so the Daemons for the chaos army (Greater, and Lesser Daemons) do not have the "Daemon" special rule. Do grey knights still get bonuses for fighting them?

Yes, since they are daemons.

SJ

That's what I was saying,. my friend just really hates fighting grey knights, thank you

GySgtHernandez wrote:That's what I was saying,. my friend just really hates fighting grey knights, thank you

And I don't blame him. The new Grey Knights versus Daemons, allows a mediocre Grey Knights player to make a good game with a skilled Daemon player.
-Not a fan.

Eldar Avatars are also affected by GK rules.

Strictly, following the rules, you only get a bonus against C: Daemons and Avatar. Nothing else has the defined Daemon rule

GySgtHernandez wrote:Do grey knights still get bonuses for fighting them?

No. They do not have the Daemon special rule like nos said.

]The Moderators suggest that if you feel the need to use insults or degrading comments about people who hold a differing opinion that you pause, reflect on how seriously you are taking the toy soldier discussion, and remember that you agreed to abide by the Forum Rules when you made an account here. If a particular poster is rude or otherwise breaking the forum rules, be sure to hit the Alert Moderator button on their post. Being rude yourself never helps. It only makes you look as bad or worse. On the other hand, if you are able to remain scrupulously polite when another poster seems rude, you... A) Win the respect of other posters. B) Add to the strength of your argument. C) Avoid Moderator action to your detriment. D) Avoid the risk of attacking someone who did not mean offense, which occasionally happens.

This post also broke Tenets 1a and 5 of You Make Da Call, found here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Do I think they should be counted as Daemons? Yes, absolutely. It's clear that they are, in fact, Daemons.

Do they have the Daemons rule? No. Therefore, technically, they are not affected by the Grey Knights' rules.

Stupid but 100% factually correct. That's GW in a nutshell.

Miraclefish wrote:It's clear that they are, in fact, Daemons.

Thank you.

RaW they are not Daemons.

GaP they are Daemons.

Where people generally get their knickers in a twist is with regards to Daemon Princes, Possessed, Defilers, etc.
All of these have some daemonic features but its a matter of opinion if they are daemons or not.

IdentifyZero wrote:

Miraclefish wrote:It's clear that they are, in fact, Daemons.

Thank you.

You forgot to quote the last part where he says technically..

I play C: Daemons, C: CSM, and C: Grey Knights. Good job for giving myself an advantage eh? Those 18 models in a 2k point game must be really scary.
Heavy Flamers must be heavy then I guess.

Lolcanoe wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Miraclefish wrote:It's clear that they are, in fact, Daemons.

Thank you.

You forgot to quote the last part where he says technically..

I play C: Daemons, C: CSM, and C: Grey Knights. Good job for giving myself an advantage eh? Those 18 models in a 2k point game must be really scary.
Heavy Flamers must be heavy then I guess.

He states it on a different line, different thought. That's the problem with not taking a stance one way or the other and wish-washing.

Not sure what you're getting at with your last comment Lolcanoe. Mind explaining it in a sensible way?

I'll explain.

C: Chaos Daemons have the Daemon special rule, therefore, they are daemons which Grey Knights get preferred enemy against.

C: CSM daemons are only daemons by name. Nowhere in that codex is the special rule for Daemon.

Just because something has a name, doesn't mean that it is what it's called. How many people would say the Avatar was a daemon if it didn't specifically say so?

Chaos Daemon : Daemon as Heave Flamer : Heavy Weapon

the Preferred Enemy the GKs have simply says they have Preferred Enemy: Daemons.




the Rule Book simply states that models with this rule reroll all failed hits in CC against said enemies with a WS.



as we arn't told how to define a "Daemon" we should do it like this.

anything that has the word Deamon in its name or special rules is considered to be a deamon.


the GK codex doesn't say "Things with the Daemon special rule", or "all things in Codex: Daemons", or "all things with the word Daemon in their name"

we simply have to do a blanket covering and have it apply to anything with the Daemon special rule and all things with Deamon in their name.


this would mean we would have to include,

the Avatar,

everything with the Daemon special rule(basically, Codex: Daemons),

CSM Daemon princes and Summoned Daemons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Strictly, following the rules, you only get a bonus against C: Daemons and Avatar. Nothing else has the defined Daemon rule

but we are never told that the GK's Preferred Enemy: Daemons only applies to things with the Daemon special rule.

