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.

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

Let's look at this from a different perspective.

"A guitarist with an interest in a genre may not join a band that plays a different genre."

The guitarist plays Rock, Metal, Blues and Country. There is a band in need of a guitarist. They play Blues. Do they play a different genre to the guitarist? No. Therefore can he join? Yes. The essential wording in the sentence hasn't been altered to fit the scenario.

The key to it is how it's worded. If it was "A unit cannot be joined by an IC with a different Mark", then sure, no marked units for Abbadon, but it's not, the unit has to have a different Mark to the IC, not the other way round.

Sorry, I forgot.
Page 57 lower left hand corner.

He also has 3 Marks that are different from the Unit's Mark.

Rigeld, in the rule [Abbadon "may not join a unit with a different mark of chaos.'] who is the noun?

Abbadon is the noun of course. We are comparing to abbadon here. Who must be different? Why the unit's mark must be.

In your rule, you are saying Abbadon has 3 marks different from the unit.

HOWEVER, in the real rule, the UNIT must have a different mark. NOT Abbadon like your quoted as saying. You just changed the rule. (Blue is not different than the colors in an 8 pack of crayons, an 8 pack of crayons have different colors than blue.)

And if you try and say that the units mark of nurgle is different than Abbadon's mark of khorne, you CHANGE THE NOUN ABBADON TO A POSSESIVE ADJECTIVE and are instead comparing 2 marks only, not a units marks to abbadon.

DevianID wrote:

He also has 3 Marks that are different from the Unit's Mark.

Rigeld, in the rule [Abbadon "may not join a unit with a different mark of chaos.'] who is the noun?

Abbadon is the noun of course. We are comparing to abbadon here. Who must be different? Why the unit's mark must be.

In your rule, you are saying Abbadon has 3 marks different from the unit.

HOWEVER, in the real rule, the UNIT must have a different mark. NOT Abbadon like your quoted as saying. You just changed the rule. (Blue is not different than the colors in an 8 pack of crayons, an 8 pack of crayons have different colors than blue.)

And if you try and say that the units mark of nurgle is different than Abbadon's mark of khorne, you CHANGE THE NOUN ABBADON TO A POSSESIVE ADJECTIVE and are instead comparing 2 marks only, not a units marks to abbadon.

Unit has Mark of K. Abby has Mark of K, S, N, T.

Is the Units Mark of K different from Abby's Mark of K, S, N, T?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

castellan wrote:
Sorry, I forgot.
Page 57 lower left hand corner.

Since I'm now away from my book, how about spelling out your brainstorm instead of tiptoeing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

narked wrote:
"An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos."
They play Blues. Do they play a different genre to the guitarist? No.

But they do. They play only Blues while the Guitarist plays 4 different genres.

You keep ignoring that the unit doesn't have a different mark from Abby. He has different marks from the unit, but that isn't what is being checked. You keep switching the rule around just so it will say what you want it to say.

I've started a new poll to see how people would play it...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497313.page

rigeld2 wrote:

DevianID wrote:

He also has 3 Marks that are different from the Unit's Mark.

Rigeld, in the rule [Abbadon "may not join a unit with a different mark of chaos.'] who is the noun?

Abbadon is the noun of course. We are comparing to abbadon here. Who must be different? Why the unit's mark must be.

In your rule, you are saying Abbadon has 3 marks different from the unit.

HOWEVER, in the real rule, the UNIT must have a different mark. NOT Abbadon like your quoted as saying. You just changed the rule. (Blue is not different than the colors in an 8 pack of crayons, an 8 pack of crayons have different colors than blue.)

And if you try and say that the units mark of nurgle is different than Abbadon's mark of khorne, you CHANGE THE NOUN ABBADON TO A POSSESIVE ADJECTIVE and are instead comparing 2 marks only, not a units marks to abbadon.

Unit has Mark of K. Abby has Mark of K, S, N, T.

Is the Units Mark of K different from Abby's Mark of K, S, N, T?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

castellan wrote:
Sorry, I forgot.
Page 57 lower left hand corner.

Since I'm now away from my book, how about spelling out your brainstorm instead of tiptoeing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

narked wrote:
"An Independent Character with a Mark of Chaos may not join a unit with a different Mark of Chaos."
They play Blues. Do they play a different genre to the guitarist? No.

But they do. They play only Blues while the Guitarist plays 4 different genres.

I am sorry but I was not tiptoeing. I was answering one of your questions.

DevianID wrote:
DogofWar, you are reading 'an independant character with a mark of chaos' as if it is talking about a specifi mark there. Mark of chaos is just a generic term. If you have kharn with his mark of khorne, you dont read the rule as "An independant character with the mark of khorne," which is what you just said you do.

