I know this is non fluff but...
Sorcerers are not able to take a mark of Khorne
When selecting a mark you do not have to declare one.
World Eaters must be marked of Khorne, if able to do so.
Does the escape claus of the World Eaters "if able" allow for World Eater legion sorcerers? I don't see anything stopping this. Can someone point out if I missed something?
"All world eater units must have mok, if they are able to do so" is the complete rule. So sorcerers are not able so can take another mark.
But fluff is dead if you do that, and I am not sure why you would not just take a vanilla chapter if you wanted to do so as the World eater-only abilities are not what they should be. I even get the feeling GW is saying with this new codex, "don't play world eaters for a couple of years until they get there own codex" because those berzerkers would benefit way more from a sorcerer (warptime) and run+charge then they would from the world-eater only abilities. Also now that Berzerkers are no troops anymore the world eater point of existence is only left in the fluff and for fluffy games... And as for kharne... His pts in berzerkers + dark apostle will benefit you more then he does.
From the Chaos Space Marine Codex it says, albeit just the important parts:
You do not have to choose a Mark of Chaos for a unit if you do not want to
...
The exceptions are units from the World Eaters or Emperor's Children Legions:
all WORLD EATERS units must have the KHORNE keyword if they are able to do so
...
So, any unit that has <Mark of Chaos> must take Khorne if it is also a World Eater, it isn't a player choice to not take it in this instance.
Goat wrote: The complete rule is: World Eaters must take a mark of Khorne if they are able to do so. So it is not 100% mandatory.
Is it "if able to do so" or "if able to take a Mark"?
Without having the full rules properly quoted it's hard to help here.
Fluff-wise, hell naw, but you know that. ;-)
"The exceptions are units from the World Eaters or Emperor’s Children Legions: all WORLD EATERS units must have the KHORNE keyword if they are able to do so..."
Therefore, since a Sorcerer is incapable of taking a Mark of Khorne, it cannot be of the World Eaters legion, as World Eaters MUST have the Mark where there is the ability to have a mark.
Goat wrote: The complete rule is: World Eaters must take a mark of Khorne if they are able to do so. So it is not 100% mandatory.
Is it "if able to do so" or "if able to take a Mark"?
Without having the full rules properly quoted it's hard to help here.
Fluff-wise, hell naw, but you know that. ;-)
"The exceptions are units from the World Eaters or Emperor’s Children Legions: all WORLD EATERS units must have the KHORNE keyword if they are able to do so..."
Therefore, since a Sorcerer is incapable of taking a Mark of Khorne, it cannot be of the World Eaters legion, as World Eaters MUST have the Mark where there is the ability to have a mark.
Well the rule itself says "World eaters must have the Khorne keyword if they are able to do so"
"Psychers cannot have the Khorne keyword" => so is unable to do so, So he can have another/ no mark.
I cannot find something about not being able to include a unit that cannot have the mark of khorne in a world eaters army. only that it must take khorne if it can.
The misunderstanding here is how to correctly read the term "if they are able to do so" and deliberately using the term "Psykers can not have the Khorne keyword".
The two things are mutually exclusive.
If a unit or character has the <Mark of Chaos> keyword, it IS ABLE to take one of the marks.
In the case of World Eaters, this mark MUST be Khorne.
Psykers can not have Khorne, so can NOT be World Eaters.
The rule itself, in plain simple English, means any unit that does NOT have <Mark of Chaos> as a keyword can be a World Eater without taking the Mark of Khorne.
It is elementary simple logic:
If <Legion> is "World Eaters", <Mark of Chaos> is ALWAYS Khorne.
I will agree that it is poorly worded, and will almost definitely be clarified at some point, even though it shouldnt need to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whilst looking over the Chaos Index FAQ, I noticed it says the following
Page 63
– Servants of Slaanesh
Add the following to the end of this paragraph:
‘If a unit has the Khorne, Tzeentch or Nurgle keywords, it cannot be from the Emperor’s Children Legion.’
Which would strongly suggest that, although not explicitly in the FAQ yet, such an amendment will be added for World Eaters.
Camp A. If they are able to take mark of khorne they must. If that can't then they were not able to and are exempt from that rule
Camp B. If they are able to take a mark they must take mark of khorne to be a world eater.
This isn't even a RAI issue. The RaW is clear and only muddied if you're intentionally trying to twist it.
I agree with you that they cannot take the Mark or khorne, and cannot be world eaters. However I can see how some people read that line and think they can take emperor's children Lord of skulls, or world eater noise marines.- as fluffwise silly as that is, because those units cannot take the mark of khorne so they are following the if able to by not being able to.
Camp A. If they are able to take mark of khorne they must. If that can't then they were not able to and are exempt from that rule
Camp B. If they are able to take a mark they must take mark of khorne to be a world eater.
This isn't even a RAI issue. The RaW is clear and only muddied if you're intentionally trying to twist it.
RAW is clear. You can take a World Eater's Sorcerer.
Except, you can't, because Sorcerers may not take the Mark of Khorne. World Eaters must take a Mark of Khorne. Therefore Sorcerers can't be from the World Eaters. It's an AND gate, not an OR gate. To say otherwise is simply incorrect, as incorrect as saying "Conscripts are Toughness 20".
Sorcerers cannot, so they don't have to, and can still be part of it.
I agree that it's not RAI, I agree that it's dumb, and I agree that you should not play it. RAW, though...
Again, you are assigning a totally incorrect meaning to the term "if they are able to." Sorcerers are not able to take the Mark of Khorne, so they can't be from the World Eaters. If you knew anything about me I am a staunch RAW activist. I point out that RaW you can't fire assault weapons after advancing all the time. The RaW is clear and only by deliberately misreading what the rule says can it mean anything else.
JNAProductions wrote: What definition would you assign to it? Because common English is on my side here.
Is a model from the World Eaters able to take any other mark? No. Is a Sorcerer able to take a Mark of Khorne? No. Therefore, No Mark of Khorne for Sorcerers. It's simple, basic Boolean logic.
It's an AND gate.
Can a sorcerer have a mark of khorne? No (so 0) Does a World Eater have the Mark of Khorne if it has the <MARK> keyword? Yes.
No AND Yes result in No.
You are thinking "if able to" to mean ALWAYS MUST HAVE IT, but it's actually meaning if you can pick a mark, you have to pick Khorne, not the other 3 or no mark.
nosferatu1001 wrote: If able refers to whether they can take a mark at all Nothing to do with whether they can take mok.
Do you have a reference for that? Because it doesn't say "If able to take a Mark", it says, "If able to be marked Khorne".
The basic English you are lauding. By your logic we could have World Eater Rubric Marines, which is not true because they can't take the Mark of Khorne.
In any case this discussion has run it's course and I believe you are arguing in bad faith. Hopefully we'll get this locked soon enough.
And that being the case, then yes, you can have Thousand Sons World Eaters, by RAW. It's incredibly dumb, should not happen, and I would not play against that, but RAW is just that.
Edit: Do you understand the difference between "If you are able to take a Mark, it must be Khorne," and "If you are able to take a Mark of Khorne, you must,"?
