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.

Codex: Angry Warp Monsters

That works with DH weapons and wargear dont seem to work on Angry Warp Monsters. P

"Codex: We don't care about Legacy Compatibility and defiantly not Veteran Gamers" more like

Might I just take a moment to toss this hand grenade into the mix when it comes to nemesis force weapons:

In the 5th edition rulebook, there is an entry for each army, summarizing and noting every unit and weapon in said army, excepting the newer releases.

In these summary pages, there is a table that lists the effects of the Nemesis Force Weapons based on the unit carrying it, and if it is treated as a power weapon, or a force weapon. Given the descriptions and whatnot, and the fact that, with little deviation, any weapon with a special rule listed in the codex is referred BACK to said codex, and the NFW chart, as far as I recall, does not, wouldn't that be grounds to treat the chart, which serves as an excerpt from the codex, as functional errata to the rules as listed?

Mystics no longer work against my angry monsters now! Nice as fried rice.

Dronze wrote:Might I just take a moment to toss this hand grenade into the mix when it comes to nemesis force weapons:

In the 5th edition rulebook, there is an entry for each army, summarizing and noting every unit and weapon in said army, excepting the newer releases.

In these summary pages, there is a table that lists the effects of the Nemesis Force Weapons based on the unit carrying it, and if it is treated as a power weapon, or a force weapon. Given the descriptions and whatnot, and the fact that, with little deviation, any weapon with a special rule listed in the codex is referred BACK to said codex, and the NFW chart, as far as I recall, does not, wouldn't that be grounds to treat the chart, which serves as an excerpt from the codex, as functional errata to the rules as listed?

No, because where the Codex and the Rulebook Differ, Codex always wins out. Nothing in the rulebook suggests that it is errata. Also, the NFW have their OWN special Rules for Force Weapons, they do not use the rulebook ones. Thirdly, GW have not published any Errata changing this, nor have they issued any that allows Daemons from Codex: Chaos Daemons to be added to the list on Page 20,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mystics no longer work against my angry monsters now! Nice as fried rice.

They do because the Daemons are Deep Striking, so the Mystics work.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Mystics no longer work against my angry monsters now! Nice as fried rice.

they do since they work against any deep striking unit

Will I see you at the Necro frgs?

Warp arse!

Gwar! wrote:No, what you are trying to do is use fluff as rules because you don't like how the actual rules play out.

If this is your immediate response, I note it is also in reply to: "As has been pointed out in other threads (on other sites) on the topic, in addition to the above, Chaos Daemons, page 78, defines named HQs as Greater Daemons." So your characterization is not reasonable.

combo wrote:Its obvious that if you were to replace the word Daemons in the Codex: Chaos Demons, with another word such as X then it would become obvious that Daemons from the Codex do not count as Daemons as defined in the DH codex.

It's obvious that Imperial Guard aren't Daemons, but it's not obvious that Daemons aren't Daemons. It's easier to say that they are. They created a special rule that automatically fits the DH category by being exactly rather than something like what the DH Codex is talking about.

'Adeptus Sororitas' Termonology would refer to anything with the Adeptus Sororitas special rule as well as the units listed in the WH codex. To say that 'Daemons' Termonology refers to the Daemons special rule as well as any other listed item is only to note that they're the same thing.

*Edit: spelling*

gaylord500 wrote:'Adeptus Sororitas' Termonology would refer to anything with the Adeptus Sororitas special rule as well as the units listed in the WH codex. To say that 'Daemons' Termonology refers to the Daemons special rule as well as any other listed item is only to note that they're the same thing.

No, it wouldn't. It would refer to the things listed in the codex.

A is A, by definition.

To answer the question, "What does antidisestablishmentarianism mean?" with "It means antidisestablishmentarianism" is logically correct (even though it's usually not given as being rather unhelpful).

gaylord500 wrote:A is A, by definition.

Except this is not a case of A=A because Unit A From Codex A is NOT the same as Unit B from Codex B, regardless of name.

I know that your position is that these Codexes do not mean what they say. Or that GW is either being clever or negligent on this.

Anyway, at this point I think it's up to other folks to decide what seems most reasonable. I think it's clear that if GW deigns to put out a FAQ answer to this matter, how they'd rule is already fairly clear.

gaylord500 wrote:I know that your position is that these Codexes do not mean what they say. Or that GW is either being clever or negligent on this.

