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.

Typhus rule (pg 61 CSM)
Any chaos units in the same ARMY as typhus can be nominated as plague zombies.

Does this apply to cultist chosen from an allied detachment of black legion?

Yes, as they are the same army.

I'm not sure they 100% are. The SW faq makes it look like army is a detachment while the brb talks about armies in a vague way.

I'd check with your TO.

They are. What do you think the word "detachment" means? The Primary Detachment and Allied Detachment are Detachments of the same army, the "army" being the whole force you are bringing to the table.

Here are some quotes to prove it;

BRB, page 109, "Force Organisation Chart wrote:Shown on the right is the standard Force Organisation chart ... It is split into three sections; primary detachment, allied detachment and fortifications

BRB, page 109, "Allied Detachments wrote:If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army

This part brings up an interesting point by continuing to say:

BRB, page 109, "Allied Detachments wrote:If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army (normally one, but if you're playing a larger game this might be two)

BRB, page 110 "Bigger Games wrote:In this case, your Warlord can be from either of the primary detachments in your army.

Your army can have two primary detachments. Typhus can make Plague Zombies from Cultist units from any detachment, allied or otherwise. They're all part of the same army. If not, the rule would specify "detachment". It might be more understandable to see it as a point of contention if this were an older codex, but it's not.

BRB, page 110 "Special Characters wrote:Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army.

If "army" only referred to the Primary Detachment, CSM with Black Legion allies could have two Abaddons.

BRB, page 112 "Allies wrote:From a gaming point of view, taking allies in your army opens up entirely new tactical possibilities,

Note "in your army", not "with your army" or "in addition to your army".

BRB, page 112 "Allies of Convenience wrote:Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience

If the Allied Detachment was not part of the same army, this rule would only apply to units in the Primary Detachment!

I could go on, but I think I've made my case.

It also states on page 109 that certain combinations of armies and allies are better then others, so if the writer can not keep the terminology straight within the section defining said term what hope do we have?

You'll need to ask a TO if you go to a tournament since the BRB is poorly written and written before we had armies able to ally with themselves.

My local TO's all have rules that the zombies must be in the same detachment as Typhus.

Thankfully Typhus can be taken in a Black Legion list.

 Unholyllama wrote:
You'll need to ask a TO if you go to a tournament since the BRB is poorly written and written before we had armies able to ally with themselves.

My local TO's all have rules that the zombies must be in the same detachment as Typhus.

Thankfully Typhus can be taken in a Black Legion list.

im in agreement with this judgement

JinxDragon wrote:It also states on page 109 that certain combinations of armies and allies are better then others, so if the writer can not keep the terminology straight within the section defining said term what hope do we have?

It does, although this is written from a more informal perspective than the actual rules, so I take it as meaning "army" in the fluff sense of individual factions. There are several instances of hard rules that refer to it as such.

Unholyllama wrote:You'll need to ask a TO if you go to a tournament since the BRB is poorly written and written before we had armies able to ally with themselves.

My local TO's all have rules that the zombies must be in the same detachment as Typhus.

Thankfully Typhus can be taken in a Black Legion list.

However, if you rule it like that, then they can take two of Typhus. There's no magical in-between where "army = primary detachment" only for Typhus' Plague Zombies, but "army = the whole Force Organisation chart" for the Special Characters ruling. Either Typhus can zombify any cultist unit, or multiples of Typhus can be taken.

It is not poorly written. It explicitly states that you can only take one of each special character per army - do you mean to say that we can take four of Typhus, one for each detachment (Primary, Primary 2, Allied, Allied 2)?

Once again;

BRB, page 109, "Allied Detachments wrote:If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army

If "include" doesn't mean that it doesn't become part of the army, it would be poorly written. It does not.

The rules need updated since the terminology creeps when it comes to what qualifies as an army.

As for multi-Typhus - we keep the unique rule list wide to prevent such. Again, this is how my local group of TOs has ruled the situation and others may rule differently until we see an amendment in the BRB FAQ.

For clarification - my TOs have ruled the situation with the following two points:
- Effects that cause FoC changes or an enhancement to troops are scoped with in a detachment. (E.g taking A warlord who makes an elite a troop or upgrades a troop's stats like plague zombies is only within the detachment)

- unique characters are unique across a players entire list

Frozen, how do you know page 109 is more informal in the sections you're not quoting and gospel in the sections you quote?
It's very hard to say 100% what the rules are supposed to be when you didn't right them.

My point is that it's not objectively true to say that an army is in all cases the entirety of your army list. Especially when the BRB and FAQs don't seem clear themselves.

Just ask a TO or your opponent, he may have issue with Typhus making 2 black legion grunt squads into zombies.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Frozen, how do you know page 109 is more informal in the sections you're not quoting and gospel in the sections you quote?
It's very hard to say 100% what the rules are supposed to be when you didn't right them.

My point is that it's not objectively true to say that an army is in all cases the entirety of your army list. Especially when the BRB and FAQs don't seem clear themselves.

Just ask a TO or your opponent, he may have issue with Typhus making 2 black legion grunt squads into zombies.

Because the only alternative is allowing multiples of Special Characters. Because the sentence that supposedly makes it "vague" has absolutely no rulings attached to it - it's a reminder that not all allies are equal, and to see the Allies Matrix. That said, I agree that it is bad form to use the word in a different context like that, but it still doesn't change the statements of hard rules previous.

The SW FAQ that makes it vague too. That was written after the brb and is on a higher standing than the brb in the hierarchy of rules. So it doesn't allow special characters to come in multiples, it just proves that GW's writing is inconsistent in the formal and informal use of the word army. We unfortunately can't say which is which as we're not the design team.

You're the one claiming that one part of a page is iron clad but the other isn't. You can't have it both ways and claim RAW. And you know it's a reminder because you were there when they were writing it?