JNAProductions wrote: What definition would you assign to it? Because common English is on my side here.
Is a model from the World Eaters able to take any other mark? No. Is a Sorcerer able to take a Mark of Khorne? No. Therefore, No Mark of Khorne for Sorcerers. It's simple, basic Boolean logic.
It's an AND gate.
Can a sorcerer have a mark of khorne? No (so 0)
Does a World Eater have the Mark of Khorne if it has the <MARK> keyword? Yes.
No AND Yes result in No.
You are thinking "if able to" to mean ALWAYS MUST HAVE IT, but it's actually meaning if you can pick a mark, you have to pick Khorne, not the other 3 or no mark.
You first assertion is wrong. Is a model from the World Eaters able to take any other mark? Sure? Why not? We just know that IF THAT MODEL IS ABLE, it must take the Mark of Khorne. Nothing in that statement tells me that I can't take a different Mark (or no Mark) if the model is unable to take the Mark of Khorne for some reason.
Is a World Eaters Chaos Lord unit able to take the Mark of Khorne? Yes. Therefore, it is required to.
Is a World Eaters Chaos Sorcerer unit able to take the Mark of Khorne? No. Therefore, it is not required to.
The requirement only exists when the World Eaters unit is ABLE to take the Mark of Khorne. The real question is whether or not a Chaos Sorcerer can select the World Eaters keyword. If not, this is a moot issue. I see no restriction preventing a Sorcerer from belonging to the World Eaters Legion. I also see no restriction saying that only units which can select the Mark of Khorne can be given the World Eaters keyword.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. The pre-Heresy World Eaters had Librarians. It's not unreasonable to think that a Librarian turned along with the rest of the Chapter and his control of the warp has prevented him from falling to Khorne. He'd likely be unmarked at that point. Hell, I could see Tzeentch marking him and giving him the tools to appear Khornate. Forge that narrative!
My take: It's pretty clear that when the codex says, "All World Eaters units must have the Mark of Khorne, if they are able to do so", it means that if a unit has the <MARK> keyword, then that mark must be designated as KHORNE for that unit to be in the World Eaters. If a unit does not have the <MARK> keyword to begin with, then it can still be in the World Eaters. Sorcerers have the <MARK> keyword, but they cannot designate it as KHORNE. Therefore, they cannot be in the World Eaters.
And really, why would Khorne permit psykers in his pet Legion, even assuming any remained in the Legion after the Council of Nikaea? He usually sics Karanak on psykers.
It's a Chicken or the Egg issue, as it is entirely dependent on the order that you read it in.
If you read it in the order that the unit (Sorcerer) must take a Mark or No Mark, and that Psykers can't be Khorne, and then read that World Eaters must be Khorne if able, then World Eaters can get Khornate Sorcerers. In this way, it's like you're choosing your entire army first, and then choosing the Legion afterwards.
The other way is to read the two rules in reverse, starting with "I am taking a World Eaters Legion" and making selections at that point. In this way, you would first make your army list a World Eaters army, then you start making the selections to include the Sorcerer, but would be unable to do so, as you couldn't select Khorne, which is a requirement for being in the World Eaters detachment. At that point, you have to give up on selecting the unit.
Thankfully, everyone knows the you can't. If you brought this to tournament I was running and said due to a technicality that your Sorcerer could still be a World Eater, even without the Mark of Khorne, then I'd laugh at you and say to fix your list.
So is everyone ignoring the rule that says "Note that PSYKERS cannot have the KHORNE keyword"? Because all I see are people ignoring that rule and arguing in bad faith.
You cannot have the Mark of Khorne if you're a Psyker. World Eaters must pick the Mark of Khorn "if they are able to". The Sorcerer, being a PSYKER has a special rule saying it "cannot have the KHORNE keyword". Therefore, you cannot pick World Eater because you cannot pick the Mark of Khorne. "If they are able to" does not permit you to ignore all other special rules.
JNAProductions wrote: Does it say "All units must have Mark of Khorne if they are able to"? Or does it say "All units that have [MARK] must take Khorne"?
Because there is a HUGE difference between the two.
I can't believe you're still hung up about this.
"all WORLD EATERS units must have the KHORNE keyword if they are able to do so"
This doesn't mean "You can ignore all other special rules and pick the KHORNE keyword." It's written this way so you don't take World Eaters with NO mark instead of the Mark of Khorne.
The rule says they must have the KHORNE keyword. A psyker cannot have the Khorne keyword. Therefore a World Eaters can never be a Psyker.
No? Then they are not able to. Therefore, they can still qualify.
Do you or do you not understand the difference between "All units must have Mark of Khorne if they are able to"? and "All units that have [MARK] must take Khorne"?
Yarium wrote: It's a Chicken or the Egg issue, as it is entirely dependent on the order that you read it in.
If you read it in the order that the unit (Sorcerer) must take a Mark or No Mark, and that Psykers can't be Khorne, and then read that World Eaters must be Khorne if able, then World Eaters can get Khornate Sorcerers. In this way, it's like you're choosing your entire army first, and then choosing the Legion afterwards.
The other way is to read the two rules in reverse, starting with "I am taking a World Eaters Legion" and making selections at that point. In this way, you would first make your army list a World Eaters army, then you start making the selections to include the Sorcerer, but would be unable to do so, as you couldn't select Khorne, which is a requirement for being in the World Eaters detachment. At that point, you have to give up on selecting the unit.
Thankfully, everyone knows the you can't. If you brought this to tournament I was running and said due to a technicality that your Sorcerer could still be a World Eater, even without the Mark of Khorne, then I'd laugh at you and say to fix your list.
I agree with the first bit. As to the second...
If you, as a TO, laughed at me for violating fluff and told me to get rid of some of my models, I'd walk out and never attend another of your events. I'd recommend to all of my friends to never attend another of your events. Assume a new player attends your event. This is his first real event. He's spent hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours prepping his army. He walks in and the tournament organizer laughs at him and tells him he can't use some of his models and that he should have known better. He'll probably never attend another event again. He'll probably instantly regret buying into this hobby. He would be entitled to those feelings and thoughts.
"Thankfully, everyone know the [sic] you can't..." How does a new player know that he can't take a Sorcerer in a World Eaters army? Because it's not fluffy? I guess you also can't field Ordo Hereticus Inquisitors alongside Daemonhosts. That's grade A heresy. You probably also can't field Dark Angels alongside Space Wolves. The Wolves didn't seem to appreciate having their planet carpet bombed. Etc, etc. 7th Edition allowed you to field a mixed Grey Knight/Chaos Daemons army. Admitting that a World Eaters Librarian might still be kicking around seems far less heretical.
JNAProductions wrote: No? Then they are not able to. Therefore, they can still qualify.
That is not the case. You can't be World Eaters without picking the Mark of Khorne. There are no <LEGION> units without <MARK> also.
Not only are you wrong from a rules standpoint, it will be FAQ'd for you to be wrong too (though it doesn't need to be).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: How does a new player know that he can't take a Sorcerer in a World Eaters army?