Anyway, at this point I think it's up to other folks to decide what seems most reasonable. After all, if GW deigns to put out a FAQ answer to this matter, there's pretty much no question which way they'll rule.

Hey, sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no need for a Clarification, because it is Crystal Clear. If GW issue an FAQ, it will be Ignored as FAQ are just gakky GW house rules. if they issue an errata, then it will be accepted.

As it is, it is Crystal Clear it doesn't work. Please, just admit it because you are wrong and have gone from one ridiculous non-argument to another.

A Space Marine has many different definitions. According too Fluff its a super powerful hero capable of killing 10 or so men. In game its a powerful infantry, but it's not godlike.

According too fluff the bolter explodes on impact, blowing apart in a firey explosion. yet in game it doesnt have Blast and its only strength four.

Daemons are daemons according to fluff. Monstrious beings capable of destroying mind and body, but according to game balance they are not classed as demons according to DH.

personally this works for me because the equipment that works on daemons is too expensive anyway. now Ungents of Warding still kicks butt. And Grand masters can insta kill anything, and who doesnt think that mystics rock? psycannon bolts, incinerators, and psycannons are still ultra wicked weapons against daemons. And if you do happen to run Grey Knight Land Raiders daemons shouldn't be a problem.

So what I am saying is Grey Knights still have an awesome advantage on daemons as well as many others (psychic hoods for lash lists, psycannon, incinerators for seer councils, nemisis force weapons for any T3 unit, land raiders for nearly anything else.). Seriously, we shouldn't really be complaining about this, daemonhunters is still a kick butt army.

thehod wrote:Will I see you at the Necro frgs?

you might! I'll bring some nice irish soda... the kind that comes with a widget!

I don't think the rule thing will be an issue there tho. I'm not expecting to see lots of DH armies


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Knight Luke wrote:personally this works for me because the equipment that works on daemons is too expensive anyway. now Ungents of Warding still kicks butt. And Grand masters can insta kill anything, and who doesnt think that mystics rock? psycannon bolts, incinerators, and psycannons are still ultra wicked weapons against daemons. And if you do happen to run Grey Knight Land Raiders daemons shouldn't be a problem.

So what I am saying is Grey Knights still have an awesome advantage on daemons as well as many others (psychic hoods for lash lists, psycannon, incinerators for seer councils, nemisis force weapons for any T3 unit, land raiders for nearly anything else.). Seriously, we shouldn't really be complaining about this, daemonhunters is still a kick butt army.

qft those are all good points. They don't add much to the discussion. But all good points


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gaylord500 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, what you are trying to do is use fluff as rules because you don't like how the actual rules play out.

If this is your immediate response, I note it is also in reply to: "As has been pointed out in other threads (on other sites) on the topic, in addition to the above, Chaos Daemons, page 78, defines named HQs as Greater Daemons." So your characterization is not reasonable.

combo wrote:Its obvious that if you were to replace the word Daemons in the Codex: Chaos Demons, with another word such as X then it would become obvious that Daemons from the Codex do not count as Daemons as defined in the DH codex.

It's obvious that Imperial Guard aren't Daemons, but it's not obvious that Daemons aren't Daemons. It's easier to say that they are. They created a special rule that automatically fits the DH category by being exactly rather than something like what the DH Codex is talking about.

'Adeptus Sororitas' Termonology would refer to anything with the Adeptus Sororitas special rule as well as the units listed in the WH codex. To say that 'Daemons' Termonology refers to the Daemons special rule as well as any other listed item is only to note that they're the same thing.

*Edit: spelling*

I wish this were true... If i take an inquisitor from WH, in my DH army i can't take a DH assassin since they are two different books unless i have an inquisitor from DH.

AND

I could take a DH inquisitor lord, a WH inquisitor, and two Callidus assassins in a WH army if I so chose since each assasin/inquisitor comes from different books. This is a case where an inquisitor from one book =/= an inquisitor from another book. Just like a deamon in one book =/= a deamon in another

Has Gwar finally met his match ?

Green Blow Fly wrote:Has Gwar finally met his match ?

Errrr... I won? I just have frgsinwntr as my new attack dog

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Has Gwar finally met his match ?

