20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well, this may go down as the shortest FAQ ever
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710181a_Chaos_Space_Marines_v1.0a.pdf
5 errata and no FAQ
So you CAN take full units of Zombies now. Changed Typhus's wording.
Daemon Princes of Khorne can take the Axe of Blind Fury.
Terminators can take any options again.
And finally, the Hellbrute got his point cost changed.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
At least they've tidied up some of the more pressing issues we've found.
53059
Post by: dæl
So, I take it the Scrolls of Magnus can be taken by Tzeentch Daemon Princes?
They changed points values!? That sets a nice precedent.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well, no. Nothing is mentioned about artifacts from other gods. Only Khorne.
Maybe someone hit the "Post" button on the FAQ before they were done 
33172
Post by: ChiliPowderKeg
Points reduction is rather interesting, even if the reduction itself isn't by much
23534
Post by: Macok
The Hellbrute price change is puzzling at least.
Why change only this one when there worse units in the codex (including new shiny models).
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
GW is obviously priming people for the new hybrid Plastic/Finecast Hellbrute model that will be announced shortly.
7680
Post by: oni
Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane, it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
What, is it too cheap now?
27952
Post by: Swara
Glad to see my zombie hoard being off the RAW/RAI chopping block. Not surprised though. I was surprised of the points reduction though.. strange.
32755
Post by: haroon
I applaud gw for getting this out so fast regardless of how short it is.
16175
Post by: Stormfather
I'm glad they changed the way Terminator options worked. I was planning on doing arm swaps on a few Terminators this weekend to make them 6e legal, and now I don't have to.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
The Helbrute was costed differently depending on what edition of the CSM book you had (I think only the english was 105, and the foreign language versions were 100),
63290
Post by: mauzer
The helbrute change isn't actually a change. The US version was misprinted at 105pts
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd...by slowpoke...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 oni wrote:Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane...
Oh come on. There are rules changes, then there are things that are changed due to an obvious unintended consequence. Not being able to make hordes of Zombies was surely never Phil Kelly's intention. How can you be annoyed at that?
oni wrote:it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
Yes, I can hardly see now my vision is red with fury over that 5 point change. Wait...
Changing points costs is a good thing. It shows a major step forward in the way GW approaches FAQs/errata in that they can make significant changes post-publication. This is excellent news.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
These changes were very obvious. To be honest this seems to have covered all the issues with the codex that are likely to be addressed.
The big question is why such obvious errors managed to find their way into a signed off Codex in the first place.
51399
Post by: alienvalentine
Palindrome wrote:These changes were very obvious. To be honest this seems to have covered all the issues with the codex that are likely to be addressed.
The big question is why such obvious errors managed to find their way into a signed off Codex in the first place.
Because Phil Kelly consistently underestimates the number of TFGs that play this game?
22150
Post by: blood reaper
oni wrote:Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane, it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
Those five points really made a massive difference didn't they? They really meant allot in the meta, maybe he or she will use those five points to buy a minor upgrade! Oh noes!
Yes, because ten man Plague Zombie squads would really make sense.
7680
Post by: oni
 H.B.M.C. wrote: oni wrote:Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane...
Oh come on. There are rules changes, then there are things that are changed due to an obvious unintended consequence. Not being able to make hordes of Zombies was surely never Phil Kelly's intention. How can you be annoyed at that?
I look at it from a game play point of view equally as much as a fluff point of view. Zombie hoards should have been done at the expense of taking up FOC slots, not as much the case now. They're tough enough tar pit unit at 10 let alone 35. I'm not going to rail against this or discredit anyone for playing it, I just (calmly) disagree.
H.B.M.C. wrote: oni wrote:it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
Yes, I can hardly see now my vision is red with fury over that 5 point change. Wait...
Changing points costs is a good thing. It shows a major step forward in the way GW approaches FAQs/errata in that they can make significant changes post-publication. This is excellent news.
FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
oni wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: oni wrote:Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane...
Oh come on. There are rules changes, then there are things that are changed due to an obvious unintended consequence. Not being able to make hordes of Zombies was surely never Phil Kelly's intention. How can you be annoyed at that?
I look at it from a game play point of view equally as much as a fluff point of view. Zombie hoards should have been done at the expense of taking up FOC slots, not as much the case now. They're tough enough tar pit unit at 10 let alone 35. I'm not going to rail against this or discredit anyone for playing it, I just (calmly) disagree.
H.B.M.C. wrote: oni wrote:it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
Yes, I can hardly see now my vision is red with fury over that 5 point change. Wait...
Changing points costs is a good thing. It shows a major step forward in the way GW approaches FAQs/errata in that they can make significant changes post-publication. This is excellent news.
FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.
Plague Zombies are awful at 10 men, and useless. They are useful now.
20774
Post by: pretre
You might be overreacting if H.B.M.C. Is taking GWs side...
50731
Post by: Drakmord
oni wrote:
FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.
It was a correction -- someone pointed out that its previous cost was a misprint that did not line up with the other versions of the codex.
63701
Post by: Zappit
Glad the Typhus issue got worked out. I can't wait to go up against my first zombie horde!
Point reduction (misprint or not) sees the wrong unit get a lower cost. It should have been Warp Talons, if for any other reason than to make them a bit viable in game.