The special rule saying a Psyker cannot take Mark of Khorne, and the rule saying World Eaters must pick the Mark of Khorne. The game might be marketed to 11 year olds now, but it's not Hello Kitty Online.
Do you or do you not understand the difference between "All units must have Mark of Khorne if they are able to"? and "All units that have [MARK] must take Khorne"?
JNAProductions wrote: Do you or do you not understand the difference between "All units must have Mark of Khorne if they are able to"? and "All units that have [MARK] must take Khorne"?
Of course I do, what you are doing is ignoring the fact that a Sorcerer cannot take the MoK, which means it can't be World Eaters.
"...all World Eaters units must have the Khorne keyword if they are able to do so..."
"Note that Psykers cannot have the Khorne keyword."
Like Yarium said, it depends on the order of operations:
Sorcerers have the ability to choose a Mark so they have to choose Khorne to be WE, but they can't choose Khorne because they are a psyker. This means that they can't be WE because they have the ability to choose a Mark but it can't be Khorne.
OR
Sorcerers are not able to choose the Khorne mark and since they are not able to do so they are excempt from WE restrictions per the WE legion rules. This means they can be WE.
RAW, both can be argued but the second seems more coherent (seriously BaconCatBug, sometimes it sounded like you were giving evidence against your arguement).
RAI, it's the first arguement: no Khorne Sorcerers!
Kriswall wrote: If you, as a TO, laughed at me for violating fluff and told me to get rid of some of my models, I'd walk out and never attend another of your events.
, I would politely listen to your argument, and then inform you that by our opinion as the runners of the tournament, you are in error. We would help you construct a legal list that is as close to what you have currently taken as possible, and/or likely find some other unit in your codex/index that the Khorne Sorcerer could represent. Quickly typed, that's me saying I laugh and tell them to fix their list.
Kriswall wrote: If you, as a TO, laughed at me for violating fluff and told me to get rid of some of my models, I'd walk out and never attend another of your events.
, I would politely listen to your argument, and then inform you that by our opinion as the runners of the tournament, you are in error. We would help you construct a legal list that is as close to what you have currently taken as possible, and/or likely find some other unit in your codex/index that the Khorne Sorcerer could represent. Quickly typed, that's me saying I laugh and tell them to fix their list.
Probably worth giving your words a little thought before typing them, then. If you approached the issue politely and in a helpful manner, I'd be aggravated that the rules don't match how people are playing the game, but I'd stay and play.
Brian888 wrote: My take: It's pretty clear that when the codex says, "All World Eaters units must have the Mark of Khorne, if they are able to do so", it means that if a unit has the <MARK> keyword, then that mark must be designated as KHORNE for that unit to be in the World Eaters. If a unit does not have the <MARK> keyword to begin with, then it can still be in the World Eaters. Sorcerers have the <MARK> keyword, but they cannot designate it as KHORNE. Therefore, they cannot be in the World Eaters.
And really, why would Khorne permit psykers in his pet Legion, even assuming any remained in the Legion after the Council of Nikaea? He usually sics Karanak on psykers.
Except that's not what it says. I see people constantly misquoting the words in this thread. There is no requirement for a Mark, these rules are located within the Mark of Chaos rules already. It would insane to self-reference. What the rules say is that "All World Eaters units must have the KHORNE keyword if they are able to do so". That's it.
You can definitely read it two ways but grammar supports the way that brings about the Sorcerer. There's a huge thread about this on facebook and here are some of the examples I've seen.
"All WORLD EATER must have the Khorne keyword if they are able to do so"
"All PLAYERS must pay the tournament fee if they are participating in the event"
"All EMPLOYEES must attend the meeting if they are able to do so"
"All SHAPES must have four sides if they are squares"
When you fail to meet the requirement for the if statement then you don't have to do what it's attached to.
Players not participating in the event do not have to pay the fee, but they are still Players.
Employees not able to make it do not have to attend the meeting, but they are still Employees.
Shapes not able to be squares do not have to have four sides, but they are still Shapes.
Simply failing to meet the criteria for a condition does not negate your ability to select the World Eaters tag when it's clearly expressed as a sternly worded suggestion that restricts your options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the same token, if a unit had no mark of chaos rule at all yet still somehow could choose a legion, it wouldn't need to have the Khorne keyword at all. These rules referring to World Eaters are purely related to what Marks they are allowed to choose from if they are able to do so and there is nowhere in the book that specifically requires all World Eaters units to actually have the Khorne keyword before joining the Legion. If you didn't have the Mark of Chaos rule you wouldn't even notice this rule in the first place.
That said I can perfectly understand why some people may have mistaken it for saying that it applied to if you are able to take a mark of chaos at all. At which point we have to also consider whether things like Rubrics that don't have the option to choose a mark of chaos at all are still affected. After all, these restrictions are solely found in the mark of chaos rules and Rubrics do not even have such a rule.
Can't believe I missed it in the FAQ, yet managed to spot the entry for EC.
The FAQ for the Chaos INDEX says :
- Servants of Khorne
Add the following to the end of this paragraph:
‘If a unit has the Tzeentch, Nurgle or Slaanesh keywords, it cannot be from the World Eaters Legion.’
Which is pretty straight forward. It just means that someone forgot that when they were doing the Codex, or it was too late to correct.
Fictional wrote: Can't believe I missed it in the FAQ, yet managed to spot the entry for EC.
The FAQ for the Chaos INDEX says :
- Servants of Khorne
Add the following to the end of this paragraph:
‘If a unit has the Tzeentch, Nurgle or Slaanesh keywords, it cannot be from the World Eaters Legion.’
Which is pretty straight forward. It just means that someone forgot that when they were doing the Codex, or it was too late to correct.
Roll on the Chaos Codex FAQ!
If you have a <MARK> you can still choose to not have one. But this does 100% prevent rubrics, noise and plague marines from being World Eaters Legion. Still debatable if sorcerers can unfluffully join World Eaters.
Fictional wrote: Can't believe I missed it in the FAQ, yet managed to spot the entry for EC.
The FAQ for the Chaos INDEX says :
- Servants of Khorne
Add the following to the end of this paragraph:
‘If a unit has the Tzeentch, Nurgle or Slaanesh keywords, it cannot be from the World Eaters Legion.’
Which is pretty straight forward. It just means that someone forgot that when they were doing the Codex, or it was too late to correct.
Roll on the Chaos Codex FAQ!
Doesn't really have anything to do with this question though because the Sorcerer could just be unmarked.
BaconCatBug wrote: So is everyone ignoring the rule that says "Note that PSYKERS cannot have the KHORNE keyword"? Because all I see are people ignoring that rule and arguing in bad faith.
You cannot have the Mark of Khorne if you're a Psyker. World Eaters must pick the Mark of Khorn "if they are able to". The Sorcerer, being a PSYKER has a special rule saying it "cannot have the KHORNE keyword". Therefore, you cannot pick World Eater because you cannot pick the Mark of Khorne. "If they are able to" does not permit you to ignore all other special rules.
