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.

So I've been pondering for a day or two on this idea. Thinking so much that for so many days my head hurts from lack of sleep and I think I may have snapped. I know that a lot of people really over look and disregard Fabius Bile. I personally think the model and the rules for different marines make for good conversions and units. I think the idea of cheaper Khorne Berserkers would make him more appealing. Anyways.

Now my question...

I've read somewhere that Chaos Bikers can have a Icon of Nurgle, and this would make them Toughness 7.

This made me look into the Enhanced CSMs. On a average roll you have +1 Str/Fearless Troop units. What would happen if you bought a Icon for them too? Can you still buy a Icon?

If so will the Icon of Khorne stack with Fabius' enhancement? Making them Str 6?
How about with a Icon of Nurgle? How would Str 5 T 5 Initiative 4 sound?

I think you get the idea. I'm in the process of making this army anyway and would like to know if any of these are illegal. I've only searched the Faq on the GW website, and the only thing I noticed was a answer about Nurgle Bikers having T 6.

Nurgle Bikers have t6. t5 + 1 from icon of nurgle = t6. Enhanced marines can still take Icons.

It is highly disputed if Fabius Bile is allowed to enhance units like bikers, chosen and havocs that are listed under "Chaos Space Marines" in the unit descriptions, or only the unit called "Chaos Space Marines" in the stat reference. Nobody really knows. In the FAQ for the previous edition of the codex it said that it was only the regular Chaos Space Marines and not bikers or cult marines. But it does not say that in the FAQ for the current codex. Interpret this as you will.

I also unfortunately heard about some FAQ that states that he cannot enhance units with Icons. Hopefully someone can dispute this as I was also looking at doing a CSM-heavy list with Bile.

- Blackbone

There is nothing about Bile in the current CSM FAQ from GW, dated May 2008. I'm in the camp that would let an opponent enhance anything listed on pages 26 and 27, so CSM, Chosen, Bikers and Havocs. Either way, marked yes, dedicated, e.g., Thousand Suns, et al; no.

Homer

I agree with Homer S - pp.26-27 define what a Chaos Space Marine type of unit is, which includes the units Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Havocs, Chaos Chosen, and Chaos Bikers.

Now this is an example of legitimate point of confusion in the rules, given the amphiboly of the term "Chaos Space Marine" applying to the army, a sub-section of the army, and a unit within that sub-section of that army.

This amphiboly needs to be decoded using context: in this context the reference is to "squads", which the main rules tell us is a synonym for "units". So that nixes reference to all unit in the Chaos Space Marine army, leaving us to decide whether the reference is to the type of units that are Chaos Space Marines, or the token unit "Chaos Space Marines".

The difference between the type and the token is not as easy to spot, but can still be solved by simply constructing sentences that explicitly distinguish between either reference, and comparing to the original sentence.

Enhanced Warriors says:

"For +x pts per model, any number of Chaos Space Marine squads can be 'enhanced' by Bile's treatment."

If it referred to the token Chaos Space Marines unit, then it would say something like:

'For +x pts per model, any squad of Chaos Space Marines can be 'enhanced by Bile's treatment.'

The fact that the sentence refers to "any number of Chaos Space Marine squads" rather than "any squads of Chaos Space Marines" therefore indicates that the type-term is being used, and the definition referred to on pp.26-27 is correct.

Isn't there also some rule or ruling that says that the long description of a unit > the unit reference?

Drudge Dreadnought:

How is that relevant? If the Chaos Space Marines unit had a distinct entry in both the Forces of Chaos section and the Army List, then it might be relevant to wonder if some ruling had made one entry more authoritative than the other, but the issue isn't whether one entry is more authoritative than another, and the Chaos Space Marines entry in the Forces of Chaos section includes Chaos Havocs, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Bikers, and Chaos Space Marines. That makes this a question of the reference is to the Chaos Space Marines unit or to type of Chaos Space Marines units.