Grey Templar wrote:the Preferred Enemy the GKs have simply says they have Preferred Enemy: Daemons.




the Rule Book simply states that models with this rule reroll all failed hits in CC against said enemies with a WS.



as we arn't told how to define a "Daemon" we should do it like this.

anything that has the word Deamon in its name or special rules is considered to be a deamon.


the GK codex doesn't say "Things with the Daemon special rule", or "all things in Codex: Daemons", or "all things with the word Daemon in their name"

we simply have to do a blanket covering and have it apply to anything with the Daemon special rule and all things with Deamon in their name.


this would mean we would have to include,

the Avatar,

everything with the Daemon special rule(basically, Codex: Daemons),

CSM Daemon princes and Summoned Daemons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Strictly, following the rules, you only get a bonus against C: Daemons and Avatar. Nothing else has the defined Daemon rule

but we are never told that the GK's Preferred Enemy: Daemons only applies to things with the Daemon special rule.

Excellent point. It does just say Preferred Enemy: Daemons.

When you think about it, in the past, there are models with Preferred Enemy:Race (4th Edition Tyranid Hunters for example) and if we used the above logic, where they have to have a special rule denoting them as tyranids, nothing is affected.

It seems GK worded the Daemon thing the way they did so it applies to anything Daemonic really. Whether it be Daemons from Chaos Daemons Codex or Daemons from Chaos Space Marines codex. There is no mention of type or special rule Daemon, just that it has the preferred enemy: Daemons.

Exactly


it really isn't a huge deal. CSM deamons are pretty awful aside from being able to assault after deepstrike.

its more about rerolling against their Daemon Princes.

Grey Templar wrote:
it really isn't a huge deal. CSM deamons are pretty awful aside from being able to assault after deepstrike.

Which makes them awesome...?

awsomely awful, like Gretchin are awsome.


they are dirt cheap and take no slots.

cannon fodder.

Gretchin are awesome for what they do though

yup

The best example of how this works is a unit with PE (Orks) vs a unit of Nobs; does PE work? Yes, because Nobs are Orks, even if they lack a special rule saying they are orks.

Same logic gets applied to PE (Daemons) or PE (Tyranid) or PE (<incert name&gt.

In the case of the Eldar Avatar, a special mention was made to allow us to know that it does count as a Daemon, on the off chance that it would matter.

SJ

Just my 2p, but if my Daemon Prince doesn't get the Daemon special rule (reroll to hit vs things with WS), then he isn't a Daemon. My point of view is he's more Marine than Daemon, thus counts as a Chaos Space Marine, not a Daemon.

As for the summoned daemons... yeah, I've got nothing.

the Daemon prince still has the word Daemon in its name.



and how is he different from the Daemon Princes in Codex: Daemons?

statwise, no difference as far as i know.

Daemon Hunters have the word 'Daemon' in their name, too
But agree, why should a daemon prince not be a daemon when fighting with CSM, when it is one when fighting with other daemons?

Statwise, very different

C: Daemon is -1S and no armour save, for a start.
And GT - Assault Cannons have Assault in their name. Guess I can assault after firing them! Heavy flamers are "heavy" though, so no assaulting after firing them....

See how silly the "it has it in its name" argument is?

and the Deamonhunter codex doesn't exist anymore

and there never was a UNIT with the word Deamon in its name in the Deamonhunter codex.

and at the time, the DH codex actually defined what was a Deamon and what wasn't(everything from Codex: Deamons, Deamon Princes, Chaos models with more then 50 points of Deamonic Gifts, Summoned Deamons, Posessed, Vehicles with Deamonic Posession, and the Avatar)

Doesn't make you definition any less silly. That's like saying a restaurant is tau.

Jidmah wrote:Daemon Hunters have the word 'Daemon' in their name, too
But agree, why should a daemon prince not be a daemon when fighting with CSM, when it is one when fighting with other daemons?

Are we trying to be difficult here? You're referencing the BOOK/CODEX name of the army, because they hunt Daemons.

Jidmah wrote:Doesn't make you definition any less silly. That's like saying a restaurant is tau.

I think you are the one with the silly definition, trying to de-rail topic with nonsense and spouting off lines like the above.

Please, try to contribute.

Nobody in this topic, has an IQ below 70 I imagine and none of you are illiterate and none of you, have never heard of Warhammer 40,000.

*For a fact, we know that Daemons, of all shapes and sizes = Daemons.

*We also know, that things with the word Daemon in their name, are associated with Daemons.

*We know Daemons are associated with the Warp (Chaos).

Grey Knights have Preferred Enemy: Daemons, which really is any unit that is by lore or rules, considered a Daemon.

