Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I really dont think thats how it reads bud...

I mean I understand what you are getting at, but the fact alone that he has one of the same marks as a unit he wants to join makes too much sense.

I agree that it makes no sense but it is how the rules are written out. I'm not saying its how I would play it, but in the RAW discussion its what is RAW.

I feel like the rule should've made it so characters just had to share a mark with the unit they join, but thats not how its written.

Playing against me, by all means, field him in any unit you want, but against TFG it probably isint going to happen. Thats not to say everyone who is saying here that abby cant join a unit is TFG, it just means they see how the rule is written, and are giving an objective rules interpretation.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I really dont think thats how it reads bud...

I mean I understand what you are getting at, but the fact alone that he has one of the same marks as a unit he wants to join makes too much sense.

Ah, theres your issue - you are reading a restriction incorrectly

He cannot join if he has a different mark. He will always have 3 different marks, meaning he cannot join. It is a stunningly simple sentence

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I really dont think thats how it reads bud...

I mean I understand what you are getting at, but the fact alone that he has one of the same marks as a unit he wants to join makes too much sense.

Ah, theres your issue - you are reading a restriction incorrectly

He cannot join if he has a different mark. He will always have 3 different marks, meaning he cannot join. It is a stunningly simple sentence

It's the unit that cannot have a different mark, not Abby. Like I've said before I'm not sure if that's enough of a difference, but it could well be that we're called to compare the entirety of Abaddon once, instead of comparing four times. In that case he could join, as "mark of X" is part of the group "all marks".

The rule is basically flawed and needs details of the comparison procedure, and without it I'd say there is no RAW, only interpretations.

But there is RAW. You almost never check part of rule X. Rule X is a rule in its entirety, and unless stated otherwise, you must use the rule in its entirety. You cannot pick and choose which parts of a rule apply. The rule will tell you to do that if thats the case.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
But there is RAW. You almost never check part of rule X. Rule X is a rule in its entirety, and unless stated otherwise, you must use the rule in its entirety. You cannot pick and choose which parts of a rule apply. The rule will tell you to do that if thats the case.

Huh, I thought my interpretation did check the rule in its entirety. All that stuff about "mark X" being part of the group, "all marks". I can understand if you think that's not what the rule means, but I honestly can't see how it could be just a part of the rule.

Because he is prohibited from joining a unit if he has even 1, single, solitary, mark that is different from them. He is not given permission to join if he has the same mark, he does that becuase he is an IC.

Think about it this way, It dosent matter if the unit likes one mark he has, they hate the other three.

Khorne says "The Skum is a magic caster of tzeench"
Tzeench says "The skum is a mindless brute of khorne"
Nurgle says "His slanneshy body is too hot for us"
and Slannesh says "His sickened nurgle body is not perfect enough for us"

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because he is prohibited from joining a unit if he has even 1, single, solitary, mark that is different from them. He is not given permission to join if he has the same mark, he does that becuase he is an IC.

Think about it this way, It dosent matter if the unit likes one mark he has, they hate the other three.

Khorne says "The Skum is a magic caster of tzeench"
Tzeench says "The skum is a mindless brute of khorne"
Nurgle says "His slanneshy body is too hot for us"
and Slannesh says "His sickened nurgle body is not perfect enough for us"

Once again, you have it backwards. It's the squad that cannot have a different mark. That makes a difference, even if I'm not sure how much of one.

It dosent change much if anything. The marks are still different somewhere.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
It dosent change much if anything. The marks are still different somewhere.

I maintain that it's quite possible that the rules text means that you compare the squad's mark to the character as a whole.

In other words, Berzerkers have the same mark as Abaddon, but Adaddon does not have the same marks as Berzerkers.

But having the same mark changes nothing is what I'm trying to say. If he has a different mark, there is where the issues begin.

The rule dosent say they have to have the same mark, it says they must not have a different. Thats the only reason he cant join.

If it asked that they have the same mark it would be perfectly fine, but it asks that they not have different.

If its still possiable to take an unmarked lord, he could go into a khorne unit as easy as a khorne lord.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
But having the same mark changes nothing is what I'm trying to say. If he has a different mark, there is where the issues begin.

The rule dosent say they have to have the same mark, it says they must not have a different. Thats the only reason he cant join.

If it asked that they have the same mark it would be perfectly fine, but it asks that they not have different.

