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.

str00dles1 wrote:
No FAQ needs to be said for Abaddon, people are just reading it wrong...

PG 30 of Codex States: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos"

PG 57 of Codex States: "He Also has all four MArks of Chaos"

Exactly. There is no grey line here. He cannot join any unit with a mark. He always has three different marks which are different from their mark. Annoys me quite a bit, as I'd like to be able to join him to Tzeentch terminators or Nurgle oblits.

Read it again. It says "may not join a unit with a different mark". If he has all four marks, the unit does NOT have a different mark, therefore he can join any unit, regardless of what Mark they do or don't have.

 mauzer wrote:
Guys.
It has been pointed out at least twice in this thread.
The Helbrute Change IS NOT a points change.
It was a MISPRINT on ENGLISH COPIES. They simply couldn't have some countries paying 100 and some paying 105 so they were forced to change it.

I can't see there being too many instances of people with the different codecies playing each other...

And 5pts is hardly a game breaker!

narked wrote:
Read it again. It says "may not join a unit with a different mark". If he has all four marks, the unit does NOT have a different mark, therefore he can join any unit, regardless of what Mark they do or don't have.

You are correct. But a short FAQ (not Errata), going something like this...

Q: Can Abaddon join a unit of Khorne Berzerkers, Noise Marines or other units with a single Mark?

A: Yes, he can.


... would go along way to avoid grief and bickering.


It's not like that'd be a massive amount of work for GW to do, given they already have a pdf anyhow.

That said, it's an idiotic rule either way. Would it really be gamebreaking if I'd ran my Slannesh Sorcerer with some Nurgle Bodyguards he/she seduced. Way to crack down on creative armies there GW.

It's not like that hasn't been a rule in previous editions, most of them actually. It's not about being gamebreaking, it's a fluff rule.

If it's not game-breaking, than it's a stupid rule. It adds nothing to those who feel that violating the rule would be "unfluffy" because they wouldn't go against it even if it didn't exist, and only limits those whose fluff actually contradicts the rule. It's a rule that can literally never benefit fluff and only ever hurt it in the best of circumstances.

Mannahnin 483594 4895589 e5c92776eb16509c85d234d65b503593.jpg wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
No FAQ needs to be said for Abaddon, people are just reading it wrong...

PG 30 of Codex States: "An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos"

PG 57 of Codex States: "He Also has all four MArks of Chaos"[

Exactly. There is no grey line here. He cannot join any unit with a mark. He always has three different marks which are different from their mark. Annoys me quite a bit, as I'd like to be able to join him to Tzeentch terminators or Nurgle
[/quote
Please read what I said...yes he can. There is no arguing he can't. No reason to have a.faq. its basic reading.skills.people seem to lack.

Insulting people when they have differing opinions about the rules is not the way to do things, str00dles1.

On that note though, I think the rest of this FAQ is probably better off in YMDC.

 pretre wrote:
Insulting people when they have differing opinions about the rules is not the way to do things, str00dles1.

On that note though, I think the rest of this FAQ is probably better off in YMDC.

Sure it is, poo-poo head!

I just sent the FAQ guys another email on Abbadon and a few other quibbles and I'd suggest others do the same. The email to use is gamefaqs@games-workshop.co.uk

Kronk: Putting Dakkadakka out of the business of discussing things one thread at a time!

 Zweischneid wrote:
If it's not game-breaking, than it's a stupid rule. It adds nothing to those who feel that violating the rule would be "unfluffy" because they wouldn't go against it even if it didn't exist, and only limits those whose fluff actually contradicts the rule. It's a rule that can literally never benefit fluff and only ever hurt it in the best of circumstances.

The rule makes it so that there is still some semblance of the Chaos background. This is when I remember that you think that it is "fluffy" to mix Slaanesh sorcerers in a unit of Khorne Berzerkers and then suddenly everything make sense.

These animosity rules have been around for 20+ years, they're not leaving anytime soon thankfully.

The rule about different marks isn't game breaking, nor does it need to be removed. It's Abaddon joining units that people are getting bent out of shape.

Oh well, email sent. Thanks Kronk.

narked wrote:
Read it again. It says "may not join a unit with a different mark". If he has all four marks, the unit does NOT have a different mark, therefore he can join any unit, regardless of what Mark they do or don't have.