By your Tau/Restraunt logic, Daemons are mon. Hey Mon! We got Preferred Enemy: Mon!

No,

Restaurant is a single word.

Deamon is a single word.


I am no pulling a word out of another word, the word Deamon is one of the 2 words that make up the unit name, Deamon Prince.

that is a Reducto ad Absurdium argument you have there and as such is invalid.



we arn't told how to define what a deamon is, and as such we must count everything that is a deamon in any way, shape, or form. this includes things with the Deamon rule, things in Codex: Deamons, Deamon Princes(name), summoned Deamons(again, name) and the Avatar(its rules explicitly say its a deamon)

IdentifyZero wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Daemon Hunters have the word 'Daemon' in their name, too
But agree, why should a daemon prince not be a daemon when fighting with CSM, when it is one when fighting with other daemons?

Are we trying to be difficult here? You're referencing the BOOK/CODEX name of the army, because they hunt Daemons.

Jidmah wrote:Doesn't make you definition any less silly. That's like saying a restaurant is tau.

I think you are the one with the silly definition, trying to de-rail topic with nonsense and spouting off lines like the above.

Please, try to contribute.

Nobody in this topic, has an IQ below 70 I imagine and none of you are illiterate and none of you, have never heard of Warhammer 40,000.

*For a fact, we know that Daemons, of all shapes and sizes = Daemons.

*We also know, that things with the word Daemon in their name, are associated with Daemons.

*We know Daemons are associated with the Warp (Chaos).

Grey Knights have Preferred Enemy: Daemons, which really is any unit that is by lore or rules, considered a Daemon.

By your Tau/Restraunt logic, Daemons are mon. Hey Mon! We got Preferred Enemy: Mon!

Uh, what deffrolla just crashed your favorite landraider?

Maybe try reading the post I responded to, before insulting random people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:No,

Restaurant is a single word.

Deamon is a single word.


I am no pulling a word out of another word, the word Deamon is one of the 2 words that make up the unit name, Deamon Prince.

that is a Reducto ad Absurdium argument you have there and as such is invalid.



we arn't told how to define what a deamon is, and as such we must count everything that is a deamon in any way, shape, or form. this includes things with the Deamon rule, things in Codex: Deamons, Deamon Princes(name), summoned Deamons(again, name) and the Avatar(its rules explicitly say its a deamon)

Sure, but a Demon Prince could as well be a mortal simply chosen as heir by the chaos gods, as well as a mortal turned into a demon, as well as a demon simply aiding mortal. Simply having "deamon" in your name does not make you a demon per definition, which is what I wanted to show by using the "Daemon Hunter" example. It could be someone hunting daemons or a daemon hunting other stuff, or even a daemon hunting daemons.

Ummm, no


A Deamon Prince is a mortal that has been turned into a Deamon as the ultimate reward.

He is a Deamon on all accounts.


it is the goal which all chaos followers ascribe to, to become immortal and serve their god for all eternity.

Jidmah wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Daemon Hunters have the word 'Daemon' in their name, too
But agree, why should a daemon prince not be a daemon when fighting with CSM, when it is one when fighting with other daemons?

Are we trying to be difficult here? You're referencing the BOOK/CODEX name of the army, because they hunt Daemons.

Jidmah wrote:Doesn't make you definition any less silly. That's like saying a restaurant is tau.

I think you are the one with the silly definition, trying to de-rail topic with nonsense and spouting off lines like the above.

Please, try to contribute.

Nobody in this topic, has an IQ below 70 I imagine and none of you are illiterate and none of you, have never heard of Warhammer 40,000.

*For a fact, we know that Daemons, of all shapes and sizes = Daemons.

*We also know, that things with the word Daemon in their name, are associated with Daemons.

*We know Daemons are associated with the Warp (Chaos).

Grey Knights have Preferred Enemy: Daemons, which really is any unit that is by lore or rules, considered a Daemon.

By your Tau/Restraunt logic, Daemons are mon. Hey Mon! We got Preferred Enemy: Mon!

Uh, what deffrolla just crashed your favorite landraider?

Maybe try reading the post I responded to, before insulting random people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:No,

Restaurant is a single word.

Deamon is a single word.


