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.

hello again
i have read somewhere that a dedicated chaos space marine can be chosen as troops if their chaos lord has the mark of who they are dedicated to. like can a chaos lord with mark of Khorne take Khorne bererkersas troops
is this a lie or can i do this if i played chaos space marines.

You can do this.

Each of the named characters can make their cult units troop, a Chaos Lord can make any of the cult units troops as long as he has the right mark, and the Sorcerer can make 1k Sons troops if he has the Mark of Tzeentch.

Abby makes Chosen troops.

 Alfndrate wrote:
You can do this.

Each of the named characters can make their cult units troop, a Chaos Lord can make any of the cult units troops as long as he has the right mark, and the Sorcerer can make 1k Sons troops if he has the Mark of Tzeentch.

Abby makes Chosen troops.

A Lord cannot make TSons troops, it has to be a sorceror.

So my friend got a chaos lord and he put a mark of khorne on his lord then he can take an all bezerker army. OK i am bad off

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
You can do this.

Each of the named characters can make their cult units troop, a Chaos Lord can make any of the cult units troops as long as he has the right mark, and the Sorcerer can make 1k Sons troops if he has the Mark of Tzeentch.

Abby makes Chosen troops.

A Lord cannot make TSons troops, it has to be a sorceror.

Sorcerer was specified, its even in your quote. I'd have a giggle if the Don could take plague marines, zerkers and noise marines as troops too. mind you, MSUing chosen with 5 special weapons is evil. Add the havocs with special weapons for extra lols and then rock termis with combis. Icon of vengeance and your set. Spose if you rock alot of plasma the MoS and its icon may work out better.

Que toy story meme "Special weapons, special weapons everywhere!"

Reread the quote, and note that "a Chaos Lord can make any of the cult units troops" was what was stated. This is a false statement, as a Chaos Lord CANNOT make 1ksons troops, meaning it is "all but one" not "any"

The don, not being a chaos lord (still) doesnt get to take cult as troops, just chosen.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Reread the quote, and note that "a Chaos Lord can make any of the cult units troops" was what was stated. This is a false statement, as a Chaos Lord CANNOT make 1ksons troops, meaning it is "all but one" not "any"

The don, not being a chaos lord (still) doesnt get to take cult as troops, just chosen.

"and the Sorcerer can make 1k Sons troops" exception under specific wording and discluding them from the broad swept statement, though I do see the misunderstanding with the general statement. Its why I hate general statements, including this one.

Irregardless I would still giggle if he could if he was/is a lord, it doesn't make the thought any less amusing. Still not sure what mark to count him as if he turns into a DP though... lol

"and" is not an exception, but an inclusion - stating a sorceror additionally makes them troops.

No such word as "irregardless". "regardless"
He is a daemon of (Kh, S, Tz, N)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"and" is not an exception, but an inclusion - stating a sorceror additionally makes them troops.

No such word as "irregardless". "regardless"
He is a daemon of (Kh, S, Tz, N)

It exists and has for over sixty years in common usage of informal speech and casual writing. Just because it uses a redundant double negative does not make it less used or understood, sure it makes it weird but it still exists. In any case, I stated I understood the misunderstanding but meh.

All four, nasty. Are we basing this on the fact it does not say we can't or something more tangible? Not disagreeing, just remembering that DP "must have one" of them. You know not "one or more" of them or "at least one". . .