Errrr... I won? I just have frgsinwntr as my new attack dog

haha! we just tend to agree on these last few issues and raw. I disagree on another topic that got locked after its 11th page a few months go!

I may suck at debating... but logic is fun!

I think a problem alot of people have over this rule and other rules is that they fail to realise this forum is a place to discuss Rules as Written.

When earlier rules were written they fit with the other rules written at the time, but as rules that once worked no longer do so.

People have to realise that in the real world the majority of these issues would probably be house rules, FAQ'd or simply rolled off. But this is a forum dedicated to working out exact meanings of rules as written. If we simply said

"yeah its probably meant to be X even though the rules don't say that" then what'd the point in this forum would be?

Yes, on one hand an Inquisitor is not an Inquisitor. On the other hand, an inferno pistol is melta and an incinerator is a flamer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gaylord500 wrote:Yes, on one hand an Inquisitor is not an Inquisitor. On the other hand, an incinerator is a flamer.

Welcome to the joys of the English Language, Syntax definition and time.

gaylord500 wrote:Yes, on one hand an Inquisitor is not an Inquisitor. On the other hand, an inferno pistol is melta and an incinerator is a flamer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gaylord500 wrote:Yes, on one hand an Inquisitor is not an Inquisitor. On the other hand, an incinerator is a flamer.

Welcome to the joys of the English Language, Syntax definition and time.

Errrm.... No. The Inferno Pistol is a Pistol with the melta Rule. An Incinerator is a Template Weapon.

What kind of crazy version of 40k are you playing?

Thats crazy, that automatically appended post on the end of gaylord500's post is actually my post. It got automatically appended into his post.

combo wrote:Thats crazy, that automatically appended post on the end of gaylord500's post is actually my post. It got automatically appended into his post.

Holy crap that's a pretty hardcore Error....

Still, it's funny to think he quoted himself Just add the comment to your post here so it's still about if he edits it out

I saw you brought it up in N&B, good good. Legoburner will look at it ASAP I'm guessing.

I don't agree with two assassins in the same list. The rules are exactly the same.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't agree with two assassins in the same list. The rules are exactly the same.

G

You can't have your cake and Eat it

If I may Gwar, allow me to help you get LESS negative responses.

Gwar! wrote:I don't care how "you play it", I play it by the rules. If you don't, you are a cheater.

Better to say this: "I don't care how other people play it, I play by RAW (when possible). To do otherwise is cheating."

Much less personal (which is what you were pointing out in that exact thread), posits an opinion and allows people to internalize what you said without triggering the 'defensive' attitude (which just shuts down debate, and turns on the flames).

And BTW it's not cheating if BOTH players have access to the same regulations. Notice I said 'access to', and not 'use'; In 40K it's often the case that the players are not using the same codex, which means different rules. If the players switch armies then said rules must work the same regardless of whom is using them. This is why the TO is so important; (S)He (in theory) guarantees that all players are using the same rules so that nobody gets cheated.

Gwar! wrote:Errrm.... No. The Inferno Pistol is a Pistol with the melta Rule. An Incinerator is a Template Weapon.

What kind of crazy version of 40k are you playing?

Well, for the first one, he was playing your RAW 40k. An Inferno Pistol does not have the Melta rule. It merely adds d6 to Armor Pen at half range. While this is functionally identical, it is unfortunately not rules-wise identical. Specifically, I believe by his combination, in that creatures immune to Melta/flamer attacks, such as the Avatar, are not immune to an inferno pistol, nor are they immune to an incinerator, a device that sprays out blessed promethium.

While GW did release a "gakky house rule" on the matter, in your world that is useless.

I don't exactly know what his Inquisitor is not an Inquisitor point was.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:I don't exactly know what his Inquisitor is not an Inquisitor point was.

The point was that just because something shares a name between codex's you cannot claim they are the same.
gaylord500 was trying to claim that "Daemons have the Daemons special rule lawlz that means the DH codex means them", while frgsinwntr correctly pointed out that if you take an Inquisitor Lord from the DH Codex, you cannot try and take a Assassin from the Witch Hunters codex because they are not the same unit, despite having the same name. That means, just because Daemons share a simmilar sounding rule, it is NOT the same rule because the Daemonhunter codex does not specifically mention them.