827
Post by: Cruentus
oni wrote:
FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.
And the change to the helbrute is Errata, not part of the FAQ section, so its appropriate. It is also appropriate given that the non-english CSM codexes have the helbrute for 100 points. Kind of makes sense to have all the CSM codexes match.
I think this is great, particularly the points change. I also hope that they use this in the future when it becomes obvious that some things are woefully underpriced, or overpriced.
14283
Post by: Rakeeb
Oh ho ho.
The FAQ updated a points cost, eh?
That is a very, very important precedent.
I do think it's a bit early to FAQ the Warp Talons' points cost. We need to see what the real in-game effectiveness of the Blind effect is before we judge that. I'm aware that folks are down on it, and not without reason, but only consistent play can really answer that.
1464
Post by: Breotan
oni wrote:FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.
The "errata" part of the FAQ is for correcting typos and misprints. As has been stated previously, there apparently were differences in the points cost of the Hellbrute depending on which language the codex was printed. The FAQ corrected the erroneous value with the correct one. How else do you disseminate the correction if not through errata?
Rakeeb wrote:The FAQ updated a points cost, eh?
That is a very, very important precedent.
When, exactly, has GW ever felt bound by precedent?
14283
Post by: Rakeeb
oni wrote:Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane, it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
You're right and yet I can't agree with your conclusion. You're right in that it's a huge deal to put a points cost mod into a FAQ. I think that's a very important precedent for balancing a metagame that changes over time.
Games-Workshop needs a method by which it can change undercosted or overcosted unit points allowances. I'm hoping this is an indication that they'll be willing to nerf certain undercosted units, e.g. Valkyries, and buff overcosted units respectively.
20774
Post by: pretre
It isn't a precedent. It is them correcting a misprint as has been stated.
50834
Post by: Evil_Toast
I'm just glad I don't have to attack my termie squad with a saw anymore .
So . In regards to the Hellbrute entry , what are the chances other points costs in this and other codices will be changed ?
[wishlist]Hell , will something radical happen to my Rubrics when the new shiney plastics get released ?[/wishlist]
23534
Post by: Macok
 alienvalentine wrote:Palindrome wrote:These changes were very obvious. To be honest this seems to have covered all the issues with the codex that are likely to be addressed.
The big question is why such obvious errors managed to find their way into a signed off Codex in the first place.
Because Phil Kelly consistently underestimates the number of TFGs that play this game?
What?
So going by the book and stating that only one upgrade (ranged or CC option) on terminators was being TFG even though the rule could not be clearer on the issue? This was not debatable, arguable or prone to misinterpretation. Same with 100 / 105 points on Hellbrute?
This FAQ has more answers than just zombies...
Edited by Janthkin
683
Post by: Cheex
I'm pretty sure the Planetstrike FAQ still holds that title
As for the Helbrute cost, I think it actually makes sense. This change brings the 'brute's cost more in line with the Loyalist dreadnought, after you take into account the fact that the combi-bolter costs extra. It looks to me like the combi-bolter being optional was a last-minute addition and the points costs weren't changed properly across all versions. This being changed in an erratum is exactly what errata are for.
Regarding it being "inexcusable", I would say that being written by fallible humans is excuse enough for mistakes to happen. It's an expensive book, so I can understand an expectation for quality, but mistakes are still going to happen; the fact that they've acknowledged an issue and have promptly fixed it shows a higher quality of customer service than we've come to expect in the past. I, for one, am happy about this.
That said, the length of this document is a little disappointing. I like that they've fixed most of the major issues in just a few short errata, but I was expecting at least a few FAQ entries. It's still debatable as to whether Abaddon can join marked units, for example. My guess is that they want to wait a little longer (for those sorts of questions to actually be frequently asked) before coming out with FAQs.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Must mean there's a model coming 
686
Post by: aka_mythos
No no it's been cleared up as a erroneous printing in the English printings.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
I think trying to educate people of that is going to be an exercise in futility.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I saw a rumor that GW wi have kickstarters that let people purchase different levels of point-costs in print-to-order codices. So they are testing the waters with this.
Could also be just a correction, not sure.
Add me to the rumor tracker I guess.
24892
Post by: Byte
 pretre wrote:You might be overreacting if H.B.M.C. Is taking GWs side...
Agreed, I had to read his post two times. 
55578
Post by: kcwm
Glad to see that I was right in my idea of GW's intention with the Zombie hordes.
I reiterate that anyone that thinks that they were strong at a 10 man limit hasn't played against or with them in their army. It's looking at one detail and making a conclusion instead of looking at that detail in context. Small picture thinkers. Then again, that's the internet way.
Glad about the change to the Terminators. People were complaining about this and the cost of the terminators, which CSM terminators are pretty much the cheapest Terminators out there when you look at the cost of a 5 man squad with combi-bolters/storm bolters and 4 power fists/1 power weapon for the sergeant. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers yourself.
20774
Post by: pretre
Wow. Way to be gracious in victory. :(
At least you were right!
19190
Post by: Teeef
I was going to make updating my terminator weapons a weekend project so I am glad I checked dakka and saw the change.
I thought the hellbrute was ridiculously over-costed but 100 points changes everything. Don't even get me started on, "or Daemons of Khorne."
