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, all. I'm very, very new to Warhammer 40K - In fact, I haven't purchased a single model yet. Right now, I've read the rulebook, I've looked over a few codices. and I noticed for the Daemons and CSM - perhaps others as well, but none that particularly stand out to me, there are rules for making certain Unit choices as other Units. One such rule, Master of the Rubicrae, is kind of confounding me because of the wording between Ahriman and Sorcerers.

"Master of the Rubicrae; If a primary detachment includes a sorcerer with Mark of Tzeentch, Thousand Sons are Troops instead of Elites" seems to imply that as long as your primary detachment has a sorcerer with Mark of Tzeentch, then all Thousand Sons in your army are Troops. But under Ahriman, the wording is changed slightly to "Master of the Rubicrae; In a primary detachment that includes Ahriman, Thousand Sons are Troop choices instead of Elite" which implies that the Thousand Sons are Troops only if A) they're in a detachment with Ahriman, and B) that detachment is selected as your primary detachment.

So, which is it, or is it both? with Ahriman only affecting the primary detachment if he is in it, while the Sorcerer affects the entire army as long as he is in the primary detachment- I doubt it's this, because it seems counter intuitive that Ahirman's grasp on the Rubicrae would somehow be "lesser" than a simple Sorcerer.

edit: clarified a bit, because irony.

Its both. it's specific in Ahrimans listing because he is a unique named character. he is still a sorc with the MoT either way but they ate refering to him specifically in his rules.

Primary detachment now pertains to the detachment that contains your warlord.

Each detachment is part of your army but completely unaffected by other detachments in your army as far as rules go.

Not quite, in the case if battle brothers many rules and allowances cross over from detatchment to detachment. And in the case of csm and csm supplements they are more than bb as they are the same faction, all be it of different detachments.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Primary detachment now pertains to the detachment that contains your warlord.

Each detachment is part of your army but completely unaffected by other detachments in your army as far as rules go.

So lets say, an army with two detachments. One has Ahirman, 2 units of thousand sons, and 1 unit of CSM's. and another detachment with a Daemon Prince, 2 units of thousand sons, and 1 unit of CSM's wouldn't be legal, because the thousand sons in the second unit would be Elites, meaning that that detachment only has 1 unit of troops?

Correct. throw the other csm troop over and it would be legal. as a side note they would both need to be cads, as you cabt use allied detachments with the same faction as your primary.

 Bausk wrote:
Correct. throw the other csm troop over and it would be legal. as a side note they would both need to be cads, as you cabt use allied detachments with the same faction as your primary.

Okay. and this is a little off-topic, but similar. I just want to make sure I'm reading the Chaotic Daemon's rules correctly...Because I'm a tzeentch fanboi, I'll use Kairos Fateweaver/Lord of Change as the example.

They make no mention of detachments, only that "If you have Kairos Fateweaver in your army, All daemon Princes are considered Heavy units rather than HQ". So for THAT rule, does detachment matter? or is army wide like it implies?

It has possibly been changed by the 7th ed faq (which you should read).

Possibly hasn't of course. But generally where previous codex's said 'army' modern ones say 'detatchment"