I am no pulling a word out of another word, the word Deamon is one of the 2 words that make up the unit name, Deamon Prince.

that is a Reducto ad Absurdium argument you have there and as such is invalid.



we arn't told how to define what a deamon is, and as such we must count everything that is a deamon in any way, shape, or form. this includes things with the Deamon rule, things in Codex: Deamons, Deamon Princes(name), summoned Deamons(again, name) and the Avatar(its rules explicitly say its a deamon)

Sure, but a Demon Prince could as well be a mortal simply chosen as heir by the chaos gods, as well as a mortal turned into a demon, as well as a demon simply aiding mortal. Simply having "deamon" in your name does not make you a demon per definition, which is what I wanted to show by using the "Daemon Hunter" example. It could be someone hunting daemons or a daemon hunting other stuff, or even a daemon hunting daemons.

I think your confusion is arising from the fact, that english is not your first language. That is not meant as an insult.

Yes, that might be the issue here.

I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

Grey Templar wrote:Ummm, no


A Deamon Prince is a mortal that has been turned into a Deamon as the ultimate reward.

He is a Deamon on all accounts.


it is the goal which all chaos followers ascribe to, to become immortal and serve their god for all eternity.

Which is actually what I said in the first place. Doesn't have a thing to do with its name though.

Zero: You shouldn't be judging peoples lingual skills by the flag next to their name. It does come across as insult.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah, and I just realized I mistyped daemon like five times in one post...

Grey Templar wrote:

and there never was a UNIT with the word Deamon in its name in the Deamonhunter codex.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Daemonhost
Bam sucka!

Clauss wrote:I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

Curiously Clauss, I am wondering if you took the time to read what you just typed?

Anyways, take into account, one codex is newer than the other for starters and they haven't had the same updates and special rules applied.

Also, look at your own fallacies of logic, as posted:

You claim a Daemon Prince is not a Daemon.
You then say in the Daemons Codex, he has a rule 'Daemon'.
IN the Chaos Codex which is (OLDER) he is stated as a MC, but for all intents and purposes, is really no different then the unit in Codex Chaos Daemons. They are both Daemon princes, they are both more daemon than man.

Also, you do realize, everything in this game is based on lore (Fluff) and in cases like this, with the Grey Knights, there preferred enemy does not go into definining what a Daemon is; relying upon the average Warhammer 40,000 player to acknowledge what one is without being ridiculous or illogical in order to play devil's advocate.

Clauss wrote:I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

However, names do have rules applications.


we arn't told in the Main Rule Book how to apply Preferred enemy. it doesn't say by Codex, it doesn't say by special rule, it doesn't say by name.


the GK codex simply says they have preferred enemy against Daemons. it doesn't say you determine what a daemon is by Codex, name, or Special rule. it just says Daemons.



so, we have to do a blanket application. if it has Deamon anywhere in its name or special rules, its a Daemon for Preferred Enemy purposes.

Che-Vito wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

and there never was a UNIT with the word Deamon in its name in the Deamonhunter codex.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Daemonhost
Bam sucka!

Awesome, you quoted someone based on the 3rd edition Codex with something that has no real relevancy to the topic, except to prove, that things with the word Daemon in their name are almost always Daemons.

Let me guess, you would argue a Daemonhost isn't a Daemon because it's in Codex: Daemonhunters and is also a human.

Plain and simple, anyone who is trying to pretend certain things are not Daemons are using willful ignorance. That is far worse than, well, any kind of unwilling stupidity.

Ok, i forgot about the deamonhost.


I'll include it in my list of deamons too, even though it absolutly sucks and no one will ever use one in a competitive enviroment.

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, i forgot about the deamonhost.


I'll include it in my list of deamons too, even though it absolutly sucks and no one will ever use one in a competitive enviroment.

Also to note, the Daemonhost in the GK Codex does not have Daemon special rule, but is still for all purposes a Daemon. There's a precedent within their own codex. No special daemon rule, but a Daemon.

Once more, check & mate; to those arguing against this. You're pounding your heads against brick walls.

Grey Templar wrote:

Clauss wrote:I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

However, names do have rules applications.


we arn't told in the Main Rule Book how to apply Preferred enemy. it doesn't say by Codex, it doesn't say by special rule, it doesn't say by name.


the GK codex simply says they have preferred enemy against Daemons. it doesn't say you determine what a daemon is by Codex, name, or Special rule. it just says Daemons.



so, we have to do a blanket application. if it has Deamon anywhere in its name or special rules, its a Daemon for Preferred Enemy purposes.

Why not simply check that half page of fluff for the unit you're attacking whether it's a daemon? Why create an artificial rule which can easily fail when that rumored SoB codex is printed and they get a "Daemon Slayer" rule a "Daemon Hunter" unit or similar?

