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.

Yay, lets turn this thread into the other 15 that address this issue.

The rule does not address Abaddon at all, if carefully interpreted. It talks about "a mark of Chaos", meaning "one mark of Chaos", which you can see in various translations of the text.

This is further backed up by the preceeding sentence stating that units may only have one mark of chaos...were this true, we could only count one mark from Abaddon for the rule stated in the next sentence (player choice?). Were you to take this to its ridiculous conclusion, Abaddon would actually not be a legal unit to be fielded, as he has technically all 4 marks of Chaos, which violates the rule in the first sentence.

Its not that he couldn't join any marked unit, its that he couldn't be fielded at all as he is illegal. If you want to pick a particular rule to butcher, use all of them please. Its similar to the anti-gay rights people picking out one commandment in the Bible and ignoring the other 200, especially the one regarding mixed fabrics.

Given the second sentence all by itself and out of context, it would seem to only apply to units with "a" (singular) mark of Chaos, and have no application to a particular unit with multiple marks of Chaos. Abaddon, therefore, is either an exception to both sentences meaning he can do what he damned well pleases (within the normal rule set for vanilla IC's, meaning marks are irrelevant), or he isn't an exception, meaning he can't be fielded at all.

Hopefully this ends the silliness.

 Shandara wrote:
No, the unit would have a different mark than Abaddon if they had the Mark of Unhatched Chickens.

Abaddon has all 4 marks, a different mark for the unit would mean 'not one of those 4'.

The problem with that statement is that you're making an arbitrary comparison.
Why are you only comparing the Mark of Slannesh? Why are you not also comparing the Mark of Nurgle or Khorne?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PolecatEZ wrote:
Given the second sentence all by itself and out of context, it would seem to only apply to units with "a" (singular) mark of Chaos, and have no application to a particular unit with multiple marks of Chaos. Abaddon, therefore, is either an exception to both sentences meaning he can do what he damned well pleases (within the normal rule set for vanilla IC's, meaning marks are irrelevant), or he isn't an exception, meaning he can't be fielded at all.

False.
His rules state that he has all 4 Marks. That is more specific than the general rule of only one mark, so he's legal to be fielded.
His rules do not address joining units. Therefore there's no more specific rule to override the general one.

rigeld2 wrote:
...His rules do not address joining units. Therefore there's no more specific rule to override the general one.

Exactly, nor does the "general rule" you mention talk about multi-mark units and joining units. It talks about single-mark units and joining other units.

There is no rule at all mentioned regarding Abaddon's situation and joining marked units to override the general IC rules from the BRB. Ergo, general IC rules are in effect - he can join any legal unit from his or a "battle brother" codex.

Abby doesn't have a mark of chaos. He has 4 marks.
The rule that "an IC with A mark of chaos cannot join"...
doesn't apply to a character with multiple marks.

Weak argument, but might fly for a RAW discussion.

-Matt

So just to make sure I understand your point:

Are you saying that Abby is not "An IC with a Mark of Chaos..." and there for the rule does not apply to him?

40k-noob wrote:
So just to make sure I understand your point:

Are you saying that Abby is not "An IC with a Mark of Chaos..." and there for the rule does not apply to him?

Exactly, or the rule would say "An IC with one or more Marks of Chaos..." or "An IC having at least one Mark of Chaos..."

There's many ways the rule could have been written to encompass and include Abaddon, but if you also take the context from the previous sentence, it clearly was not intended to restrict him in such an arbitrary manner. Most likely the rule was written long before Abaddon's codex entry in the process of things...ship happens.

Unfortunately for english, we actually have a separate article for "one" and "a", whereas most other languages (Germanic and Romantic) use the same word to notate a singular object.

Are German or French or Italian players having this discussion? I'm actually curious.

PolecatEZ wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So just to make sure I understand your point:

Are you saying that Abby is not "An IC with a Mark of Chaos..." and there for the rule does not apply to him?

Exactly, or the rule would say "An IC with one or more Marks of Chaos..." or "An IC having at least one Mark of Chaos..."

There's many ways the rule could have been written to encompass and include Abaddon, but if you also take the context from the previous sentence, it clearly was not intended to restrict him in such an arbitrary manner. Most likely the rule was written long before Abaddon's codex entry in the process of things...ship happens.

Unfortunately for english, we actually have a separate article for "one" and "a", whereas most other languages (Germanic and Romantic) use the same word to notate a singular object.

Are German or French or Italian players having this discussion? I'm actually curious.

I am sorry but you are entirely incorrect.

Having four Marks in no way means that a model does not a have "a Mark."
The one does not negate the other.