60546
Post by: conker249
Im just happy for a quick update, GW seems to be changing some things with 6th edition, more faqs/erratas quicker. its a good step in the right direction.
115
Post by: Azazelx
As long as subsequent printings will have the errata incorporated into them (as they have in the past) it's all good. And I'll wait a few months before buying the Codex.
55036
Post by: Tarrasq
If you see a points change under amendments, that would be a precedent. I'm just suprised GW made it to 6th edition without an error in points cost.
I almost considered getting a hellbrute at one point until I realized it got the reaper autocannon not the hades. Fire frenzy + S8 Heavy 4 would've been fun. I am mystified about why the reaper autocannon exists other than to reduce the range of what a normal dread can get.
1367
Post by: Knighty
the changes all make sense, and I'm pleased they were released so quickly.
I'm less impressed that I'm going to have to scribble on my £30 book though :|
48805
Post by: Stoffer
oni wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: oni wrote:Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane...
Oh come on. There are rules changes, then there are things that are changed due to an obvious unintended consequence. Not being able to make hordes of Zombies was surely never Phil Kelly's intention. How can you be annoyed at that?
I look at it from a game play point of view equally as much as a fluff point of view. Zombie hoards should have been done at the expense of taking up FOC slots, not as much the case now. They're tough enough tar pit unit at 10 let alone 35. I'm not going to rail against this or discredit anyone for playing it, I just (calmly) disagree.
FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad
H.B.M.C. wrote: oni wrote:it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
Yes, I can hardly see now my vision is red with fury over that 5 point change. Wait...
Changing points costs is a good thing. It shows a major step forward in the way GW approaches FAQs/errata in that they can make significant changes post-publication. This is excellent news.
You should write GW an angry email telling them how they should use their FAQs in your opinion.
Edit: No idea why the quote tags are weird.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
 d-usa wrote:I saw a rumor that GW wi have kickstarters that let people purchase different levels of point-costs in print-to-order codices. So they are testing the waters with this.
Could also be just a correction, not sure.
Add me to the rumor tracker I guess.
Yes, I guess they've been waiting to launch it unitl kickstarters by UK companies were allowed
makes perfect sense to me 
52200
Post by: Ravanar
The thing I'd liked to have seen is a comment regarding vehicle close combat weapons, currently they're all listed as having powefirsts and therefore striking last. Am I the only one thinking that is just a bit odd given Dreadnaught Close Combat weapons have a seperate entry in the rulebook?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
oni wrote:I look at it from a game play point of view equally as much as a fluff point of view. Zombie hoards should have been done at the expense of taking up FOC slots, not as much the case now. They're tough enough tar pit unit at 10 let alone 35. I'm not going to rail against this or discredit anyone for playing it, I just (calmly) disagree.
Come on. What is a classic trope of zombies? The fact that they come in hordes. You don't have small elite units of zombies, you have a shambling mass. That was clearly the intend of these rules, so the fact that RAW stopped you from doing it was an obvious oversight.
Now it's fixed, and it makes sense. Automatically Appended Next Post:
It wasn't his victory. It was mine.
20079
Post by: Gorechild
 Ravanar wrote:The thing I'd liked to have seen is a comment regarding vehicle close combat weapons, currently they're all listed as having powefirsts and therefore striking last. Am I the only one thinking that is just a bit odd given Dreadnaught Close Combat weapons have a seperate entry in the rulebook?
Double check the "Unwieldly" USR, you may be pleasantly surprised
52200
Post by: Ravanar
 Gorechild wrote: Ravanar wrote:The thing I'd liked to have seen is a comment regarding vehicle close combat weapons, currently they're all listed as having powefirsts and therefore striking last. Am I the only one thinking that is just a bit odd given Dreadnaught Close Combat weapons have a seperate entry in the rulebook?
Double check the "Unwieldly" USR, you may be pleasantly surprised
*Gets his rulebook out, flicks through it a bit, puts it down... skips off into the distance crying out "Deffy!Deffy! Here boy!"*
26672
Post by: Sephyr
Still no word on some bg issues, though.
- Abaddon joining units
- What exactly happens to models that turn into Daemon Princes (regarding gear, special abilities and so on)
-plenty of weird pricing (Chosen gear options, etc)
Good of them to respond quickly, but I hope there's more on the way.
62229
Post by: Minx
 Sephyr wrote:Still no word on some bg issues, though.
...
- What exactly happens to models that turn into Daemon Princes (regarding gear, special abilities and so on)
Page 29 tells us nearly all there is about the transformation: "retains none of the champion's special rules or wargear [apart from the] Mark of Chaos [and gets power armour]". It doesn't spell out precisely what happens to unmarked champions, since daemon princes "must" be a daemon of a specific god ( pg. 94); just ignoring that bit is probably what was intended though.
8926
Post by: BladeWalker
Abaddon joining units and the Heldrake firing arc will probably have to be settled by stare down with your opponent prior to each game...
I'm just glad my Khorne Prince can use the Axe and that my Terminators won't have to be mutilated to become legal again.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I think GW may have realized they can update FAQs as they get answers to questions and don't have to wait till they have 2-3 pages of stuff
29408
Post by: Melissia
That is remarkably short.
Apparently they're rather happy about their codex, I suppose?