Agreed. When you carefully read it, it is clear. He can join any marked unit as he has all 4 marks.

I agree abbadon can join any unit he wants, I mean really who is going to tell him "sorry you're not allow to help us kill people being the warmaster of the chaos legions....... Sorry you'll just have to do it on your own." probably not going to happen lol

Ewww! He's covered in Nurgle cooties! Only right and proper Slaanesh followers allowed in the party wagon (Land Raider).

Must... Stop... Staring at cowbell..

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

These animosity rules have been around for 20+ years, they're not leaving anytime soon thankfully.

Oh... I would've loved a good animosity rule. Nothing more chaosy than having your Zerkers turn on the Tzeentch Sorcerers next to them mid-game. Alas.. there's no animosity rule in the book.

That's not what he meant Zweischneid. Stop being so intentionally obtuse.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

These animosity rules have been around for 20+ years, they're not leaving anytime soon thankfully.

Oh... I would've loved a good animosity rule. Nothing more chaosy than having your Zerkers turn on the Tzeentch Sorcerers next to them mid-game. Alas.. there's no animosity rule in the book.

Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.

To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:


Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.

To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.

Not sure what was obtuse about it. There's no animosity rule in the Codex. Period. Show it to me if you can.

And fluff for a game that you cannot actually ever use in the game is rather pointless. It's like going to a party and bringing a cake you've already eaten.

Do you show up to a game of Ultramarines vs. Tyranids only to say .. hey, Ultramarines already beat Nids in the fluff. Deals done, let's save ourselves the chore of rolling dice and moving miniatures, shall we?

Kinda pointless. If there's war between Ultramarines and Tyranids in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Likewise, if there's animosity between Slannesh and Khorne in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Otherwise, what point is there for the background?

Try to keep it on topic or start a thread to troll each other

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:


Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.

To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.

Not sure what was obtuse about it. There's no animosity rule in the Codex. Period. Show it to me if you can.

It's not there in name but it is in there in the spirit of not allowing a marked IC in a differently marked units. If you want to argue semantics there is technically no "animosity" rule.

However, the Daemon Princes all have Hatred for the opposing god. Daemon Princes of Khorne hate Slaaneshi units for example.

And fluff for a game that you cannot actually ever use in the game is rather pointless. It's like going to a party and bringing a cake you've already eaten.

Do you show up to a game of Ultramarines vs. Tyranids only to say .. hey, Ultramarines already beat Nids in the fluff. Deals done, let's save ourselves the chore of rolling dice and moving miniatures, shall we?

Wait what? This makes no sense, did you read this after you typed it? The Ultramarines beat the Tyranids at Macragge but that was just one battle. Plus the Ultramarines and Tyranids are two entirely different armies and they've had many more battles after Macragge, so there is no real reason to just pack it up before you even play.

Now if you played a game of Khorne vs. Slaanesh, that would make much more sense than mixing Khorne and Slaanesh in the same army. Do you see the fundamental difference? The former has both sides fighting eachother, the latter has both sides hanging out.

Kinda pointless. If there's war between Ultramarines and Tyranids in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Likewise, if there's animosity between Slannesh and Khorne in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Otherwise, what point is there for the background?

Yeah, you can't bring that to the table because in the rules, there is no ability to ally Ultramarines with Tyranids. In the 6th edition rulebook, the Allies table says that Marines and Tyranids are Come the Apocalypse. This means that under no circumstances will they ally.

Likewise, the animosity between the gods is represented by the fact that the daemons have hatred for opposing god's forces, and also by the fact that you can't mix independent characters with units if they have different marks. Honestly I would prefer much more brutal rules which put all opposing god's forces into the elites slot or even disallow them entirely, much like pretty much every codex before the 4th edition to my recollection.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:


Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.

To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.

Not sure what was obtuse about it. There's no animosity rule in the Codex. Period. Show it to me if you can.

And fluff for a game that you cannot actually ever use in the game is rather pointless. It's like going to a party and bringing a cake you've already eaten.

Do you show up to a game of Ultramarines vs. Tyranids only to say .. hey, Ultramarines already beat Nids in the fluff. Deals done, let's save ourselves the chore of rolling dice and moving miniatures, shall we?