You're missing everyone else's point. No-one is ignoring anything or arguing in bad faith.
To be bulletproof, and read unambiguously as you read it, the WE rule should read "If a model is able to choose a Mark of Chaos, it must choose the Mark of Khorne." Even better, tag on "Sorcerers may not gain the WORLD EATERS keyword" or similar.
Fluffwise, of course and as the OP stated, no Sorcerers in the WE. Intent is also pretty damn clear. But they didn't entirely close the loop here.
JNAProductions wrote: What definition would you assign to it? Because common English is on my side here.
Is a model from the World Eaters able to take any other mark? No. Is a Sorcerer able to take a Mark of Khorne? No. Therefore, No Mark of Khorne for Sorcerers. It's simple, basic Boolean logic.
It's an AND gate.
Can a sorcerer have a mark of khorne? No (so 0)
Does a World Eater have the Mark of Khorne if it has the <MARK> keyword? Yes.
No AND Yes result in No.
You are thinking "if able to" to mean ALWAYS MUST HAVE IT, but it's actually meaning if you can pick a mark, you have to pick Khorne, not the other 3 or no mark.
You first assertion is wrong. Is a model from the World Eaters able to take any other mark? Sure? Why not? We just know that IF THAT MODEL IS ABLE, it must take the Mark of Khorne. Nothing in that statement tells me that I can't take a different Mark (or no Mark) if the model is unable to take the Mark of Khorne for some reason.
Is a World Eaters Chaos Lord unit able to take the Mark of Khorne? Yes. Therefore, it is required to.
Is a World Eaters Chaos Sorcerer unit able to take the Mark of Khorne? No. Therefore, it is not required to.
The requirement only exists when the World Eaters unit is ABLE to take the Mark of Khorne. The real question is whether or not a Chaos Sorcerer can select the World Eaters keyword. If not, this is a moot issue. I see no restriction preventing a Sorcerer from belonging to the World Eaters Legion. I also see no restriction saying that only units which can select the Mark of Khorne can be given the World Eaters keyword.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. The pre-Heresy World Eaters had Librarians. It's not unreasonable to think that a Librarian turned along with the rest of the Chapter and his control of the warp has prevented him from falling to Khorne. He'd likely be unmarked at that point. Hell, I could see Tzeentch marking him and giving him the tools to appear Khornate. Forge that narrative!
Sorcerers have the ability to choose a Mark so they have to choose Khorne to be WE, but they can't choose Khorne because they are a psyker. This means that they can't be WE because they have the ability to choose a Mark but it can't be Khorne.
In fluff world eaters do use sorcerers to navigate there ships they are treated like dirt but they do exist (most of them are mercenaries or slaves) Them being used in battle would be rare but it can happen. In dawn of war winter assault the chaos lord Krull hired some merc sorcerers to preform the required rituals to taint a imperator titan.
On a related issue, can Khorne Berzerkers be Emperor's Children? Because for Berzerkers I could imagine that fighting first is in some conditions at least as attractive as +1 attack on a charge. It seems weird to me, but I can't find a rule that bans it, or am I missing something?
Malachon wrote: On a related issue, can Khorne Berzerkers be Emperor's Children? Because for Berzerkers I could imagine that fighting first is in some conditions at least as attractive as +1 attack on a charge. It seems weird to me, but I can't find a rule that bans it, or am I missing something?
You can have emperor's children berserkers it is weird but you can.
Malachon wrote: On a related issue, can Khorne Berzerkers be Emperor's Children? Because for Berzerkers I could imagine that fighting first is in some conditions at least as attractive as +1 attack on a charge. It seems weird to me, but I can't find a rule that bans it, or am I missing something?
Malachon wrote: On a related issue, can Khorne Berzerkers be Emperor's Children? Because for Berzerkers I could imagine that fighting first is in some conditions at least as attractive as +1 attack on a charge. It seems weird to me, but I can't find a rule that bans it, or am I missing something?
You can have emperor's children berserkers it is weird but you can.
No, for the same reason as the rest of the thread...
All Emperor's Children must have Slaanesh
Khorne Berzerkers have Khorne
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, I'm reading the Chaos Codex
What page does it say that Sorcerer's can't have Khorne?
Malachon wrote: On a related issue, can Khorne Berzerkers be Emperor's Children? Because for Berzerkers I could imagine that fighting first is in some conditions at least as attractive as +1 attack on a charge. It seems weird to me, but I can't find a rule that bans it, or am I missing something?
Malachon wrote: On a related issue, can Khorne Berzerkers be Emperor's Children? Because for Berzerkers I could imagine that fighting first is in some conditions at least as attractive as +1 attack on a charge. It seems weird to me, but I can't find a rule that bans it, or am I missing something?
You can have emperor's children berserkers it is weird but you can.
No, for the same reason as the rest of the thread...
All Emperor's Children must have Slaanesh
Khorne Berzerkers have Khorne
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, I'm reading the Chaos Codex
What page does it say that Sorcerer's can't have Khorne?
"All units in a world eaters detachment must have the mark of khorne, or not have any mark keyword."
If only there was some rule that allowed a unit to be in a WE detachment when it is not able to take the mark of Khorne...
It's fine if you're not able to take it
It's not fine if you're able to take it and you restricted from taking it
A citizen is able to walk into a restricted military base
A citizen is restricted from walking into a restricted military base
But surely the restriction takes away the ability?
Some bloke - "I am able to walk through this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to walk through this door"
In the same fashion,
Sorcerer - "I am able to take the mark of Khorne"
GW - "You're a filthy sorcerer so I won't let you take the mark of Khorne"
Sorcerer - "I am no longer able to take the mark of Khorne"
"All units in a world eaters detachment must have the mark of khorne, or not have any mark keyword."
If only there was some rule that allowed a unit to be in a WE detachment when it is not able to take the mark of Khorne...
It's fine if you're not able to take it
It's not fine if you're able to take it and you restricted from taking it
A citizen is able to walk into a restricted military base
A citizen is restricted from walking into a restricted military base
But surely the restriction takes away the ability?
Some bloke - "I am able to walk through this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to walk through this door"
In the same fashion,
Sorcerer - "I am able to take the mark of Khorne"
GW - "You're a filthy sorcerer so I won't let you take the mark of Khorne"
Sorcerer - "I am no longer able to take the mark of Khorne"
I agree with you. Chaos Sorcerers are not able to take the Mark of Khorne. For anyone who disagrees, show me a legal list with a Khorne marked Sorcerer. I'll wait.
I really think this thread is mainly people who have already made up their mind on how this is supposed to work and are interpreting the rules to support their beliefs. A strict reading of the rule pretty clearly shows that Khorne Sorcerers are allowed. As a player who follows both the game and the fluff, my reaction is to ask GW... "You seem to have accidentally allowed Khorne Marked Sorcerers. Was this intentional?"
Kriswall wrote: I agree with you. Chaos Sorcerers are not able to take the Mark of Khorne. For anyone who disagrees, show me a legal list with a Khorne marked Sorcerer. I'll wait.