9598
Post by: Quintinus
oni wrote:Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane, it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
If it makes you feel any better, some people are arguing that because of the Plague Zombies rule change there is no longer any way to actually nominate a unit of Chaos Cultists as Plague Zombies, therefore no plague zombies in the first place.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
 Grey Templar wrote:GW is obviously priming people for the new hybrid Plastic/Finecast Hellbrute model that will be announced shortly.
Don't even joke about that. *shudder*
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
I'm sure they'll release more than this. Questions will arise and things will be challenged, and they'll have to do it again.
Pretty cool though.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
 Cheexsta wrote:
Regarding it being "inexcusable", I would say that being written by fallible humans is excuse enough for mistakes to happen. It's an expensive book, so I can understand an expectation for quality, but mistakes are still going to happen; the fact that they've acknowledged an issue and have promptly fixed it shows a higher quality of customer service than we've come to expect in the past. I, for one, am happy about this..
Hm.
Quite the opposite. I'd love to see them change points in Errata more often.
I admit it would be tough to increase points (leading some people to have illegal armies if they didn't read the pdf).
But reducing points on under-utilized units? I think that should be a standard-feature. The worst that can happen is that someone could've spend a few more points. No risk there.
5 point drops for some rarely seen stuff? Tau Sniper Teams? Eldar Swooping Hawks? Etc.. Yes please. It'll hardly break the game, but it might just entice some people to dust-off some old minis.
Point drops on Vanilla Devastators to bring em in line with Blood Angels. Drop points on Black Templar Rhinos? Let's get it done!
They should have a unit of the month that looses 5 points ever month.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Changing points costs is a good thing. It shows a major step forward in the way GW approaches FAQs/errata in that they can make significant changes post-publication. This is excellent news.
That was my first thought. Every errata entry in this document is the type of thing GW would have just let stand for the lifespan of the Codex during 4th and 5th edition. This could be the start of something... significant.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
At the very least it will show GW that they can make point changes simply using the Errata. They don't have to wait for a new codex.
50563
Post by: quickfuze
My only concern is if we start to see point reductions on models just prior to updated model releases.... although I believe too much is being read into this, they didn't lower the cost due to game balancing , it was simply to make it match the non English books that already had it priced at100. Don't really think you will see this done again.....
59285
Post by: GalePrime
Quite frankly I dont care, being able to take a possible 420 Plague zombies AND being legit is my kinda fun, just image how cool that would look on the field XD.
37097
Post by: blood lance
oni wrote:Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane, it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.
Why do you disagree with the typhus rule change? a ten man 6 up save toughness 3 unit with no shooting attacks isn't exactly OP.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
RAI on zombies was obvious. The 40k zombie apocalypse with hordes of zombies isn't going to be limited to 60 zombies per force org. People can continue to argue that they are overpowered for their cost, but given the chaos codex as a whole is considered pretty well balanced by the player base complaining about zombies now is a waste of time.
As far as the hell brute goes if the English book says 105 points and the French + German books say 100 it's pretty obvious the issue is nothing more than a simple typo. People need to chill out, it's just a typo in a game book. People are acting like it was a medical transcription error that resulted in the death of their mother.
4183
Post by: Davor
 GalePrime wrote:Quite frankly I dont care, being able to take a possible 420 Plague zombies AND being legit is my kinda fun, just image how cool that would look on the field XD.
I agree that would look awsome and be mighty expensive but awsome non the less.
Thinking of getting the codex. Not shure what everyone is talking about zombies and there number. Can anyone explain to me what was the problem and how it was fixed.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Typhus's entry said that you could make any unit of Cultists into Zombies. Zombie units could not take any options. Taking additional members is an option.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
Things people may realistically see.
Typhus and 70 zombies in an allied detachment for chaos deamon players, that's what I'm doing along with an ac hell drake for a total of 700 points.
Typhus and and 175 zombies in a single force org. That's 980 points and 5 troop choices. The zombies won't do much besides be difficult to get rid off unless the other guy brought purifiers. Personally I think the list would lack teeth, and it's too much spent on anvil units. 105 to 140 is probably the most number of zombies an army can buy before it loses it's teeth.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Depends on the point value.
980 points of zombies could just be enough to choak the enemy's guns and let what support you do bring to do the actual damage.
It will dominate objective based games.
42149
Post by: MightyGodzilla
As far as the zombies go....GW knew exactly how they wanted unit to be played. They just nipped alternate aims in the bud with the instant clarification. Remember they've had these rules for eight months you've had these rules for eight days.
I'm glad they heard the chatter and acted on it as concisely and quickly as they did.
4001
Post by: Compel
Davor wrote:
I agree that would look awsome and be mighty expensive but awsome non the less.
Not as expensive as you'd think....
80 zombie troopers for less than 50 quid.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
 MightyGodzilla wrote:As far as the zombies go.... GW knew exactly how they wanted unit to be played. They just nipped alternate aims in the bud with the instant clarification. Remember they've had these rules for eight months you've had these rules for eight days.
I'm glad they heard the chatter and acted on it as concisely and quickly as they did.
Have to agree there.
But you know that there are GW employees lurking in the shadows and since Dakka is one of the largest gaming/hobby sites around and lots of smart, competitive people do make their opinions known...
Like my twisted father would say.
