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 don't know if this has been asked before or not so here goes.

Does Fabius Bile's upgrade effect Possesed and Chosen. I realize that his ability doesn't affect cult troops or anything like that but his ability says it can upgrade Chaos Space Marines. Chosen Chaos Space Marines and Possessed Chaos Space Marines have it in their name so i'm wondering if it works on them.

If this has already been answer let me know.

In past codices with almost the exact same wording it has been FAQed that it affects the Chaos Space Marine unit only.

It's quite misleading, isn't it? But yes, it only means the unit named 'Chaos Space Marines' not any unit in the 'Chaos Space Marines' army list.

In the Forces of Chaos section, Chaos Space Marines subsection, pp.26-27, Havocs, Chosen, and Bikers are all defined as Chaos Space Marines.

Possessed are variously referred to as "Possessed Space Marines" in the Forces of Chaos section, and they are not part of the "Chaos Space Marine" entry.

Thanks I was thinking of building an army around that but now not so much.

You can still build an army around it. Just make sure that your army is composed of Chosen Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Space Marine Bikers, and Chaos Space Marine Havocs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Incidentally, Possessed already have Fearless and S5, so all you'd get from Bile's Enhanced Warriors rule if you could apply it would be a chance +1S or +2S at the risk of expensive casualties.

When you think about it, the stats for Possessed suggest that they've already been 'enhanced': they have +1S and Fearless above the regular Chaos Space Marine profile, besides the Iv5+ and the Daemonkin rule.

Nobody really knows the correct answer to this. I agree with what nurglitch has said. When it comes down to it though, check with your opponent or the TO ahead of time.

However as I've already stated, in the previous codex the FAQ clarified that it was for the 'Chaos Space Marines' unit only. Since the wording of Bile's entry has changed minimally then there's no reason to believe that it's been expanded to cover Havocs, Chosen and Bikers.

Ghaz wrote:However as I've already stated, in the previous codex the FAQ clarified that it was for the 'Chaos Space Marines' unit only. Since the wording of Bile's entry has changed minimally then there's no reason to believe that it's been expanded to cover Havocs, Chosen and Bikers.

That was the previous FAQ, and is very pointly not in the current one. Perhaps they decided Bile was too weak and not worth using in the old version and thats why it doesn't say that for this codex?

And yet you have no proof to support your position that they 'decided' Bille was too weak. If they meant for Bile to be upgrade Havocs and Bikers don't you think they would have changed the rules instead of using an almost word for word reprint from the previous codex that was clarified in the FAQ? Yes, they would. You have nothing to support your position, while I at least have a FAQ for a previous codex with nothing that would indicate that it should be played any differently in the current codex.

while I at least have a FAQ for a previous codex

Sorry, i laughed.

So I see that you don't have a good reason not to use the FAQ for the near identical rule from the old codex and instead you try and ignore the question. Just because it's an old FAQ is not good enough, especially in light of your argument which is "... because I say so..." which really is just sad.

Actually i wasn't going into it because there's been a million threads on this. But if you insist.

Old FAQ doesn't matter because its the old FAQ. It has NOTHING to do with this. It isn't even viable as a precedent because there is a new faq and it doesn't say this. If there was no faq for the current codex then you might have something.

Old FAQ doesn't doesn't matter because the wording on the old codex is different. You are correct that Bile's wording is about the same. But you have neglected to notice that the wording for Chaos Space Marines that he refers to has changed. Chaos Space Marines, bikers, chosen, and havocs used to be seperate entries. Now they are all in one entry under, you guess it, "Chaos Space Marines". The new codex also has an army Army List section, the previous one didn't (only a reference).

To re-iterate the basic arguments for and against without your irrelevent FAQ crap:

Bile enhances any number of Chaos Space Marines. In the unit description, that includes Bikers, Havocs, and Chosen. In the army list section they are seperate entries. There is nothing indicating that you go with one over another, hence me saying that people should check with their opponent/TO first.

It's an old rule, so the old FAQ does matter. You don't have a good reason to play it your way other than because you want to it your way. The only 'irrelevant crap' is you denying the FAQ for exact same rule just because it's for the old codex.

The rule is the same in both codices, so the FAQ applies. Deal with it.