What about GK characters wielding daemon swords?

First they came for the Codex: Chaos Daemons models because those had the daemon rule.
Then they came for the Codex: Chaos Space Marines models because those had the word daemon in their name.
Then they came for the Possessed, the daemon hosts, the Defilers, and all of those models with daemon weapons because they were touched by daemons.
Then they came for the Legion of the Damned, the Warp Beasts, Sanguinor and Draigo because those were associated with the Warp and anything associated with the Warp must be a daemon.

Where does it all end?

solkan wrote:First they came for the Codex: Chaos Daemons models because those had the daemon rule.
Then they came for the Codex: Chaos Space Marines models because those had the word daemon in their name.
Then they came for the Possessed, the daemon hosts, the Defilers, and all of those models with daemon weapons because they were touched by daemons.
Then they came for the Legion of the Damned, the Warp Beasts, Sanguinor and Draigo because those were associated with the Warp and anything associated with the Warp must be a daemon.

Where does it all end?

I know this was a joke but it isn't preferred enemy: Warp or preferred enemy: warp taint.

Preferred enemy: daemons

We could say that if a codex has come into contact with Gav Thorpe during its production most of the things in it are a little daemonic...

Jidmah wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

Clauss wrote:I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

However, names do have rules applications.


we arn't told in the Main Rule Book how to apply Preferred enemy. it doesn't say by Codex, it doesn't say by special rule, it doesn't say by name.


the GK codex simply says they have preferred enemy against Daemons. it doesn't say you determine what a daemon is by Codex, name, or Special rule. it just says Daemons.



so, we have to do a blanket application. if it has Deamon anywhere in its name or special rules, its a Daemon for Preferred Enemy purposes.

Why not simply check that half page of fluff for the unit you're attacking whether it's a daemon? Why create an artificial rule which can easily fail when that rumored SoB codex is printed and they get a "Daemon Slayer" rule a "Daemon Hunter" unit or similar?

What about GK characters wielding daemon swords?

in that case, you arn't actually fighting a deamon, but a dude wielding a sword with a bound deamon inside.


When the sword itself becomes a model on its own then it will be a deamon.



I have no doubt the Eratta willl clear this issue up, but its a good blanket rule.


and SoB are witch hunters, not deamon hunters.



Ultimatly, we need to use a little bit of common sense here.

if you can't see that a Deamon prince and Summoned Deamons are, in fact, Deamons then i really don't know what to say. maybe this isn't the game for you.

Grey Templar wrote:if you can't see that a Deamon prince and Summoned Deamons are, in fact, Deamons then i really don't know what to say. maybe this isn't the game for you.

=

Signed.

"Prefered enemy: heretics" would probably melt everybody's brain.

Indeed,


for that I would have to say everything that isn't an Alien.

Grey Templar wrote:if you can't see that a Deamon prince and Summoned Deamons are, in fact, Deamons then i really don't know what to say. maybe this isn't the game for you.

Oh well, whatever. You don't want to get my point, so I'm not going to force it onto you.

Of course daemon princes and summoned daemons are daemons.

You don't really have a point though.

Everything is Heresy! YOU are Heresy!

iproxtaco wrote:Everything is Heresy! YOU are Heresy!

IN THE EMPEROR'S NAME! DIE HERETIC! PURGE!

1d4chan wrote:What IS heresy?

The Imperium realizes that Heresy is a serious matter that must be explained with great detail from the lowliest servant to the highest Commander. And so with the aid of the most wise Inquisition and holy Ecclasiarchy, they have defined what is heresy in the eyes of our immortal God-Emperor:
EVERYTHING IS HERESY
EVERYTHING

IdentifyZero wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

and there never was a UNIT with the word Deamon in its name in the Deamonhunter codex.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Daemonhost
Bam sucka!

Awesome, you quoted someone based on the 3rd edition Codex with something that has no real relevancy to the topic, except to prove, that things with the word Daemon in their name are almost always Daemons.

Let me guess, you would argue a Daemonhost isn't a Daemon because it's in Codex: Daemonhunters and is also a human.

Plain and simple, anyone who is trying to pretend certain things are not Daemons are using willful ignorance. That is far worse than, well, any kind of unwilling stupidity.

1) I was responding to what I quoted. Period. End of story. That's it. I was making no broader point.
2) I wouldn't argue that. Try getting off your horse for a minute, and reading what I wrote earlier in this thread. There is something calling posting etiquette. You're lacking it.
3) I have been arguing the same point as you. Think about it.

