saying that <kabal> becomes <black heart> if i say its black heart, and "dark heart" becomes <black heart> respectively, but it isnt the same thing?

No. I’m saying you have 1 detachment that is <black heart> and 1 detachment is <dark heart> and you are free to chose that <dark heart> has the same obsession rules as <black heart> But <dark heart> Will not have access to <black heart> relics, strategems, or warlord traits, and will not share auras with <black heart > members.

Or you could just take 2 <black heart> detachments and ignore the entire situation.

amorrowlyday wrote:

No. I’m saying you have 1 detachment that is <black heart> and 1 detachment is <dark heart> and you are free to chose that <dark heart> has the same obsession rules  as <black heart>  But <dark heart> Will not have access to <black heart> relics, strategems, or warlord traits, and will not share auras with <black heart > members.

I guarantee you that *no one* plays it like this... for any army.

They may be 'Kabal of the Beige Heart', but, for all intents and purposes they're <black heart>. No one is going to call you out on it, because I'm sure that their custom regiment/klan/forgeworld is set up in the same way.

Wouldn't that sort of thing only come up in a situation like Blood Angels Vs Flesh Tearers? Which isn't really what is happening as there is no Fisher Cats relic, unit, trait etc even as a sub faction of Black Heart Kabal. But I get where you're coming from.

Gizamaluke wrote:

Wouldn't that sort of thing only come up in a situation like Blood Angels Vs Flesh Tearers? Which isn't really what is happening as there is no Fisher Cats relic, unit, trait etc even as a sub faction of Black Heart Kabal. But I get where you're coming from.

Not precisely. The wording for representing successor chapters is slightly different from the rules regarding subfactions in other codices, at least in some respects. It still doesn't prevent someone from painting up some purple dark angels and having their own purple version of Azrael, and including dark angels relics and such.

successor chapters are a whole different cattle of fish, rules as written dark angels and blood angels successor chapters couldnt even use their psycic powers because you only substitute the <dark angels> on all datasheets with the successor name, yet psychic powers (relics too) are not datasheets and only affect <dark angels> models

amorrowlyday wrote:

@Squidmaster that is false. Please see the Obsessions page were it explicitly tells you what to do if your Kabal/Cult/Coven of choice is not one of the 10 provided choices.

"If you have chosen a Kabal, Wych Cult, or Haemonculus Coven that does not feature on these lists you may choose the Kabal, Wych Cult, or Haemonculus Coven Obsession (respectively) that best suits the fighting styles and battlefield strategies of the warriors that hail from it."

That doesn't say <Something Else> becomes <Black Heart>, it says pick an obsession and associate those rules with <Something Else> and nothing about that provides for <Something Else> to interact with true <Black Heart>.

Actually, its NOT.

Yes, you can sday <SOMETHING> counts as something else, but that does NOT mean that you can take <X> <Y> and <FLARGLE>, and say they all count as Black Heart.
If you are using the rules for Black Heart to represent another Kabal, which you can, then EVERYTHING in your army must be <BLACK HEART> to represent which Kabal you're using.
You can't call different Detachments different Factions. You have to call them the same <FACTION> and make it clear which Obsession you're using,.

If you have an army which has <TEEN TITANS> and <BLACK HEART>, you have made a distinction between two Factions. If you want to say that <TEEN TITANS> are using the rules Black Heart, then under the rules they have to use ALL of the rules as Faction <BLACK HEART>. They are listed in your army as <BLACK HEART> even if you're calling them something else.
At that point, everything in your army using the rules for <BLACK HEART> acts as if its <BLACK HEART>.
In ALL regards.

The important thing is the keyword.

In your example, both Kabals will gain the FnP 6+ on vehicles, and +1PfP, thats clear because you decided use that the Teen Titans will use the BH's obsession. But the important thing is that the archon with the keywold <Teen titans> only will buff units with the <Teen titans> keyword, even if the bonus of the <Teen titans> and <Black Heart> are the same. Why? Because that's how the keywords work.