I really think this thread is mainly people who have already made up their mind on how this is supposed to work and are interpreting the rules to support their beliefs. A strict reading of the rule pretty clearly shows that Khorne Sorcerers are allowed. As a player who follows both the game and the fluff, my reaction is to ask GW... "You seem to have accidentally allowed Khorne Marked Sorcerers. Was this intentional?"
It would most likely be FAQ'd the same as the Khorne DP psyker in 7th.
Kriswall wrote: I agree with you. Chaos Sorcerers are not able to take the Mark of Khorne. For anyone who disagrees, show me a legal list with a Khorne marked Sorcerer. I'll wait.
I really think this thread is mainly people who have already made up their mind on how this is supposed to work and are interpreting the rules to support their beliefs. A strict reading of the rule pretty clearly shows that Khorne Sorcerers are allowed. As a player who follows both the game and the fluff, my reaction is to ask GW... "You seem to have accidentally allowed Khorne Marked Sorcerers. Was this intentional?"
It would most likely be FAQ'd the same as the Khorne DP psyker in 7th.
It's safe to say that I'm not actively converting up Khorne Sorcerers for my CSM army.
"All units in a world eaters detachment must have the mark of khorne, or not have any mark keyword."
If only there was some rule that allowed a unit to be in a WE detachment when it is not able to take the mark of Khorne...
It's fine if you're not able to take it
It's not fine if you're able to take it and you restricted from taking it
A citizen is able to walk into a restricted military base
A citizen is restricted from walking into a restricted military base
But surely the restriction takes away the ability?
Some bloke - "I am able to walk through this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to walk through this door"
In the same fashion,
Sorcerer - "I am able to take the mark of Khorne"
GW - "You're a filthy sorcerer so I won't let you take the mark of Khorne"
Sorcerer - "I am no longer able to take the mark of Khorne"
You were never able to walk "through" the door (Unless you're The Flash from DC comics)
What you were able to do was open the door to pass thru the doorway
and the "Cheaky" Locksmith has restricted your ability to open the door
"All units in a world eaters detachment must have the mark of khorne, or not have any mark keyword."
If only there was some rule that allowed a unit to be in a WE detachment when it is not able to take the mark of Khorne...
It's fine if you're not able to take it
It's not fine if you're able to take it and you restricted from taking it
A citizen is able to walk into a restricted military base
A citizen is restricted from walking into a restricted military base
But surely the restriction takes away the ability?
Some bloke - "I am able to walk through this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to walk through this door"
In the same fashion,
Sorcerer - "I am able to take the mark of Khorne"
GW - "You're a filthy sorcerer so I won't let you take the mark of Khorne"
Sorcerer - "I am no longer able to take the mark of Khorne"
I agree with you. Chaos Sorcerers are not able to take the Mark of Khorne. For anyone who disagrees, show me a legal list with a Khorne marked Sorcerer. I'll wait.
I really think this thread is mainly people who have already made up their mind on how this is supposed to work and are interpreting the rules to support their beliefs. A strict reading of the rule pretty clearly shows that Khorne Sorcerers are allowed. As a player who follows both the game and the fluff, my reaction is to ask GW... "You seem to have accidentally allowed Khorne Marked Sorcerers. Was this intentional?"
I really think this thread is mainly people who have already made up their mind on how this is supposed to work and are interpreting the rules to support their beliefs. A strict reading of the rule pretty clearly shows that Khorne Sorcerers are NOT allowed. As a player who follows both the game and the fluff, my reaction is to ask GW... "You seem to have clearly disallowed Khorne Marked Sorcerers. Which isn't a problem, I have no idea why I bothered mentioning that. Now my actual question... If a unit is able to take a Mark, but is restricted from taking a specific required mark or Already has a Mark that is not Khorne/Slaanesh can they be included in a World Eater/Emperors Children Detachment "
Talamare wrote: You were never able to walk "through" the door (Unless you're The Flash from DC comics)
What you were able to do was open the door to pass thru the archway
and the "Cheaky" Locksmith has restricted your ability to open the door
Alright then,
Some bloke - "I am able to open this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to open this door"
Would you like to make an arguement rather than just being pedantic?
Talamare wrote: You were never able to walk "through" the door (Unless you're The Flash from DC comics)
What you were able to do was open the door to pass thru the archway
and the "Cheaky" Locksmith has restricted your ability to open the door
Alright then,
Some bloke - "I am able to open this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to open this door"
Would you like to make an arguement rather than just being pedantic?
I'll acknowledge my previous point was pedantic, but then you acknowledge your current point is irrelevant
Since the door the "Cheaky" (is this his name btw?) Locksmith seems to be locking is the one that allows Sorcerers to enter a World Eaters list.
"All units in a world eaters detachment must have the mark of khorne, or not have any mark keyword."
If only there was some rule that allowed a unit to be in a WE detachment when it is not able to take the mark of Khorne...
It's fine if you're not able to take it
It's not fine if you're able to take it and you restricted from taking it
A citizen is able to walk into a restricted military base
A citizen is restricted from walking into a restricted military base
But surely the restriction takes away the ability?
Some bloke - "I am able to walk through this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to walk through this door"
In the same fashion,
Sorcerer - "I am able to take the mark of Khorne"
GW - "You're a filthy sorcerer so I won't let you take the mark of Khorne"
Sorcerer - "I am no longer able to take the mark of Khorne"
You were never able to walk "through" the door (Unless you're The Flash from DC comics)
What you were able to do was open the door to pass thru the doorway
and the "Cheaky" Locksmith has restricted your ability to open the door
"All units in a world eaters detachment must have the mark of khorne, or not have any mark keyword."
If only there was some rule that allowed a unit to be in a WE detachment when it is not able to take the mark of Khorne...
It's fine if you're not able to take it
It's not fine if you're able to take it and you restricted from taking it
A citizen is able to walk into a restricted military base
A citizen is restricted from walking into a restricted military base
But surely the restriction takes away the ability?
Some bloke - "I am able to walk through this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to walk through this door"
In the same fashion,
Sorcerer - "I am able to take the mark of Khorne"
GW - "You're a filthy sorcerer so I won't let you take the mark of Khorne"
Sorcerer - "I am no longer able to take the mark of Khorne"
I agree with you. Chaos Sorcerers are not able to take the Mark of Khorne. For anyone who disagrees, show me a legal list with a Khorne marked Sorcerer. I'll wait.
I really think this thread is mainly people who have already made up their mind on how this is supposed to work and are interpreting the rules to support their beliefs. A strict reading of the rule pretty clearly shows that Khorne Sorcerers are allowed. As a player who follows both the game and the fluff, my reaction is to ask GW... "You seem to have accidentally allowed Khorne Marked Sorcerers. Was this intentional?"