Ghaz wrote:So I see that you don't have a good reason not to use the FAQ for the near identical rule from the old codex and instead you try and ignore the question. Just because it's an old FAQ is not good enough, especially in light of your argument which is "... because I say so..." which really is just sad.

I'm not sure it's fair to count a "near identical rule" as valid in all situations so quickly.

I think "Slain Outright" vs "Instant Death" in regards to "Eternal Warrior" is another good example.

Perhaps you would treat that situation the same way, but at least it's food for thought.

DoW

It's 'near identical' in that the words that are different do not make the rule read any differently. Both rules use slightly different wording to say the exact same thing.

Except that the context has changed. While I agree with you Ghaz, it is only because I believe GW isn't cool enough to do otherwise and that I don't think a TO would play it that way.

Ghaz wrote:It's an old rule, so the old FAQ does matter. You don't have a good reason to play it your way other than because you want to it your way. The only 'irrelevant crap' is you denying the FAQ for exact same rule just because it's for the old codex.

The rule is the same in both codices, so the FAQ applies. Deal with it.

Except for the changes in the unit entries, like i mentioned. But yeah, when i make you look dumb just ignore me. Whatever works for you.

Nurglitch is correct. Also, if you're building your whole army around something that you know you have to ask a TO to accept - you're asking for all kinds of problems.

I agree with Ghaz that the wording of the previous FAQ is important, but not in the way he says.

It is very important that GW specified that it only included "normal" Chaos Space Marines in the previous FAQ.
It is also very important that GW chose to remove that part of the FAQ, meaning that they deliberately chose to go against their previous ruling.

The sheer act of removing the "limitation" in the FAQ, tells us something very important.

Or it was simply something they forgot Steel.

True, but they might simply have forgotten a lot of things in the various FAQs.
We cannot have any intelligent rules debates coming from that standpoint.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Except for the changes in the unit entries, like i mentioned. But yeah, when i make you look dumb just ignore me. Whatever works for you.

You're the one who's making yourself look dumb because your whole argument up to that point was "No, it's an old FAQ" and now your changing your argument. Make up your mind. Which argument is it? Is it because it's an old FAQ or is it because of something else?

As for it not being in the current FAQ does not automatically make the reverse answer true. No answer is no answer. It's not an answer for 'option B' if the previous FAQ said it was 'option A'.

Nuh-uh.




Sorry, couldn't resist. In summary, no one agrees on this. The one argument says the list of things in the fluff section under the subheading "Chaos Space Marines" are affected, the other side says that it doesn't count because it's in the FLUFF section and there's only one unit called "Chaos Space Marines." It's personal preference. I vote 2 for the record.

There is also a slew of RAI arguments, some of which are worth considering. To make it short, if only vanilla marine squads can be enhanced bile is totally pointless. If you can also enhance chosen, havocs and bikes, then Bile is good enough for friendly games but nowhere near tournament competitive. If you can enhance anything in the codex its stronger, but still isn't going to be a top tier tourny list.

I think it should work RAI on the following; Havocs, Raptors, Chosen and Bikers.

All are listed in their entry as normal Chaos Space Marines.

RAW it only seems to work on the entry Chaos Space Marine.

(i'm not looking at the codex)
If GW had put a section together on what exactly is a "chaos space marine" and listed havocs, bikers, and chosen, it would be how the "grey knight" special rules apply to the units listed as "grey knight". Also, in the daemon codex, they have abilities that apply to "daemons" and they have put in all the entries "daemon" under special rules. If GW has gone out of their way to say that "chaos space marines" include havocs, bikers, and chosen as well, there must be some reason.

Now, on the FAQ thing: i have to agree that old FAQs have no standing on codices now, they have been erased for a reason.

Wait, so we can pull rules out of previous editions FAQ's when it conveniently backs up our point?

Come on, really, thats a slowed can of worms that needs to be left closed. They make new FAQ's for new codexes for a reason.

I think it should also be noted that the FAQ is not official, much less an old FAQ >.< sorry ghaz i think you lose.

mrwittwer wrote:I think it should also be noted that the FAQ is not official.

The FAQ's are no more official than the actual rules as far as GW is concerned, because they feel that you should play however you like to enjoy Warhammer. However, they carry just as much weight as other printed material from GW because they are officially produced/printed by GW.