In the moment that you decide use two diferent keywords you are creating a separation betwen them. What i can't understand is why whould someone will make that separation if the intention is use the same obsession in both detachments.

You wouldn't; it's inefficient; but you can, and the way we are describing it is RAW.

That's the part that @squidmaster doesn't seem to understand and is why their argument is simply wrong.

amorrowlyday wrote:

You wouldn't; it's inefficient; but you can, and the way we are describing it is RAW.

That's the part that @squidmaster doesn't seem to understand and is why their argument is simply wrong.

no

Yes.

You might not like it but since I’m the only one who has actually cited rules I’d say it’s pretty clear where RAW lies.

Honestly though, no one cares about RAW in this specific instance. If I want to make up my own kabal (which I did), and call it KABAL <PURPLE HEART>, I guarantee you no player will care if I use the black heart obsession, stratagem and relics because I decided those abilities best fit the lore I made up for my own kabal. GW has always encouraged players to make their own armies with their own lores, and everyone just plays it that you can use the traits you want to best match your army cause it's the reasonable thing to do.

Technically, speaking purley on technicality, yes you can't do what I just described, but no one cares. Let it drop, play whatever traits you want with whatever background for your army you want.

See I’d also disagree with that because I don’t think this stance is incompatible with pure counts as. What you are describing is absolutely legal. This is simply a different way to reach that point similar to how RAW you can have a cursed Blade Lilith in matched play.

Taking the counts as approach is unquestionably better, as I’ve said repeatedly

no one prohibit you create your own kabal and use all the stuff of the black heart, What we are saying ( or me at least ) is that an archon only buff units with his same keyword. If you use the kabal <1> and the kabal <2>, one detachment each, and both with the rules of the obsession of black heart, even if the have the same rules they have diferent keywords, so and archon <1> never will buff <2> units.

@Rodi Sikni  

Right, but were everything seems to be getting lost is that everyone else can't accept that that situation will ever occur because it's just straight better to declare counts as and run them all as if they were <x>. Which is emphatically true. the issue with that is that there is a way to do this that does not use counts as as I have been pointing out, but other than a complete fluff game were you have accepted that you are putting a handicap on yourself there simply is never a reason to do so.

amorrowlyday wrote:

Yes.

You might not like it but since I’m the only one who has actually cited rules I’d say it’s pretty clear where RAW lies.

yes you did
congratulations
"If you have chosen a Kabal, Wych Cult, or Haemonculus Coven that does not feature on these lists you may choose the Kabal, Wych Cult, or Haemonculus Coven Obsession (respectively) that best suits the fighting styles and battlefield strategies of the warriors that hail from it."

still the unit from your <other kabal> gains the <black heart> keyword and can use its relics and auras

If your doing it this way then it most certainly does not. Gaining the rules of an obsession are not identical to gaining the keyword that obsession is usually associated with.

Gentle reminder to keep it civil, please.

We seem like we're debating a symantic question at this juncture with very little practical application. Seems like we might have trod all the ground that needs going over, here.

@amorrowlyday

I'm understadning waht you're saying perfectly well.
What I'm trying to explain is that you're wrong and I'm trying to do it in the politest way possible.
You can call a faction whatever you want. But if for game rules purposes you are saying it "counts as" Black Heart, then it counts as Black Heart for ALL respects. Including its Obesseion, Stratagems, Relics, AND whether its aura abilities work on other things that are or count as Black Heart.

I can take three Detachments, and call them different Kabals. But if for game rules they all "count as" Black heart, then for game rules they count ENTIRELY as Black Heart, including in terms of their aura abilities.
Counting as Black Heart means that for all technically purposes of game rules, they are.
You choose a Kabal which represents your own named one, and they count that way in ALL regards.

No, you clearly don’t. Counts-as is a thing, I’ve never argued against that. This is not about counts-as as the 8th edition rules provide a non-counts as means of creating custom detachments.

If you follow the rule I quoted above you are not doing counts as. I don’t know how I can make this any more clear. @jimsolo can you make this argument more clear? If not can you lock this after they have been afforded one more round of rebuttals?