IdentifyZero wrote:Nobody in this topic, has an IQ below 70 I imagine and none of you are illiterate and none of you, have never heard of Warhammer 40,000.

This kind of stuff really makes your argument look worse than it is. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop posting this kind of thing. It adds nothing to the discussion except a sense of hostility and implied insult, toeing the line of moderation and trying to be unpleasant without directly attacking any one person. It really wouldn't hurt you to display a more friendly attitude.

IdentifyZero wrote:Grey Knights have Preferred Enemy: Daemons, which really is any unit that is by lore or rules, considered a Daemon.

Where are you getting that definition? It's not coming from the rules. It's coming from your personal interpretation. To the best of my knowledge, every other example of "Preferred Enemy: xxxxx", "xxxxx" indicates a race/codex. Preferred Enemy: Tyranids means everything in the Tyranid Codex. Preferred Enemy: Orks means everything which has a WS stat in the Ork codex.

By your argument, wouldn't we have to say that Gretchin, Dredds and Killa Kans wouldn't be affected by Preferred Enemy: Orks? If the rule keys off the unit's name or fluff, rather than by codex?

Now, personally, I suspect that the INTENT is for Daemon Princes and Summoned Lesser Daemons to count. However, they are both very different units than the closest equivalent units in Codex: Daemons, so I could easily understand it if GW did NOT mean for them to be included. It's hard to say.

It's even trickier to say in the case of Defilers and Possessed. Both of those are possessed by Daemons in the fluff. Both were on the list of units which counted as Daemons in the old Daemonhunters codex. But neither has the word "Daemon" in its name. So what do we say about these? Do we use the old Daemonhunters definition? Do we say they're not affected because they're not part of Codex: Daemons? Or do we make a personal call based on fluff/names, and say they DON'T count, but Princes and SLD do? No matter which tack we choose we're having to make up a ruling because GW had a major editorial failure and were too dumb to actually tell us, like they did in the old codex.

Hopefully it'll be covered in the Grey Knights FAQ when we eventually get one. It's an embarassment that GW didn't think to spell it out in the book. In the meanwhile, we have to come to agreement with our opponents about what seems reasonable to BOTH of us. And I guarantee you that this discussion will be a lot more pleasant and enjoyable and smooth if we leave out comments about "IQs under 70" or "attempts to abuse the rules", or even just coming in to the discussion with the attitude that there is only one reasonable interpretation and that anyone who thinks differently is a jerk or a cheater. Keep it polite and respectful, and I'm sure reasonable people will have a reasonable and easy discussion. Be unreasonable, and you're going to set an unpleasant tone for the whole game.

It's a sad state of affairs that this wasn't defined after all the controversy with CH and the new C:CD codex....

The Grey Knight codex states under Preferred Enemy (Daemons), that it applies to all things daemonic and warspawn. Note sure why people miss that, other than perhaps by not having actually read it.

Those that argue the point of Codex Daemons giving units there in the special rule "Daemon" as the definition of what is or isn't a daemon, if you bother to read it, the special rule "Daemon" covers a lot of different rules that apply to specific units in the codex, but not all of them. As such, only the units in the codex that have that specific rule benefits from all of the rules noted under "Daemon". This allows the writers of the codex to not have to put several named rules into a stat line when the word "Daemon" will cover everything of note.

The same is true for the Grey Knights codex where the terms "Grey Knight" and "Nemesis Force Weapon" are defined, as not all units in the Grey Knights codex are "Grey Knights", nor is every force weapon in their codex a "Nemesis Force Weapon".

So for those of you that claim a Daemon Prince is not a Daemon because it lacks a special rule, cool that you are being obstinate, but you are still wrong as your codex considers them daemons, evern if you do not.

SJ

It’s called codex creep deal with it GK's if it does not have the special rule of Daemon you don’t get the bonuses, quit whining about your over powered codex. (I knew space marines where babies but sheesh)

Dr_Chin wrote:It’s called codex creep deal with it GK's if it does not have the special rule of Daemon you don’t get the bonuses, quit whining about your over powered codex. (I knew space marines where babies but sheesh)

Except that's not what the preferred enemy rule says either.

Obvious Troll, is obvious.

So what you are saying if you are playing another GK with a daemon weapon you get a bonus against him? or just his weapon?

How about any CSM with a deamon weapon? do you get a bonus against them? or a vehicle that has daemonic possession? Where does the rule end?

Dr_Chin wrote:So what you are saying if you are playing another GK with a daemon wepon you get a bonus agianst him? or just his weapon?