As for the first statement in the Rule. "A model or unit may only purchase one Mark of Chaos."
That also has no bearing on Abby or any model that does not have to purchase its Mark. It is merely a restriction on models/units that are able to purchase Marks.

Do you have a cat? No, I actually have two cats.

Do you have a ball? No, I have two balls (pick your sport, stay with me boys).

She has a kid. No, actually she had 4 kids by 3 different dads.

Your car has a wheel! No, it has four wheels.

This rule applies to anyone wearing a sock.
Just a sock?
Yes, just a sock. Not a pair of socks, a sock. If you have no socks, it does not apply. If you are wearing two socks, it doesn't apply. It only applies if you are wearing a sock. Wearing four socks would just be ridiculous, this rule certainly would not apply to you.

Now take off a sock. Not two socks, not three...just take off A SOCK. How hard is this?

We are being exact and not assuming anything, right?

PolecatEZ wrote:
Do you have a cat? No, I actually have two cats.

The answer should be - "Yes, I actually have two cats."
You meet the requirement to answer yes because you do have a cat.

Your car has a wheel! No, it has four wheels.

5 - you have to steer don't you? (6 including the spare!)

This rule applies to anyone wearing a sock.
Just a sock?
Yes, just a sock. Not a pair of socks, a sock. If you have no socks, it does not apply. If you are wearing two socks, it doesn't apply. It only applies if you are wearing a sock. Wearing four socks would just be ridiculous, this rule certainly would not apply to you.

The proper way to say this is "This rule applies to anyone wearing only a single sock."

Now take off a sock. Not two socks, not three...just take off A SOCK. How hard is this?

English is hard. You should try being specific.

We are being exact and not assuming anything, right?

Yes - we're assuming the simplest form of the phrase being used. If you try to assume otherwise you should insert words for clarity. Inserting words would be changing the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes - we're assuming the simplest form of the phrase being used. If you try to assume otherwise you should insert words for clarity. Inserting words would be changing the rules.

Simplest interpretation of "a" means it is synonymous with "one", without changing anything. If you try to assume otherwise, you should insert other words for clarity. Inserting words would be changing the rules.

Outstanding, its settled then. Abaddon may join any unit he pleases within the bounds for IC's in the BRB.

PolecatEZ wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes - we're assuming the simplest form of the phrase being used. If you try to assume otherwise you should insert words for clarity. Inserting words would be changing the rules.

Simplest interpretation of "a" means it is synonymous with "one", without changing anything. If you try to assume otherwise, you should insert other words for clarity. Inserting words would be changing the rules.

Outstanding, its settled then. Abaddon may join any unit he pleases within the bounds for IC's in the BRB.

LOL

too funny.

PolecatEZ wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes - we're assuming the simplest form of the phrase being used. If you try to assume otherwise you should insert words for clarity. Inserting words would be changing the rules.

Simplest interpretation of "a" means it is synonymous with "one", without changing anything. If you try to assume otherwise, you should insert other words for clarity. Inserting words would be changing the rules.

Yes. Let's read the rules again, shall we? Roll that beautiful rule footage!

An Independent character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos.

An IC with a single Mark of Chaos (Abby meets this requirement - he has 4) may not join a (single) unit with a (single) different Mark.
So we know Abby is restricted by this rule - he meets the requirement.
Is he trying to join multiple units? No, that'd be silly.
Does he have a single different Mark? Yes - in fact he has 3 different Marks.

The answer is yes. Abaddon in a unit of slaanesh marines with icon of excess would be granted 3++ feel no pain from epidemus' tally.

All the off topic mess in this thread needs to be deleted.

Kevlar wrote:
The answer is yes. Abaddon in a unit of slaanesh marines with icon of excess would be granted 3++ feel no pain from epidemus' tally.

All the off topic mess in this thread needs to be deleted.

If by mess you mean the fact he can't join the unit / be there in the first place?

So in theory if Abby yada yada yea ^^

Kevlar wrote:
The answer is yes. Abaddon in a unit of slaanesh marines with icon of excess would be granted 3++ feel no pain from epidemus' tally.

All the off topic mess in this thread needs to be deleted.

This is true. If Abaddon somehow ended up in that unit under those conditions, he would have Feel No Pain (3+).

He can't end up in that unit, but that is not what this thread was about.

So can we somehow mark all these threads so when they finally clarify his joinability in a FAQ we can have an actual question regarding Abaddon without some astute observer continously pointing out that he can't join marked units?

Just wondering.

Why? It's the rules as they are now. If the rules change in the future, no one who was using the rules as they are now is retroactively wrong.