If it walks like a duck and squaks like a duck it sure it ain't Cthulhu
64623
Post by: Firstborn
I am glad they got this out so fast, and they are all positive.
With that being said, they really needed to address Abaddon! Can he or can he not join other marked units.......
44067
Post by: DarkStarSabre
Firstborn wrote:I am glad they got this out so fast, and they are all positive.
With that being said, they really needed to address Abaddon! Can he or can he not join other marked units.......
To be honest, the MoCA states he counts as having ALL marks - complete with all the trimmings.
So by that he meets the requirement to join any marked unit. Simples!
And this FAQ is wonderfully concise.
64623
Post by: Firstborn
 DarkStarSabre wrote:Firstborn wrote:I am glad they got this out so fast, and they are all positive.
With that being said, they really needed to address Abaddon! Can he or can he not join other marked units.......
To be honest, the MoCA states he counts as having ALL marks - complete with all the trimmings.
So by that he meets the requirement to join any marked unit. Simples!
And this FAQ is wonderfully concise.
But the rulebook also says a marked model can't join a unit that has a different mark......
256
Post by: Oaka
GalePrime wrote:Quite frankly I dont care, being able to take a possible 420 Plague zombies AND being legit is my kinda fun, just image how cool that would look on the field XD.
Imagining how cool it will look on the field is one thing, but I'm worried that the reality will be a Chaos player using his entire Cadian army (no, those are zombies).
63417
Post by: 6^
 Vladsimpaler wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, some people are arguing that because of the Plague Zombies rule change there is no longer any way to actually nominate a unit of Chaos Cultists as Plague Zombies, therefore no plague zombies in the first place.
Please explain.
63290
Post by: mauzer
Guys.
It has been pointed out at least twice in this thread.
The Helbrute Change IS NOT a points change.
It was a MISPRINT on ENGLISH COPIES. They simply couldn't have some countries paying 100 and some paying 105 so they were forced to change it.
25203
Post by: dontfeedjay
Grey Templar wrote:Typhus's entry said that you could make any unit of Cultists into Zombies. Zombie units could not take any options. Taking additional members is an option.
I sincerely hope that at this point this is just a poor attempt at trolling. The issue is shut.
For those that think the zombies op, just bring a template weapon. Watch em vaporize.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
 dontfeedjay wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Typhus's entry said that you could make any unit of Cultists into Zombies. Zombie units could not take any options. Taking additional members is an option.
I sincerely hope that at this point this is just a poor attempt at trolling.
Or maybe he was replying to the person directly above who wanted to know what the issue was in the first place? 
37728
Post by: IdentifyZero
 Oaka wrote: GalePrime wrote:Quite frankly I dont care, being able to take a possible 420 Plague zombies AND being legit is my kinda fun, just image how cool that would look on the field XD.
Imagining how cool it will look on the field is one thing, but I'm worried that the reality will be a Chaos player using his entire Cadian army (no, those are zombies).
That's fine though.. they are freshly risen cadian soldiers!
6428
Post by: scythewing
So does that mean that the terminator champ can purchase the same gear that the regular terminators can from the codex?
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
No. He pays a premium.
6428
Post by: scythewing
Darn. What were they talking about with the terminators being able to use all the options? I have the codex and didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. Only thing I'm still wondering about are do demon princes get marks as well as being a demon of whatever.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
 scythewing wrote:Darn. What were they talking about with the terminators being able to use all the options? I have the codex and didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. Only thing I'm still wondering about are do demon princes get marks as well as being a demon of whatever.
The Codex says you may take ONE of the three options, which meant you couldn't mix things like Combi-meltas and Chainfists together. Now you can. Princes are only "Daemons of X", they don't actually have the Mark of X.
44304
Post by: str00dles1
No FAQ needs to be said for Abaddon, people are just reading it wrong...
PG 30 of Codex States: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos"
PG 57 of Codex States: "He Also has all four MArks of Chaos"
There is no grey line here. He can join any unit he wants with whatever marks they have. He always matches their mark.
6428
Post by: scythewing
Ya I was hoping they were going to change that about the demon of thing. Think it would be only logical that the demon of would have the coresponding marks of said god. I mean we are already paying one heck of a premium for a chaos DP that isn't eternal warrior.
18698
Post by: kronk
str00dles1 wrote:
There is no grey line here. He can join any unit he wants with whatever marks they have. He always matches their mark.
Exactly. He has that unit's mark. Period. End of.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
In a friendly game that makes perfect sense but in a competitive environment people may very well try to argue the point until the FAQ addresses it.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 jonolikespie wrote:In a friendly game that makes perfect sense but in a competitive environment people may very well try to argue the point until the FAQ addresses it.
To quote Kronk's sig... Kronk's Signature wrote:This is a game and meant to be fun. If you can't agree with your opponent, find a new opponent and shake the other guy's hand anyway.
The competitive attitude kinda sucks imo... But as someone that has gotten the new Chaos Codex, I'm glad the FAQ cleared up rules I didn't have questions about because those weren't in my builds >_< But it is great to see how quickly it came out
963
Post by: Mannahnin
str00dles1 wrote:No FAQ needs to be said for Abaddon, people are just reading it wrong...