If its still possiable to take an unmarked lord, he could go into a khorne unit as easy as a khorne lord.

Yeah, double negative makes it muddier (great rules writing there GW!), but still arguable.

Berzerkers do not have a different mark than Abaddon, but Abaddon has different marks than Berzerkers.

The sentence still works.

I see what you are saying, and I understand what you mean, but you must look at the MOCA as a whole. It represents 4 marks together and you are not given permission to take it apart for him to join a unit. (Permissive ruleset and all that good stuff)

I understand where you are coming from but when you look at abbys mark as a whole he does have 3 other marks that his unit will not.

Well the CSM FAQ has been removed, so hopefully, we will have a new FAQ up soon and this (and zombie squad size) will be clarified.

Rumors on the wind say that Zombies are the first thing to get FAQ'd.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Rumors on the wind say that Zombies are the first thing to get FAQ'd.

And the ruling will not surprise me either way. As I already told the one Zombie runner at my LFGS, I don't care what the FAQ says, Plague Zombies are required to have a minimum of 20 models (unless you run out of points/models).

I havent dusted my chaos off in quite a while so it dosent really bother me either. Everyting dies equally as fast against S-10 AP-1

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I see what you are saying, and I understand what you mean, but you must look at the MOCA as a whole. It represents 4 marks together and you are not given permission to take it apart for him to join a unit. (Permissive ruleset and all that good stuff)

I understand where you are coming from but when you look at abbys mark as a whole he does have 3 other marks that his unit will not.

It's worse than that - it doesn't just represent the 4 Marks - it says he has the 4 Marks. If it was just the MoCA with the effect of the 4 Marks it wouldn't even be arguable - his Mark would always be different.

By complete RAW couldn't the sentence under marks stating "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." be taken as allowing him to join since he doesn't have A mark of chaos? The phrase a mark of chaos could denote having a singular mark of chaos being the limiting factor. Since he has multiple he is bypassing the stipulation that any character with a "single" mark of chaos can not join another unit with a different mark of chaos?

According to RAW (and using set theory) Abaddon can join any squad. Allow me to elaborate:

First, we need to understand the Set Difference. The set difference between U and A (U\A) is defined as set of members of U that are not members of A. For example, let's take U to be {1, 2, 3} and A to be {2, 3, 4}. U\A is {1}. Inversely, A\U is {4}. This shows it matters the order of the set difference.

Now onto the rules: Abaddon's set, which I'll refer to as A, is {k, n, s, t}, and the squad's set is S. For our example, let's say the squad has Mark of Khorne, so S is {k}. The rules say if the squad has a different mark, which means we are dealing with a set difference S\A. S\A is {k}\{k, n, s, t} = {} (the null set). There is no difference so Abaddon is free to join.

The people who say Abaddon can't join are saying the set difference is {n, s, t} which would be A\S, which isn't what the rules say.

On further note: those who say that Abaddon can't join squads with a mark should also say that he can't join sqauds without a mark, too. {k, n, s, t}\{} = {k, n, s, t}. Abaddon would have 4 marks different than the squad.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
According to RAW (and using set theory) Abaddon can join any squad. Allow me to elaborate:

First, we need to understand the Set Difference. The set difference between U and A (U\A) is defined as set of members of U that are not members of A. For example, let's take U to be {1, 2, 3} and A to be {2, 3, 4}. U\A is {1}. Inversely, A\U is {4}. This shows it matters the order of the set difference.

Now onto the rules: Abaddon's set, which I'll refer to as A, is {k, n, s, t}, and the squad's set is S. For our example, let's say the squad has Mark of Khorne, so S is {k}. The rules say if the squad has a different mark, which means we are dealing with a set difference S\A. S\A is {k}\{k, n, s, t} = {} (the null set). There is no difference so Abaddon is free to join.

The people who say Abaddon can't join are saying the set difference is {n, s, t} which would be A\S, which isn't what the rules say.

On further note: those who say that Abaddon can't join squads with a mark should also say that he can't join sqauds without a mark, too. {k, n, s, t}\{} = {k, n, s, t}. Abaddon would have 4 marks different than the squad.

"An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." One issue with your logic, it breaks the rule.
As Abby has A the unit has K, sure the unit has a mark in common with Abby, however there are examples of a different mark there as well.