No, because the character isn't a Daemon. The rule says all 'Daemons'. Daemon Princes, summoned or in a CM army are still Daemons, therefore The Grey Knights get their preferred enemy bonus against them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:
How about any CSM with a deamon weapon? do you get a bonus against them? or a vehicle that has daemonic possession? Where does the rule end?

Nope, the character is again, not a Daemon. The vehicle with Daemonic Possession is debatable, but I would say it does, simply because the Daemon is 'within' the target. It would apply to Possessed Chaos Space Marines as well. It's just my personal opinion on the matter, it'll likely be cleared up in the FAQ.

Just another issue to be FAQed.

As previously posted, Preferred Enemy typically applies against an entire codex. So by that I think that it should apply to Codex: Daemons of Chaos - as well as any models noted to be a 'Daemon', like the Avatar.

A note to everyone:
Don't assume that you're correct. Ever. You can make a pretty good argument and hope that people accept your conclusions, but ultimately this forum is here to help people decide which rules they want to use - not to insult, denegrate, or bully anyone. Trolling, hostile attitudes, and the like add nothing to any argument.

I could argue this all day, but I am not going to I think all CSM players should suffer just because GW cannot write a codex correctly please. The problem is, that if it’s a daemon then say it is, All Daemons in the chaos codex has the Daemon special rule, the as does the Avatar so those you should get preferred enemy, nothing more until GW Faq’s it why would they have that rule unless it was to specify what is a daemon it seems clear it me, it must be that Grey knights need more help or is that it’s made so any noob and win and feel good about themselves. GW should have clearly stated All daemons in CSM codex are considered preferred enemy then list them. But no GW loves this crap typical GW.

Dr_Chin wrote:It’s called codex creep deal with it GK's if it does not have the special rule of Daemon you don’t get the bonuses, quit whining about your over powered codex. (I knew space marines where babies but sheesh)

Can we avoid comments like this please, they don't add anything constructive to any debate and only annoy or infuriate people and lead to a general debasement of the thread.. Much obliged.

For the last time, the Preferred Enemy: Deamons special rule does not say they get it against things with the Deamon special rule.

it just says they get it against Deamons.


the Avatar is a Deamon

things in the Deamon Codex are Deamons

Deamon Princes are Deamons

Summoned Deamons are Deamons


posessed vehicles, maybe...





because Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons are Deamons on all accounts we must assume that they count as deamons for the purpose of the Preferred enemy.

the burden is on the negative to prove they are not deamons.

The problem is I think this is very relevant subject I saw a fist fight almost break out at a tournament over this rule I know everyone should have fun, and that is what I told them just relax etc.. but what is the ruling I play daemons I understand I am getting screwed by GK I am ok with it, but when I see a noob playing GK and a seasoned CSM player argue about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:For the last time, the Preferred Enemy: Deamons special rule does not say they get it against things with the Deamon special rule.

it just says they get it against Deamons.


the Avatar is a Deamon

things in the Deamon Codex are Deamons

Deamon Princes are Deamons

Summoned Deamons are Deamons


posessed vehicles, maybe...





because Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons are Deamons on all accounts we must assume that they count as deamons for the purpose of the Preferred enemy.

the burden is on the negative to prove they are not deamons.

Then why did they make the special rule of daemon?

Why? To give the Daemons a special rule. The Grey Knights were not taken into consideration, not they should have been. It's down to inconsistency between authors more than anything else.

It really isn't that much of a big deal.
Firstly, how many Daemons are there likely to be in a CM army?
Secondly, how often are the dwindling CM players going to face the Grey Knights?
Thirdly, it fits entirely with established fluff.
Should CM players technically be given an advantage over the Daemons of Chaos book against Grey Knights when they're using the same units?

Xarian wrote:Just another issue to be FAQed.

As previously posted, Preferred Enemy typically applies against an entire codex. So by that I think that it should apply to Codex: Daemons of Chaos - as well as any models noted to be a 'Daemon', like the Avatar.

A note to everyone:
Don't assume that you're correct. Ever. You can make a pretty good argument and hope that people accept your conclusions, but ultimately this forum is here to help people decide which rules they want to use - not to insult, denegrate, or bully anyone. Trolling, hostile attitudes, and the like add nothing to any argument.

I agree but what do we do in the mean time?

they were being lazy.

it was so they could give a blanket Eternal warrior and 5+ ward save accross the codex.