Kinda pointless. If there's war between Ultramarines and Tyranids in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Likewise, if there's animosity between Slannesh and Khorne in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Otherwise, what point is there for the background?

Except there is no animosity between Tzeetch and Khorne. Your example would have worked if you said the berzerkers turned on the Noise Marines and killed thm.

BTW, do people STILL not get that it's Slaanesh vs Khorne and it has ALWAYS been Khorne vs Slaanesh? Slaanesh has psychers also, but seriously, Khorne has never had beef with Tzeetch, in the fluff, as in, never, ever had animosity with Tzeetch.

Slave wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:


Sure there is, you're being intentionally obtuse and it hasn't ever worked out for you before so I'd recommend dropping it.

To be serious, the true animosity happened before the game. Your 1500 Khorne Berzerker list used to be a Tzeentch/Khorne combo before the Zerkers slaughtered the thousand son troops before the battle.

Not sure what was obtuse about it. There's no animosity rule in the Codex. Period. Show it to me if you can.

And fluff for a game that you cannot actually ever use in the game is rather pointless. It's like going to a party and bringing a cake you've already eaten.

Do you show up to a game of Ultramarines vs. Tyranids only to say .. hey, Ultramarines already beat Nids in the fluff. Deals done, let's save ourselves the chore of rolling dice and moving miniatures, shall we?

Kinda pointless. If there's war between Ultramarines and Tyranids in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Likewise, if there's animosity between Slannesh and Khorne in the background, I want to bring that to the table. Otherwise, what point is there for the background?

Except there is no animosity between Tzeetch and Khorne. Your example would have worked if you said the berzerkers turned on the Noise Marines and killed thm.

BTW, do people STILL not get that it's Slaanesh vs Khorne and it has ALWAYS been Khorne vs Slaanesh? Slaanesh has psychers also, but seriously, Khorne has never had beef with Tzeetch, in the fluff, as in, never, ever had animosity with Tzeetch.

Actually, Khorne does hate Tzneetch, just not as much as Slaanesh...
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Khorne
"Although Khorne despises the use of magic and accordingly hates Tzeentch, Slaanesh is his opposite."

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Khorne
"The followers of Khorne are always ferocious warriors and never make use of psychic powers, for the Blood God abhors the trickery of magic and cowardly sorcerers, particularly the servants of Tzeentch. "
"...are favoured foes to face in battle, as are the servants of Tzeentch, who are seen as Sorcerers unwilling to engage in fair and honourable combat."

Way off topic though....

Wow... how far off topic has this thread gone?

Not that far, Chaos is still the subject material

narked wrote:
Read it again. It says "may not join a unit with a different mark". If he has all four marks, the unit does NOT have a different mark, therefore he can join any unit, regardless of what Mark they do or don't have.

You still have it exactly backwards. The rules don't care if he has the SAME mark. They care (as you quoted) whether he has a different one. Since he has four marks, he always has three different marks from any given marked unit, and thus "may not join" it.

I do hope they change this, though. Keep emailing the FAQ email address. I want my Abby to be able to join any unit he wants. Right now the marked units won't have him.

Abby simultaneously has the identical mark and a different mark. RAW the identical mark doesn't mean anything, but the 3 marks that are not identical means he is breaking the rule about not mixing marks 3 times. RAW=he can only join marked units. RAI should be just as obvious, he should be able to join marked units. Silly English writers have no clue just how much Americans can be dicks about rules loopholes. Reminds me of how Baal preds couldn't shoot flame cannons when they 1st came out because at the time 5th ed raw was the template had to touch the barrel of the gun, but wasn't allowed to overlap the Baal preds hull so raw was it could never fire it's flame cannon, and it took gw almost half a year to faq that flame templates can overlap the vehicle or transport that is firing the weapon.

The phrase "unit with a different mark" is the key part of the sentence. The unit does not have a different mark.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Abby simultaneously has the identical mark and a different mark.

As said. It doesn't matter what (additional) marks the IC has. It's not worded that way. It says the unit must have a different mark. Since Abby has all marks, and there are only four, it is impossible for a unit to have a different mark.

If the ruling would've said that character cannot have a different mark, you'd be right.