I really think this thread is mainly people who have already made up their mind on how this is supposed to work and are interpreting the rules to support their beliefs. A strict reading of the rule pretty clearly shows that Khorne Sorcerers are NOT allowed. As a player who follows both the game and the fluff, my reaction is to ask GW... "You seem to have clearly disallowed Khorne Marked Sorcerers. Which isn't a problem, I have no idea why I bothered mentioning that. Now my actual question... If a unit is able to take a Mark, but is restricted from taking a specific required mark or Already has a Mark that is not Khorne/Slaanesh can they be included in a World Eater/Emperors Children Detachment "
Looks like someone knows how copy/paste works. I'll continue to read this thread, but there is very little point in debating with people who have already made up their minds and aren't able to see the basic logic inherent in a few odd sentences. This is my last comment.
To have a World Eaters Sorcerer, precisely one thing has to happen. You must choose the World Eaters keyword as your <Legion> on a Sorcerer. Is there any wording preventing that? No, there is not. We also have to select a <Mark of Chaos>. What are our options? Tzeentch, Nurgle and Slaanesh aren't valid options as they can't be paired with World Eaters. Khorne isn't a valid option as it can't be paired with the Sorcerer. No mark is a valid option. It is a valid option when the unit in question isn't able to take Khorne. Sorcerers aren't able to take Khorne. Literally don't know how to say this in another way that would allow someone to understand. Regardless of how you feel about World Eaters Sorcerers in the fluff, the current rules allow them.
Talamare wrote: You were never able to walk "through" the door (Unless you're The Flash from DC comics)
What you were able to do was open the door to pass thru the archway
and the "Cheaky" Locksmith has restricted your ability to open the door
Alright then,
Some bloke - "I am able to open this door"
Cheaky Locksmith - "I've just put a lock on it and eaten the key"
Some bloke - "I am no longer able to open this door"
Would you like to make an arguement rather than just being pedantic?
I'll acknowledge my previous point was pedantic, but then you acknowledge your current point is irrelevant
Since the door the "Cheaky" (is this his name btw?) Locksmith seems to be locking is the one that allows Sorcerers to enter a World Eaters list.
One more post because I think I see your misconception. You seem to be taking the Mark of Khorne as a blanket prerequisite for joining the World Eaters. As in... Sorcerers can't take a Mark of Khorne, thus not meeting the requirement to join the World Eaters. It IS a prerequisite, but it ONLY applies to units that are able to take the Mark of Khorne... "if able". Who can't take a Mark of Khorne? Any unit that doesn't have the <Mark of Chaos> keyword and Sorcerers.
And I'll ask again... are Sorcerers able to take the Mark of Khorne? If yes, show me one example in a valid 40k army list. If not, then they aren't bound by the World Eaters requirement to have the Mark of Khorne as only units that are able to take a Mark of Khorne are bound by the requirement.
Talamare wrote: I'll acknowledge my previous point was pedantic, but then you acknowledge your current point is irrelevant
Since the door the "Cheaky" (is this his name btw?) Locksmith seems to be locking is the one that allows Sorcerers to enter a World Eaters list.
The point isn't irrelevent: it's an anolgy to demonstrate how the wording "if able to" works.
The bloke is able to open the door but the cheaky (he's cheaky cause he goes around and locks people doors all the time) locksmith locks the door which takes away the bloke's ability to open the door. The bloke is not able to open the door.
Likewise, the sorcerer is able to take the mark of Khorne but the codex says he can't take it which takes away the Sorcerer's ability to take the mark of Khorne. The Sorcerer is not able to take the mark of Khorne.
Talamare wrote: I'll acknowledge my previous point was pedantic, but then you acknowledge your current point is irrelevant
Since the door the "Cheaky" (is this his name btw?) Locksmith seems to be locking is the one that allows Sorcerers to enter a World Eaters list.
The point isn't irrelevent: it's an anolgy to demonstrate how the wording "if able to" works.
The bloke is able to open the door but the cheaky (he's cheaky cause he goes around and locks people doors all the time) locksmith locks the door which takes away the bloke's ability to open the door. The bloke is not able to open the door.
Likewise, the sorcerer is able to take the mark of Khorne but the codex says he can't take it which takes away the Sorcerer's ability to take the mark of Khorne. The Sorcerer is not able to take the mark of Khorne.
Why doesn't this make sense?
It makes sense, kinda, but it's irrelevant.
To put it in an analogy, or whatever it's called, imagine that there's the Khorne door. If you CAN take Mark of Khorne, you must proceed through the Khorne door, which requires you to be marked Khorne.
But, there's a second door, only available if you CANNOT be marked Khorne. That's the door the Sorcerer would use, since they can't be marked Khorne.
Talamare wrote: I'll acknowledge my previous point was pedantic, but then you acknowledge your current point is irrelevant
Since the door the "Cheaky" (is this his name btw?) Locksmith seems to be locking is the one that allows Sorcerers to enter a World Eaters list.
The point isn't irrelevent: it's an anolgy to demonstrate how the wording "if able to" works.
The bloke is able to open the door but the cheaky (he's cheaky cause he goes around and locks people doors all the time) locksmith locks the door which takes away the bloke's ability to open the door. The bloke is not able to open the door.
Likewise, the sorcerer is able to take the mark of Khorne but the codex says he can't take it which takes away the Sorcerer's ability to take the mark of Khorne. The Sorcerer is not able to take the mark of Khorne.
Why doesn't this make sense?
It makes sense, kinda, but it's irrelevant.
To put it in an analogy, or whatever it's called, imagine that there's the Khorne door. If you CAN take Mark of Khorne, you must proceed through the Khorne door, which requires you to be marked Khorne.
But, there's a second door, only available if you CANNOT be marked Khorne. That's the door the Sorcerer would use, since they can't be marked Khorne.
Again, my anology has nothing to do with becoming a World Eater, it was about determining whether the Sorcerer is able to take the mark of Khorne, my anology shows that the sorcerer isn't able to take the mark of Khorne. From that you can then follow on to show the Sorcerer can become a World Eater.
Talamare wrote: I'll acknowledge my previous point was pedantic, but then you acknowledge your current point is irrelevant
Since the door the "Cheaky" (is this his name btw?) Locksmith seems to be locking is the one that allows Sorcerers to enter a World Eaters list.
The point isn't irrelevent: it's an anolgy to demonstrate how the wording "if able to" works.
The bloke is able to open the door but the cheaky (he's cheaky cause he goes around and locks people doors all the time) locksmith locks the door which takes away the bloke's ability to open the door. The bloke is not able to open the door.
Likewise, the sorcerer is able to take the mark of Khorne but the codex says he can't take it which takes away the Sorcerer's ability to take the mark of Khorne. The Sorcerer is not able to take the mark of Khorne.
Why doesn't this make sense?
It makes sense, kinda, but it's irrelevant.
To put it in an analogy, or whatever it's called, imagine that there's the Khorne door. If you CAN take Mark of Khorne, you must proceed through the Khorne door, which requires you to be marked Khorne.
But, there's a second door, only available if you CANNOT be marked Khorne. That's the door the Sorcerer would use, since they can't be marked Khorne.