If Abby were to join an Unmarked unit that is fine Abby has A, unit has no mark. The rule is not broken and follows as normal.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Now onto the rules: Abaddon's set, which I'll refer to as A, is {k, n, s, t}, and the squad's set is S. For our example, let's say the squad has Mark of Khorne, so S is {k}. The rules say if the squad has a different mark, which means we are dealing with a set difference S\A. S\A is {k}\{k, n, s, t} = {} (the null set). There is no difference so Abaddon is free to join.

Unfortunately, you've reversed your operators here. S\A gives you all the Marks that Squad has that Abaddon doesn't have. Unmarked Lord L is {} (null set). Set difference of S\L is {k}\{} is [k}, which is not empty set, so according to you, unmarked Lord cannot join marked unit.
This is because your set theory rule translates to "IC cannot join unit, unless he has same Mark as the Unit has", which is far cry from the actual rule.

Now the actual rule is "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." Therefore, the proper set difference is A\S, because it gives us "Mark(s) Abaddon has that are different from what Mark(s) the Squad has", which is exactly what rules required. {k, n, s, t}\{k} = {n,s,t} so Abaddon does in fact have 3 marks that are different from the unit, which means it may not join.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
The people who say Abaddon can't join are saying the set difference is {n, s, t} which would be A\S, which isn't what the rules say.

Actually, this is exactly what the rules say and is the reason why your whole reasoning is completely flawed. Here are the Set differences translated:
S\A = "All Marks Squad has that Abaddon doesn't have"
A\S= "All Marks Abaddon has that Squad doesn't have" which one can also say as "All Marks Abaddon has that are different from the Marks Squad has"

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
On further note: those who say that Abaddon can't join squads with a mark should also say that he can't join sqauds without a mark, too. {k, n, s, t}\{} = {k, n, s, t}. Abaddon would have 4 marks different than the squad.

Because you've 'conveniently forgotten' that there is requirement S != {} for the actual rule to apply.

So the formal requirements for a IC being allowed to join unit in CSM are I = {} || S = {} || ( S != {} && I\S = {} )
Lord can join a squad if and only if 1) IC has no Mark OR 2) Squad has no Mark OR 3) Squad has a Mark and the Mark is not different from what Mark IC has.
Technically IC = {} is superfluous, because if IC = {} then I\S is trivially {}.

Allow me to try to clarify:

Let's look at the rule "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." We have two parts of this: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos" and "a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." The difference is modifying the squad and not the independent character. So, again the set difference would be S\A, not A\S.

I'm not saying that because they have a mark in common, that they can join up. I agree that the rule doesn't say that. If we had some mythic squad that could somehow take the mark of khorne and the mark of nurgle a the same time, then Typhus could not join that squad. Even though they have a mark in common, there exists a difference. {k, n}\{n}={k} =\= {}. However, Abaddon could join this squad because we are left with the null set {k, n}\{k, n, s, t} = {}, which means there is no difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
S\A = "All Marks Squad has that Abaddon doesn't have"
A\S= "All Marks Abaddon has that Squad doesn't have" which one can also say as "All Marks Abaddon has that are different from the Marks Squad has"

Why did you not give a "translation" for S\A? "All Marks Squad has that Abaddon doesn't have" would translate to "All Marks that the squad have that are different from what Abaddon has."

Is that not what the rules say? "a squad with a different Mark of Chaos"?

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Allow me to try to clarify:

Let's look at the rule "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." We have two parts of this: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos" and "a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." The difference is modifying the squad and not the independent character. So, again the set difference would be S\A, not A\S.

No. The squad must not have different mark, which means you have to

I'm not saying that because they have a mark in common, that they can join up. I agree that the rule doesn't say that. If we had some mythic squad that could somehow take the mark of khorne and the mark of nurgle a the same time, then Typhus could not join that squad. Even though they have a mark in common, there exists a difference. {k, n}\{n}={k} =\= {}. However, Abaddon could join this squad because we are left with the null set {k, n}\{k, n, s, t} = {}, which means there is no difference.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Allow me to try to clarify:

Let's look at the rule "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." We have two parts of this: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos" and "a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." The difference is modifying the squad and not the independent character. So, again the set difference would be S\A, not A\S.