What i meant is that in the Forces of Chaos section "Chaos Space Marines" includes bikers, havocs and chosen. In the Army List Section it is only vanilla marine squads. But if Forces of Chaos section > Army list then when we read in Bile's rule that it effects Chaos Space Marines then we go by what Chaos Space Marines are in the Forces of Chaos section.

But you are right, i don't think it is relevent. But i brought it up because it might have been, and i didn't fully understand it.

From page 94 of the 2004 Chapter Approved Compendium:

Q. When Fabius Bile enhances his Chaos Space Marines, can he enhance Khorne Berzerkers and Noise Marines or just normal, Unmarked Chaos Space Marines?

A. Any Unmarked Chaos Space Marine Squads may be enhanced. Note though that this is ONLY the Chaos Space Marine squad entry as specified not Bikes, Raptors, Obliterators, etc.

Yes, I know this is for the previous codex, but with the near identical wording between the previous Genetic Corruption and the current Enhanced Warriors special rules I see no good reason why it should no longer be played the same way.

On army builder you can only enhance chaos marine squads. Not bikers, havoc, or raptors.

Hand of Dume wrote:On army builder you can only enhance chaos marine squads. Not bikers, havoc, or raptors.

There are plenty of instances and examples of Army Builder doing things incorrectly. It is not official, just the interpretation of the programmers.

Uh, you do know that I'm the rules judge for the 40K files?

And please, give us an 'example' of Army Builder not doing something correctly.

Ghaz wrote:Uh, you do know that I'm the rules judge for the 40K files?

And please, give us an 'example' of Army Builder not doing something correctly.

Well lets see -gets out his glasses-

Apothecaries are free apparently.
Vanguard vets have 70 Point Drop Pods and Rhinos apparently.
Space Wolves have a huge number of Inconsistencies and Errors in Validation of their transports.
Space Wolves Dreadnoughts aren't permitted Drop Pods
Oh, and Space Wolf Land Raider Crusaders cant transport anything even if bought as a Heavy Support Slot.

You want me to continue or...

Hand of Dume wrote:On army builder you can only enhance chaos marine squads. Not bikers, havoc, or raptors.

That's like saying Games Workshop have Editors.

Apothecaries are free apparently.
Vanguard vets have 70 Point Drop Pods and Rhinos apparently.
Space Wolves have a huge number of Inconsistencies and Errors in Validation of their transports.
Space Wolves Dreadnoughts aren't permitted Drop Pods
Oh, and Space Wolf Land Raider Crusaders cant transport anything even if bought as a Heavy Support Slot.

And all of which are in the process of being fixed or else were right in a previous edition and got messed up somehow. A coding error hardly counts as Army Builder not doing something 'correctly'. Lets see if you can code the datafiles error free the first time.

Ghaz wrote: Lets see if you can code the datafiles error free the first time.

Don't try and flip this on me. You're the one who asked for examples. If your just gonna turn around and try and make me out to be the bad guy, don't bother asking.

P.S. Don't you mean second time? Since the latest release (with all these errors) is v1.01a?

Ghaz wrote:

Apothecaries are free apparently.
Vanguard vets have 70 Point Drop Pods and Rhinos apparently.
Space Wolves have a huge number of Inconsistencies and Errors in Validation of their transports.
Space Wolves Dreadnoughts aren't permitted Drop Pods
Oh, and Space Wolf Land Raider Crusaders cant transport anything even if bought as a Heavy Support Slot.

And all of which are in the process of being fixed or else were right in a previous edition and got messed up somehow. A coding error hardly counts as Army Builder not doing something 'correctly'. Lets see if you can code the datafiles error free the first time.

Relax. The point is that Army Builder isn't official, just an interpretation. If you want to get offended about that because it is your interpretation then i guess that's your prerogitive.

Ghaz I am shocked you would quote old verbage dating back over five years ago. That holds no weight and your being a rules judge for AB does not in any way shape or form make your statements official in any capacity.