PG 30 of Codex States: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos"
PG 57 of Codex States: "He Also has all four MArks of Chaos"
Exactly. There is no grey line here. He cannot join any unit with a mark. He always has three different marks which are different from their mark. Annoys me quite a bit, as I'd like to be able to join him to Tzeentch terminators or Nurgle oblits.
24166
Post by: narked
Read it again. It says "may not join a unit with a different mark". If he has all four marks, the unit does NOT have a different mark, therefore he can join any unit, regardless of what Mark they do or don't have.
34906
Post by: Pacific
 mauzer wrote:Guys.
It has been pointed out at least twice in this thread.
The Helbrute Change IS NOT a points change.
It was a MISPRINT on ENGLISH COPIES. They simply couldn't have some countries paying 100 and some paying 105 so they were forced to change it.
I can't see there being too many instances of people with the different codecies playing each other...
And 5pts is hardly a game breaker!
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
narked wrote:Read it again. It says "may not join a unit with a different mark". If he has all four marks, the unit does NOT have a different mark, therefore he can join any unit, regardless of what Mark they do or don't have.
You are correct. But a short FAQ (not Errata), going something like this...
Q: Can Abaddon join a unit of Khorne Berzerkers, Noise Marines or other units with a single Mark?
A: Yes, he can.
... would go along way to avoid grief and bickering.
It's not like that'd be a massive amount of work for GW to do, given they already have a pdf anyhow.
That said, it's an idiotic rule either way. Would it really be gamebreaking if I'd ran my Slannesh Sorcerer with some Nurgle Bodyguards he/she seduced. Way to crack down on creative armies there GW.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
It's not like that hasn't been a rule in previous editions, most of them actually. It's not about being gamebreaking, it's a fluff rule.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
If it's not game-breaking, than it's a stupid rule. It adds nothing to those who feel that violating the rule would be "unfluffy" because they wouldn't go against it even if it didn't exist, and only limits those whose fluff actually contradicts the rule. It's a rule that can literally never benefit fluff and only ever hurt it in the best of circumstances.
44304
Post by: str00dles1
Mannahnin 483594 4895589  e5c92776eb16509c85d234d65b503593.jpg wrote:str00dles1 wrote:No FAQ needs to be said for Abaddon, people are just reading it wrong...
PG 30 of Codex States: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos"
PG 57 of Codex States: "He Also has all four MArks of Chaos"[
Exactly. There is no grey line here. He cannot join any unit with a mark. He always has three different marks which are different from their mark. Annoys me quite a bit, as I'd like to be able to join him to Tzeentch terminators or Nurgle
[/quote
Please read what I said...yes he can. There is no arguing he can't. No reason to have a. faq. its basic reading.skills.people seem to lack.
20774
Post by: pretre
Insulting people when they have differing opinions about the rules is not the way to do things, str00dles1.
On that note though, I think the rest of this FAQ is probably better off in YMDC.
18698
Post by: kronk
pretre wrote:Insulting people when they have differing opinions about the rules is not the way to do things, str00dles1.
On that note though, I think the rest of this FAQ is probably better off in YMDC.
Sure it is, poo-poo head!
I just sent the FAQ guys another email on Abbadon and a few other quibbles and I'd suggest others do the same. The email to use is gamefaqs@games-workshop.co.uk
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Kronk: Putting Dakkadakka out of the business of discussing things one thread at a time!
9598
Post by: Quintinus
 Zweischneid wrote:If it's not game-breaking, than it's a stupid rule. It adds nothing to those who feel that violating the rule would be "unfluffy" because they wouldn't go against it even if it didn't exist, and only limits those whose fluff actually contradicts the rule. It's a rule that can literally never benefit fluff and only ever hurt it in the best of circumstances.
The rule makes it so that there is still some semblance of the Chaos background. This is when I remember that you think that it is "fluffy" to mix Slaanesh sorcerers in a unit of Khorne Berzerkers and then suddenly everything make sense.
These animosity rules have been around for 20+ years, they're not leaving anytime soon thankfully.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
The rule about different marks isn't game breaking, nor does it need to be removed. It's Abaddon joining units that people are getting bent out of shape.
Oh well, email sent. Thanks Kronk.
64623
Post by: Firstborn
narked wrote:Read it again. It says "may not join a unit with a different mark". If he has all four marks, the unit does NOT have a different mark, therefore he can join any unit, regardless of what Mark they do or don't have.
Agreed. When you carefully read it, it is clear. He can join any marked unit as he has all 4 marks.
52977
Post by: Hoopified
I agree abbadon can join any unit he wants, I mean really who is going to tell him "sorry you're not allow to help us kill people being the warmaster of the chaos legions....... Sorry you'll just have to do it on your own." probably not going to happen lol
18698
Post by: kronk
Ewww! He's covered in Nurgle cooties! Only right and proper Slaanesh followers allowed in the party wagon (Land Raider).
60813
Post by: Brometheus
Must... Stop... Staring at cowbell..
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Vladsimpaler wrote:
These animosity rules have been around for 20+ years, they're not leaving anytime soon thankfully.
Oh... I would've loved a good animosity rule. Nothing more chaosy than having your Zerkers turn on the Tzeentch Sorcerers next to them mid-game. Alas.. there's no animosity rule in the book.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
That's not what he meant Zweischneid. Stop being so intentionally obtuse.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Zweischneid wrote: Vladsimpaler wrote: These animosity rules have been around for 20+ years, they're not leaving anytime soon thankfully.