I'm not saying that because they have a mark in common, that they can join up. I agree that the rule doesn't say that. If we had some mythic squad that could somehow take the mark of khorne and the mark of nurgle a the same time, then Typhus could not join that squad. Even though they have a mark in common, there exists a difference. {k, n}\{n}={k} =\= {}. However, Abaddon could join this squad because we are left with the null set {k, n}\{k, n, s, t} = {}, which means there is no difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
S\A = "All Marks Squad has that Abaddon doesn't have"
A\S= "All Marks Abaddon has that Squad doesn't have" which one can also say as "All Marks Abaddon has that are different from the Marks Squad has"

Why did you not give a "translation" for S\A? "All Marks Squad has that Abaddon doesn't have" would translate to "All Marks that the squad have that are different from what Abaddon has."

Is that not what the rules say? "a squad with a different Mark of Chaos"?

Im sorry but you are awesome... you are putting it in simple equation form and people are still not accepting of it...

I'd like to explore this notion of symmetric difference. More precisely, why do you think the rules call for a symmetric difference?

Let's look at the following sample sentences:
1) "A character with a mark cannot join a squad that has a different mark."
2) "A character with a mark, which differs from a squad's mark, cannot join that squad.:
3) "A character with a mark cannot join a differently marked squad."

I submit that only sentence 3 implies symmetric difference being that it says the sets, themselves, cannot be different for the character to join. Sentence 1 implies that the squad's set, S, has to be a subset of the character's set, C, for the character to be able to join; sentence 2 says that C has to be a subset of S.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Allow me to try to clarify:

Let's look at the rule "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." We have two parts of this: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos" and "a unit with a different Mark of Chaos." The difference is modifying the squad and not the independent character. So, again the set difference would be S\A, not A\S.

I'm not saying that because they have a mark in common, that they can join up. I agree that the rule doesn't say that. If we had some mythic squad that could somehow take the mark of khorne and the mark of nurgle a the same time, then Typhus could not join that squad. Even though they have a mark in common, there exists a difference. {k, n}\{n}={k} =\= {}. However, Abaddon could join this squad because we are left with the null set {k, n}\{k, n, s, t} = {}, which means there is no difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
S\A = "All Marks Squad has that Abaddon doesn't have"
A\S= "All Marks Abaddon has that Squad doesn't have" which one can also say as "All Marks Abaddon has that are different from the Marks Squad has"

Why did you not give a "translation" for S\A? "All Marks Squad has that Abaddon doesn't have" would translate to "All Marks that the squad have that are different from what Abaddon has."

Is that not what the rules say? "a squad with a different Mark of Chaos"?

Trying to follow your logic and look at this objectively, but wouldn't the formula for abby be:
{k,n}/{k}+{k,n}/{n}+{k,n}/{s}+{k,n}/{t}=\={} because you have to check the unit's mark(s) against each of the IC's marks for one difference and not as a collective?

or from another perspective:
{k,n}/{MoCA}=\={}

I personally feel that abby should be able to join these units from a RAI, but I currently don't see it from a RAW perspective. Your arguement intrigues me though.

He can join any unit because his mark has 1 of each and well he can. You can quote the rule your puking all over here and quite frankly you know your wrong. Just remember most of you rules lawering RAW people here have been wrong 12 out of 10 times when faq reviels the truth off it.

JUST LIKE the zombie hordes of cultist are up to 35 per unit.

Lungpickle wrote:
He can join any unit because his mark has 1 of each and well he can. You can quote the rule your puking all over here and quite frankly you know your wrong. Just remember most of you rules lawering RAW people here have been wrong 12 out of 10 times when faq reviels the truth off it.

JUST LIKE the zombie hordes of cultist are up to 35 per unit.

12 out of 10, I'm glad you can do math. As for us Rules Lawyering people, until a faq they have to played that way as it's a game with RULES.

The rule doesn't care about marks that are the same, just when they're different. So you're still wrong but good try.

Lungpickle wrote:
He can join any unit because his mark has 1 of each and well he can. You can quote the rule your puking all over here and quite frankly you know your wrong. Just remember most of you rules lawering RAW people here have been wrong 12 out of 10 times when faq reviels the truth off it.

JUST LIKE the zombie hordes of cultist are up to 35 per unit.

We actually haven't. And we are only wrong if we continue to assert the rules work one way after its been FAQed or errataed otherwise.

Please backup your opinion with rules quotes, not feelings.