Actually that's exactly what you do.

Because it is singular, you cannot take 'a Mark of Chaos' as completely representative of the Abaddon situation. As you do with an IC with a MoK (for example), you are immediately forced to determine that Mark upon reaching the conclusion of the second conditional. With multiple Marked ICs (or Units, for that matter), you must use an iterative method to ensure you haven't violated the conditional at any step. Reading Abaddon as simply 'Marked' is ignoring the necessary portion of the first conditional that is required to be addressed later in the second conditional. An iterative method is the only way to avoid breaking the rule.

You may be doing it subconsciously, but you are doing it all the same. Trying to bundle the entire operation into a single assessment of 'difference' is not what the rule says.

DoW

So far the poll is 6:1 in favor of Abbadon joining marked units.

That's asking how they would play it, not if he can or can not.

Most people would let him join, because he's the goddamn Warmaster! (I probably would, too, for that matter).

But, how people would play it and what the rules say can be very different.

Not necessarily. Don't fall for the propaganda.

I didn't say that it definatley is, I said it can be...
Jeez, stop putting words in my mouth.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So far the poll is 6:1 in favor of Abbadon joining marked units.

That should hardly be a surprise. It's been apparent throughout this thread that people are generally in favour of allowing it regardless of what the rules actually say.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So far the poll is 6:1 in favor of Abbadon joining marked units.

What I allow and what I think the rules say are sometimes not the same thing. I hope you're not equating the poll to this thread.

I never said they are the same. I will say here that I think those claiming RAW he can't are not right on the RAW. That's just my opinion.

You seemed to be implying it, though

How so?

To me, anyway, just stating this:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So far the poll is 6:1 in favor of Abbadon joining marked units.

Made it seem that you are implying that how people would play him and RAW are the same.

IF you had said "So far the poll is saying 6/7 people would allow Abaddon to join a marked unit", or something similar, it would have sounded a lot less upfront and not imply that 6:1 people say RAW Abaddon can joined a mark unit.


Of course, that could just be me being very tired

I've said it many times - I think the people claiming that by RAW he can't are wrong. So it's not even like the RAW interpretation has been agreed upon by everyone. You seem like you are saying that though and I disagree with you there.

HIWPI is very important because that is how games are actually played. I for one appreciate that. Thank you.

HIWPI is important, I totally agree, but it is not always what the rule says.

And likewise, I disagree with you saying RAW he can join units, I think people claiming that are wrong

And, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like the RAW interpretation had been agreed upon, although I don't know how I made it seem like that. In the eye of the beholder, I guess.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
To me, anyway, just stating this:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So far the poll is 6:1 in favor of Abbadon joining marked units.

Made it seem that you are implying that how people would play him and RAW are the same.

IF you had said "So far the poll is saying 6/7 people would allow Abaddon to join a marked unit", or something similar, it would have sounded a lot less upfront and not imply that 6:1 people say RAW Abaddon can joined a mark unit.


Of course, that could just be me being very tired

No, don't give him the satisfaction of doubting yourself. Dozer Blades is clearly a provocateur and is implying exactly what you are claiming he is implying.

In my opinion the RAW is clear, Abaddon can't join. The vast majority of people agree that the RAI and HIWPI is the opposite, however, so there is no dissension in that regard whatsoever.

We all know when we log on to YMDC that we're probably going to get an interesting back-and-forth about the semantics of the RAW. No-one really cares enough about the RAW to let them derail their game of toy soldiers, so it becomes an academic pursuit that is mostly for entertainment purposes.

Referencing the opinion poll is a thinly veiled attempt to gain ground in the RAW discussion and ultimately just a passive-aggressive way to try and win an internet argument. This is the same kind of person who will cheat 6 1/2" of movement or roll 2 extra shooting dice during a friendly game. It's incredibly disappointing to see and really rather pathetic.

DoW

So you're calling me a cheater now?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So you're calling me a cheater now?

No, I merely implied it. I do stand by my assertion that you are a provocateur, however.

DoW

"This is the same kind of person who will cheat 6 1/2" of movement or roll 2 extra shooting dice during a friendly game. It's incredibly disappointing to see and really rather pathetic."

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"This is the same kind of person who will cheat 6 1/2" of movement or roll 2 extra shooting dice during a friendly game. It's incredibly disappointing to see and really rather pathetic."

What's your point? Where in that quote do I call Dozer Blades a cheater?

As I said, it is merely implied. It is your decision on how to infer it.

DoW

Okay troll I'll just ignore you from now on.

That's enough.

The discussion has been going around in circles for quite some time, and if folks' only way to vent their frustration is to insult each other than they need to step back, have a refreshing beverage, remember that it's toy soldiers, and resolve to be nicer to people.