Oh... I would've loved a good animosity rule. Nothing more chaosy than having your Zerkers turn on the Tzeentch Sorcerers next to them mid-game. Alas.. there's no animosity rule in the book.
Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it. To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Vladsimpaler wrote:
Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.
To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.
Not sure what was obtuse about it. There's no animosity rule in the Codex. Period. Show it to me if you can.
And fluff for a game that you cannot actually ever use in the game is rather pointless. It's like going to a party and bringing a cake you've already eaten.
Do you show up to a game of Ultramarines vs. Tyranids only to say .. hey, Ultramarines already beat Nids in the fluff. Deals done, let's save ourselves the chore of rolling dice and moving miniatures, shall we?
Kinda pointless. If there's war between Ultramarines and Tyranids in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Likewise, if there's animosity between Slannesh and Khorne in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Otherwise, what point is there for the background?
52977
Post by: Hoopified
Try to keep it on topic or start a thread to troll each other
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Zweischneid wrote: Vladsimpaler wrote:
Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.
To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.
Not sure what was obtuse about it. There's no animosity rule in the Codex. Period. Show it to me if you can.
It's not there in name but it is in there in the spirit of not allowing a marked IC in a differently marked units. If you want to argue semantics there is technically no "animosity" rule.
However, the Daemon Princes all have Hatred for the opposing god. Daemon Princes of Khorne hate Slaaneshi units for example.
And fluff for a game that you cannot actually ever use in the game is rather pointless. It's like going to a party and bringing a cake you've already eaten.
Do you show up to a game of Ultramarines vs. Tyranids only to say .. hey, Ultramarines already beat Nids in the fluff. Deals done, let's save ourselves the chore of rolling dice and moving miniatures, shall we?
Wait what? This makes no sense, did you read this after you typed it? The Ultramarines beat the Tyranids at Macragge but that was just one battle. Plus the Ultramarines and Tyranids are two entirely different armies and they've had many more battles after Macragge, so there is no real reason to just pack it up before you even play.
Now if you played a game of Khorne vs. Slaanesh, that would make much more sense than mixing Khorne and Slaanesh in the same army. Do you see the fundamental difference? The former has both sides fighting eachother, the latter has both sides hanging out.
Kinda pointless. If there's war between Ultramarines and Tyranids in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Likewise, if there's animosity between Slannesh and Khorne in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Otherwise, what point is there for the background?
Yeah, you can't bring that to the table because in the rules, there is no ability to ally Ultramarines with Tyranids. In the 6th edition rulebook, the Allies table says that Marines and Tyranids are Come the Apocalypse. This means that under no circumstances will they ally.
Likewise, the animosity between the gods is represented by the fact that the daemons have hatred for opposing god's forces, and also by the fact that you can't mix independent characters with units if they have different marks. Honestly I would prefer much more brutal rules which put all opposing god's forces into the elites slot or even disallow them entirely, much like pretty much every codex before the 4th edition to my recollection.
1615
Post by: Slave
Zweischneid wrote: Vladsimpaler wrote:
Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.
To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.
Not sure what was obtuse about it. There's no animosity rule in the Codex. Period. Show it to me if you can.
And fluff for a game that you cannot actually ever use in the game is rather pointless. It's like going to a party and bringing a cake you've already eaten.
Do you show up to a game of Ultramarines vs. Tyranids only to say .. hey, Ultramarines already beat Nids in the fluff. Deals done, let's save ourselves the chore of rolling dice and moving miniatures, shall we?
Kinda pointless. If there's war between Ultramarines and Tyranids in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Likewise, if there's animosity between Slannesh and Khorne in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Otherwise, what point is there for the background?
Except there is no animosity between Tzeetch and Khorne. Your example would have worked if you said the berzerkers turned on the Noise Marines and killed thm.
BTW, do people STILL not get that it's Slaanesh vs Khorne and it has ALWAYS been Khorne vs Slaanesh? Slaanesh has psychers also, but seriously, Khorne has never had beef with Tzeetch, in the fluff, as in, never, ever had animosity with Tzeetch.
44304
Post by: str00dles1
Slave wrote: Zweischneid wrote: Vladsimpaler wrote:
Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.
To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.
Not sure what was obtuse about it. There's no animosity rule in the Codex. Period. Show it to me if you can.
And fluff for a game that you cannot actually ever use in the game is rather pointless. It's like going to a party and bringing a cake you've already eaten.
Do you show up to a game of Ultramarines vs. Tyranids only to say .. hey, Ultramarines already beat Nids in the fluff. Deals done, let's save ourselves the chore of rolling dice and moving miniatures, shall we?
Kinda pointless. If there's war between Ultramarines and Tyranids in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Likewise, if there's animosity between Slannesh and Khorne in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Otherwise, what point is there for the background?
Except there is no animosity between Tzeetch and Khorne. Your example would have worked if you said the berzerkers turned on the Noise Marines and killed thm.
BTW, do people STILL not get that it's Slaanesh vs Khorne and it has ALWAYS been Khorne vs Slaanesh? Slaanesh has psychers also, but seriously, Khorne has never had beef with Tzeetch, in the fluff, as in, never, ever had animosity with Tzeetch.