G

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Relax. The point is that Army Builder isn't official, just an interpretation. If you want to get offended about that because it is your interpretation then i guess that's your prerogitive.

I agree.

To get back on topic before Ghaz trys to start any more trolling, there are arguments to support both sides, and RaW is ambiguous at best, and chimp-proofread at worse. An FAQ from GW would be nice (however useless it is as by their own admission they don't mean anything) though a hard errata would be much nicer (and negate any arguments a FAQ would cause.)

Green Blow Fly wrote:Ghaz I am shocked you would quote old verbage dating back over five years ago. That holds no weight and your being a rules judge for AB does not in any way shape or form make your statements official in any capacity.

G

+1, you win 5 internets [Insert random meme here]

Green Blow Fly wrote:Ghaz I am shocked you would quote old verbage dating back over five years ago.

And if you noticed I said as much. I also said I don't really see a good reason to play it differently than the way the previous FAQ ruled. So is there a good reason to play it differently now, other than the fact that the FAQ is for the previous codex?

Green Blow Fly wrote:That holds no weight and your being a rules judge for AB does not in any way shape or form make your statements official in any capacity.

And once again, where did I ever say that it did? Stop trying to make it sound like I'm saying something I never said. The Army Builder files say what they say because as one of the maintainers I have some input on the files. I'm not a part of GW which is what I was trying to impress upon Hand of Dume when he said what AB does or does not allow. Most of the regulars here know that. If I thought my bearing as the rules judge for AB had any meaning, don't you think I'd try using it? So I apologize for not being clearer in my reply to Hand of Dume. I never meant to insinuate that either I or Army Builder have any 'inside information' on the game and we do as everyone else does and try to interpret GW's sometimes vague rules to the best of our abilities without bias.

Gwar wrote:To get back on topic before Ghaz trys to start any more trolling,

Seems to me it's you whose trolling, trying to claim that coding errors which have been reported and will be fixed on the next release are AB intentionally not getting things 'correct' is ludicrous. Why don't you try and code the datafiles and see how many erors you get so we can all say that you were intentionally trying to make sure they were not 'correct'.

I'm done with the trolls on this thread.

Ghaz wrote:Why don't you try and code the datafiles and see how many erors you get so we can all say that you were intentionally trying to make sure they were not 'correct'.

I'm done with the trolls on this thread.

Oh I have tried my hand at coding. In fact, I've actually DIY fixed the errors relevant to me anyway since you didnt bother to run a basic bug test before release. Bad Troll is Bad

Okay Ghaz I am cool with your reply, in fact I felt like I saw another side to you.

: )

G

My stance on this query is I would not use enhanced bikers at a tournament since it could be seen in a bad light. Personally I think it is okay and would have no problem if an opponent used them. I see no reason to waste the points on this upgrade for Havocs though.

G

I'd be hesitant to use it on bikes. You roll badly and it gets costly quick.

Nurglitch wrote:I agree with Homer S - pp.26-27 define what a Chaos Space Marine type of unit is, which includes the units Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Havocs, Chaos Chosen, and Chaos Bikers.

Someone agreed with me! <sniff>

Nurglitch wrote: [snipped a bit]
"For +x pts per model, any number of Chaos Space Marine squads can be 'enhanced' by Bile's treatment."

'For +x pts per model, any squad of Chaos Space Marines can be 'enhanced by Bile's treatment.'

The fact that the sentence refers to "any number of Chaos Space Marine squads" rather than "any squads of Chaos Space Marines" therefore indicates that the type-term is being used, and the definition referred to on pp.26-27 is correct.

To me, the 2nd sentence might be read to mean only one squad could be enhanced. I would give my opponent the page 26-27 options, but would have no problem with a tourney limiting it to just the CSM troops unit. In the absence of clarification from GW, if I was taking CSM to a tourney and used Bile, I would write my list both ways and get it cleared up with the judges before play starts.

Homer