It's extraordinarily relevant. The rule we're all debating says a unit has to take the Mark of Khorne IF ABLE. Determining whether or not a Sorcerer IS ABLE to take the Mark of Khorne is completely relevant. There aren't two doors. There is one door. Two kinds of people can go through... 1. Units that are able to take the Mark of Khorne AND do take the Mark of Khorne. 2. Units that are not able to take the Mark of Khorne.
Kriswall wrote: I really think this thread is mainly people who have already made up their mind on how this is supposed to work and are interpreting the rules to support their beliefs.
I think statement already effectively sealed the thread, tho it was probably already sealed a little earlier than this. Unless everyone brings up new arguments everyone will just keep repeating the same arguments.
Slave wrote: Just when we had a ton of good will for Games Workshop, they pull a Games workshop.
Legion rules gone, marks do nothing, and they even screw this up.
Way to go.
RAW, completely legal to have Plague Marine World Eaters.
Hooray. *sarcasm*
So we definitely do have legion rules and Marks of chaos give access to auras, powers and strategems.
FAQ isn't out yet, there have always been hickups in new codeces.
It's fun to hate on GW for no reason isn't it? (Not saying GW are a great company but they are getting better)
We have legion rules for who? Maybe you are not on Facebook? They have stated no less than 10 times now that those cult troops are elites, plus in their own World Eaters army, they are also elites. Bonus: Show me where the legion rules are in the codex. I'll wait.
Slave wrote: We have legion rules for who? Maybe you are not on Facebook? They have stated no less than 10 times now that those cult troops are elites, plus in their own World Eaters army, they are also elites. Bonus: Show me where the legion rules are in the codex. I'll wait.
I guess your right... This +1A I have for all my WE units and this -1LD aura I have for my NL must have just appeared out of no where...
(On the subject of cult troops as elites, I am aware of GW stance on this as I have asked them on Facebook and WarhammerTV. However, locally, it is very easy to just show people there are 2 profiles for cult units: "I am using the troop profile in the index, not the elite profile in the codex since the troop one hasn't been updated".)
It may require an FaQ, but the operation rests on whether or not a unit has the <Mark of Chaos> 'Keyword'. If it does, then it has the 'ability', and, having the ability, must then be assigned <Mark of Khorne> to be a World Eater. If a unit lacks the <Mark of Chaos> 'Keyword', it may still be a World Eater.
Being prohibited from taking a mark means you don't have permission to take that mark, it doesn't mean you don't have the <Mark of Chaos> 'Keyword' ability.
This is similar to ye olde, "Can I go to the bathroom?" bit, illustrating that ability and permission are different things.
It may require an FaQ, but the operation rests on whether or not a unit has the <Mark of Chaos> 'Keyword'. If it does, then it has the 'ability', and, having the ability, must then be assigned <Mark of Khorne> to be a World Eater. If a unit lacks the <Mark of Chaos> 'Keyword', it may still be a World Eater.
Being prohibited from taking a mark means you don't have permission to take that mark, it doesn't mean you don't have the <Mark of Chaos> 'Keyword' ability.
This is similar to ye olde, "Can I go to the bathroom?" bit, illustrating that ability and permission are different things.
Are you confirming the existence of World Eaters Plague Marines?
Looks like someone knows how copy/paste works. I'll continue to read this thread, but there is very little point in debating with people who have already made up their minds and aren't able to see the basic logic inherent in a few odd sentences. This is my last comment.
To have a World Eaters Sorcerer, precisely one thing has to happen. You must choose the World Eaters keyword as your <Legion> on a Sorcerer. Is there any wording preventing that? No, there is not. We also have to select a <Mark of Chaos>. What are our options? Tzeentch, Nurgle and Slaanesh aren't valid options as they can't be paired with World Eaters. Khorne isn't a valid option as it can't be paired with the Sorcerer. No mark is a valid option. It is a valid option when the unit in question isn't able to take Khorne. Sorcerers aren't able to take Khorne. Literally don't know how to say this in another way that would allow someone to understand. Regardless of how you feel about World Eaters Sorcerers in the fluff, the current rules allow them.
Have the Sorcerer take the Mark of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. Emperor's Children Sorcerers are actually extracting Slack from the Warp
One could say they didn't put it in the CSM codex because it's gonna go in the WE codex.
Once Angron model drops, yeah there is high chances that there is a WE codex, or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IFC_Casting wrote: World Eaters psyker? That's too much heresy even for them.
In all honesty i always found the "No Psy Powers" kinda dumb, since Khorne is still an entety of chaos, thus made up of RAW Psychic power.
I would have setteled with a "Khorne's Psyker can only cast buffs and Direct attack powers" like Pyromancy and Biomancy powers.
Heck i would even settle for a Character like a "Skull Priest" who can throw buffs to other Khornate units based on the numbers of skulls they've taken in precedent turn, like a mini "Blood Tithe".
What i think is a missed opportunity is that for Pure Khornate lists there is no "Buffing" model other then the Lord or Exalt Champ.
To be fair thought, what is stopping someone from taking a sorcerer with make undivided and some cultists as a separate detachment if they want to use powers? Then you paint it up and say "these guys are wannabe khorne". What would you lose?
Slayer le boucher wrote: In all honesty i always found the "No Psy Powers" kinda dumb, since Khorne is still an entety of chaos, thus made up of RAW Psychic power.
I would have setteled with a "Khorne's Psyker can only cast buffs and Direct attack powers" like Pyromancy and Biomancy powers.
Because even though he is raw warpstuff, Khorne values brute strength and honour above all else. Using magical powers is "cheating". To paraphrase If-The-Emperor-Had-A-TTS-Device: Khorne will never betray you, or stab you in the back. He will just stab you in the face, repeatedly, until your face no longer resembles a face.
I am not going to lie, I read this thread just to upset myself. And I succeeded. I can understand word play and intentionally misconstruing statements just for funzies, but to bold face lie to people and make claims like Word Eaters can take sorcerors even makes me raise an eyebrow.
Just remember people you can lie to yourselves, and play word games here on the forums, without being face to face with your, incredulous skeptics but when you walk into that hobby store, and you pull the same stunt, they'll laugh at you, or simply say, find someone else to play with.
Tsol wrote: I am not going to lie, I read this thread just to upset myself. And I succeeded. I can understand word play and intentionally misconstruing statements just for funzies, but to bold face lie to people and make claims like Word Eaters can take sorcerors even makes me raise an eyebrow.
Just remember people you can lie to yourselves, and play word games here on the forums, without being face to face with your, incredulous skeptics but when you walk into that hobby store, and you pull the same stunt, they'll laugh at you, or simply say, find someone else to play with.
You should be careful about someone saying "bold (sic) face lie", RAW it looks like they can, but as has been repeatedly pointed out by people this is a case where RAW is stupid, and to expect it to be taken care of in a FAQ. I think people here know the RAI for this and will follow that, but where the RAW is being dabated claiming one side is telling a lie without support (Tenet 1 of YMDC: "Don't make a statement without backing it up. ") is starting to question their motives. You might think they're wrong, or that they're mistaken in their reading of the RAW that they're arguing about, but that does not mean they're deliberately telling a lie. That also runs afoul of Tenet 5, which has its second sentence as "Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. ".