Actually, Khorne does hate Tzneetch, just not as much as Slaanesh...
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Khorne
"Although Khorne despises the use of magic and accordingly hates Tzeentch, Slaanesh is his opposite."
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Khorne
"The followers of Khorne are always ferocious warriors and never make use of psychic powers, for the Blood God abhors the trickery of magic and cowardly sorcerers, particularly the servants of Tzeentch. "
"...are favoured foes to face in battle, as are the servants of Tzeentch, who are seen as Sorcerers unwilling to engage in fair and honourable combat."
Way off topic though....
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
Wow... how far off topic has this thread gone?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Not that far, Chaos is still the subject material
963
Post by: Mannahnin
narked wrote:Read it again. It says "may not join a unit with a different mark". If he has all four marks, the unit does NOT have a different mark, therefore he can join any unit, regardless of what Mark they do or don't have.
You still have it exactly backwards. The rules don't care if he has the SAME mark. They care (as you quoted) whether he has a different one. Since he has four marks, he always has three different marks from any given marked unit, and thus "may not join" it.
I do hope they change this, though. Keep emailing the FAQ email address. I want my Abby to be able to join any unit he wants. Right now the marked units won't have him. 
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
Abby simultaneously has the identical mark and a different mark. RAW the identical mark doesn't mean anything, but the 3 marks that are not identical means he is breaking the rule about not mixing marks 3 times. RAW=he can only join marked units. RAI should be just as obvious, he should be able to join marked units. Silly English writers have no clue just how much Americans can be dicks about rules loopholes. Reminds me of how Baal preds couldn't shoot flame cannons when they 1st came out because at the time 5th ed raw was the template had to touch the barrel of the gun, but wasn't allowed to overlap the Baal preds hull so raw was it could never fire it's flame cannon, and it took gw almost half a year to faq that flame templates can overlap the vehicle or transport that is firing the weapon.
24166
Post by: narked
The phrase "unit with a different mark" is the key part of the sentence. The unit does not have a different mark.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
As said. It doesn't matter what (additional) marks the IC has. It's not worded that way. It says the unit must have a different mark. Since Abby has all marks, and there are only four, it is impossible for a unit to have a different mark.
If the ruling would've said that character cannot have a different mark, you'd be right.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
The purpose of rules on special characters and units are to override the normal standing rule, thus the benefit of the doubt should follow that over following an army wide general rule. The distinction of having higher stats is not something you would need a special rule for... leaving the only other purpose of the rule as to afford him the ability to join any unit.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
I think it does follow from the "different" reference to the unit (as opposed to Abby). Which, of course, doesn't mean it couldn't be worded better or wouldn't benefit from a FAQ
Case 1
Games that Abaddon plays
- Warhammer 40K
- Warhammer Fantasy
- Malifaux
- Warmachine
Games that the unit plays
- Warhammer Fantasy
Does the unit play a different game than Abaddon does? No.
(Does Abaddon play a different game than the unit does? Certainly)
----------------------------
Case 2
Games that Abaddon plays
- Warhammer 40K
- Warhammer Fantasy
- Malifaux
- Warmachine
Games that the unit plays
- Flames of War
Does the unit play a different game than Abaddon does? Yes
----------------------------
Case 3
Games that Abaddon plays
- Warhammer 40K
- Warhammer Fantasy
- Malifaux
- Warmachine
Games that the unit plays
- Warhammer Fantasy
- Flames of War
Does the unit play a different game than Abaddon does? Yes.
5859
Post by: Ravenous D
Rakeeb wrote:Oh ho ho.
The FAQ updated a points cost, eh?
That is a very, very important precedent.
I do think it's a bit early to FAQ the Warp Talons' points cost. We need to see what the real in-game effectiveness of the Blind effect is before we judge that. I'm aware that folks are down on it, and not without reason, but only consistent play can really answer that.
It sucks, having to deepstrike 6" away is a trick on its own. Not to mention half the armies are I4, making it a fluke tactic at best.
26672
Post by: Sephyr
 Ravenous D wrote:Rakeeb wrote:Oh ho ho.
The FAQ updated a points cost, eh?
That is a very, very important precedent.
I do think it's a bit early to FAQ the Warp Talons' points cost. We need to see what the real in-game effectiveness of the Blind effect is before we judge that. I'm aware that folks are down on it, and not without reason, but only consistent play can really answer that.
It sucks, having to deepstrike 6" away is a trick on its own. Not to mention half the armies are I4, making it a fluke tactic at best.
Personal peeve here, but I think right now it's far more important to revise older stuff than to try and change the metagame through future codexes. That goes both for useless units (Snikrot, Mandrakes, Ogryns, etc) and unbalanced stuff (Bendettas, Long Fangs, and so on). So the points change for a unit is a big thing, though I do feel they were just correcting a typo and not rebalancing.
So I don't dare hope.
42149
Post by: MightyGodzilla
Abaddon is the one guy who brings them all together to launch insanely fluff creating Crusades to shake the foundations of the Imperium.
"...has proven himself beyond any doubt to be the champion of the Chaos Gods, and he has spent many..."(Page 20)
Sorry dude...he gets to joins any unit he wants.
|
|