So, did you actually want to discuss what the rules say?
Yeah, calling someone a liar is overkill here. This is a valid interpretation of the rules, even if some of us may think it's absurd.
The differences between Index and Codex for WE and EC have been handled poorly by GW. There are several areas where the rules / wording is ambiguous partly b/c this is the first time we had 2 books talking about the same thing - like with whether or not WE Army Rules apply to armies from the Codex.
Personally, I would let an opponent take the sorcerer if that person felt it was important. The only real benefit I can see is maybe it avoids the need for a separate detachment to get a battalion going. A few more command points on a World Eaters army is not going to make much of a difference.
With regards to Rubrics in a World Eaters army - yeah, the language could be interpreted that way. But that might be pushing it.
Tsol wrote: I am not going to lie, I read this thread just to upset myself. And I succeeded. I can understand word play and intentionally misconstruing statements just for funzies, but to bold face lie to people and make claims like Word Eaters can take sorcerors even makes me raise an eyebrow.
Just remember people you can lie to yourselves, and play word games here on the forums, without being face to face with your, incredulous skeptics but when you walk into that hobby store, and you pull the same stunt, they'll laugh at you, or simply say, find someone else to play with.
You should be careful about someone saying "bold (sic) face lie", RAW it looks like they can, but as has been repeatedly pointed out by people this is a case where RAW is stupid, and to expect it to be taken care of in a FAQ. I think people here know the RAI for this and will follow that, but where the RAW is being dabated claiming one side is telling a lie without support (Tenet 1 of YMDC: "Don't make a statement without backing it up. ") is starting to question their motives. You might think they're wrong, or that they're mistaken in their reading of the RAW that they're arguing about, but that does not mean they're deliberately telling a lie. That also runs afoul of Tenet 5, which has its second sentence as "Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. ".
So, did you actually want to discuss what the rules say?
Actually no, I don't. As I said in my post, I came here to upset myself, because this is a good old fashioned people trying to break rules. What weirds me out, as mentioned above, is I am very confident that no one, not at any tournament or even in casual games would look at their friend or opponent and straight faced say. "Hey, I know this is wrong, and I am trying to break the grammar of this rule, because it wasn't explicit enough, and I'm fairly confident there will be a FAQ or even an errata to ensure there is no ambiguity as to what I am doing is wrong. And I know its wrong, but I'm still going to try and break it. Are you okay with that?"
Remember, when you admit, you know what the rule is supposed to be RAI but you want to break the rules by abusing grammar or taking advantage of poor rules writing; RAW, you are purposefully either lying (not being honest intentionally) or you are trying to break the game in an unfair advantage for yourself (still dishonest).
Which brings me back to my prior post. I dare any of you to go to a gameshop and try it. See if your opponents or friends will humor you.
Discuss the grammar all you please, from what I've read, not one person here is confused about RAI. Simply, how long can I abuse this loophole before they fix it.
Tsol wrote: I am not going to lie, I read this thread just to upset myself. And I succeeded. I can understand word play and intentionally misconstruing statements just for funzies, but to bold face lie to people and make claims like Word Eaters can take sorcerors even makes me raise an eyebrow.
Just remember people you can lie to yourselves, and play word games here on the forums, without being face to face with your, incredulous skeptics but when you walk into that hobby store, and you pull the same stunt, they'll laugh at you, or simply say, find someone else to play with.
You should be careful about someone saying "bold (sic) face lie", RAW it looks like they can, but as has been repeatedly pointed out by people this is a case where RAW is stupid, and to expect it to be taken care of in a FAQ. I think people here know the RAI for this and will follow that, but where the RAW is being dabated claiming one side is telling a lie without support (Tenet 1 of YMDC: "Don't make a statement without backing it up. ") is starting to question their motives. You might think they're wrong, or that they're mistaken in their reading of the RAW that they're arguing about, but that does not mean they're deliberately telling a lie. That also runs afoul of Tenet 5, which has its second sentence as "Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. ".
So, did you actually want to discuss what the rules say?
Actually no, I don't. As I said in my post, I came here to upset myself, because this is a good old fashioned people trying to break rules. What weirds me out, as mentioned above, is I am very confident that no one, not at any tournament or even in casual games would look at their friend or opponent and straight faced say. "Hey, I know this is wrong, and I am trying to break the grammar of this rule, because it wasn't explicit enough, and I'm fairly confident there will be a FAQ or even an errata to ensure there is no ambiguity as to what I am doing is wrong. And I know its wrong, but I'm still going to try and break it. Are you okay with that?"
Remember, when you admit, you know what the rule is supposed to be RAI but you want to break the rules by abusing grammar or taking advantage of poor rules writing; RAW, you are purposefully either lying (not being honest intentionally) or you are trying to break the game in an unfair advantage for yourself (still dishonest).
Which brings me back to my prior post. I dare any of you to go to a gameshop and try it. See if your opponents or friends will humor you.
Discuss the grammar all you please, from what I've read, not one person here is confused about RAI. Simply, how long can I abuse this loophole before they fix it.
As already pointed out above, even RAI, if you really want you can take a sorcererer in WE army, it just isn't a World eater sorcerer at that point and you will need to put it in a separate detachment which is really not hard to work around.
This discussion has been mostly for fun on RAW (as you say, nobody will even try to take a WE sorcerer) to see if GW forgot to put a stop to RAWWE Socerers. Which it seems they did. I take it more like a funny useless fact then anything else...
WE can take any unit in the book with <legion>. If they couldn't, it would specifically say that.
The only requirement is that if they can choose the mark of khorne, they must.
There are plenty of units that can't choose their mark (cult troops etc) and sorcs, who don't have the option of khorne. It doesn't say anywhere that not being able to choose khorne means they can't be WE. It just says they can't willing choose something else instead of it. That's RAW, as far as i can tell. RAI could very well be something else.
(I would say that the fact it needed an errata and not an FAQ means you were wrong RAW. Just saying since you decided to add that little message on the end.)
Goat wrote: I know this is non fluff but...
Sorcerers are not able to take a mark of Khorne
When selecting a mark you do not have to declare one.
World Eaters must be marked of Khorne, if able to do so.
Does the escape claus of the World Eaters "if able" allow for World Eater legion sorcerers? I don't see anything stopping this. Can someone point out if I missed something?
Ref. Pg. 116 of codex
I can't remember exactly but there's some sort of 1 unit detatchment you can take at -1CP. So you could have a World Eater Primary Detatchment and then a single detatchment that is not World Eater made up of the single sorcerer. You would still be battleforged, able to take to the WE Legion Trait, you just take a penalty hit of -1 CP and your one Sorcerer would not be able to benifit from legion traits or command abilities that target MoK or WE units.
, I would politely listen to your argument, and then inform you that by our opinion as the runners of the tournament, you are in error. We would help you construct a legal list that is as close to what you have currently taken as possible, and/or likely find some other unit in your codex/index that the Khorne Sorcerer could represent. Quickly typed, that's me saying I laugh and tell them to fix their list.