Grey Templar wrote:they were being lazy.

it was so they could give a blanket Eternal warrior and 5+ ward save accross the codex.

Not all daemons have a 5+ save also the avitar does not have Eternal warrior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Listen I get it (hard or soft unless its american its cheese) but I have been playing GW products for way too long I guess my b**ch is for them, they just cant seem to get this stuff correct ever, and there has been and always be rules like this.

Dr_Chin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:they were being lazy.

it was so they could give a blanket Eternal warrior and 5+ ward save accross the codex.

Not all daemons have a 5+ save also the avitar does not have Eternal warrior.

Eh? Avatar? Is the Avatar in the Daemons of Chaos Codex? Not the last time I looked in it. You were both talking about the C: DOC, the Avatar, whose rules were published a while before this codex, does not come into the conversation.

iproxtaco wrote:Eh? Avatar? Is the Avatar in the Daemons of Chaos Codex? Not the last time I looked in it. You were both talking about the C: DOC, the Avatar, whose rules were published a while before this codex, does not come into the conversation.

Really? SO you are saying that the Avatar is not affected? Really?

Anyway the codex for Eldar was released in November 2006 which has the daemon special rule and the CSM was September 2007 Which does not? Hmmmmmm

Why would it not be? According to you, only units with the Daemon Special Rule should be affected. I was under the opinion that we were talking about the Daemons of Chaos book.

iproxtaco wrote:Why would it not be? According to you, only units with the Daemon Special Rule should be affected. I was under the opinion that we were talking about the Daemons of Chaos book.

Yeah ok read the codex please before posting.
I see you are a recent convert, you switch from Daemons to GK's lol how is the weather there? lol.

Read what codex?

What's your point? I play Word Bearers, Tyranids, some Dark Eldar, several other Marine armies and of course Grey Knights.
If the rule swings towards affecting all Daemons, then I would then be at a disadvantage with my Word Bearers.

iproxtaco wrote:Read what codex?

Please read page 24 of the eldar codex

So are possesed CSM daemon's or are they daemonkin?

Where it says The Avatar is a Daemon for all purposes? Didn't have to if that's what you mean. I know that. I posted as such. I was under the impression that we were talking about the Daemons of Chaos Codex in which the Special Rule : Daemon is used.
Please read my posts before replying.

the Eldar codex specifically mentions that it is a deamon for all purposes.


it doesn't have the Deamon special rule, but it is a deamon.


proof that you don't have to have the Deamon special rule to be a deamon.

Sorry my friend but I assume the thread was never about Daemons of Chaos codex, its about what is and what is not a "daemon" if they used the rule "Daemon" in November 2006 (Eldar) why would they not use it in September 2007 (CSM) to specify clearly what is and what is not? The fact that ALL daemons in the Daemons of Chaos book are called daemons was never in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:the Eldar codex specifically mentions that it is a deamon for all purposes.


it doesn't have the Deamon special rule, but it is a deamon.


proof that you don't have to have the Deamon special rule to be a deamon.

Its a rule for the Avatar and its a special rule soo I think that it’s the exact opposite of that, they specified it, saying it’s a daemon for a reason, because it is one, maybe I could be wrong but why would GW do it then?

The thread is not solely about it, but I was under the assumption that the short discussion that occurred was about that Codex specifically.

GW is not a single entity which writes the Codex with complete consideration of every rule in every other book, although perhaps it should as far as possible. The separate authors obviously wrote the rules internally without considering the other rules.

- The Avatar is stated as a Daemon for all purposes in the Eldar Codex, 2006.
- The CSM Codex contains summoned Daemons which aren't specifically stated as being 'Daemons' with a rule. The DoC book comes along and this author gives all the units a Special Rule, and labels them as Daemons within this rule.
- The Grey Knights book is written with the Preferred Enemy Rule, stating an effect on 'Daemons'.

It comes down to whether you only use rules which specifically state each unit as a Daemon, which would be everything in the Daemons of Chaos book and the avatar, or if you use common sense and include everything that is a Daemon, which would also include the Summoned units in the CSM codex.

Common sense to a GK player may not be Common sense to a chaos player thus where the argument incuse. So if all things with Daemon in the name are then “Daemons” then defilers are not? How about possessed? How about Chaos Sorcerers? in the fluff they make pacts with Daemons and have the essence of Daemons. Oblits?

Right, so a summoned Daemon is not a Daemon? Where's the logic behind that? The summoned Daemons in the CSM codex are Daemons, whether they fall under the preferred enemy special rule is up for debate, not their status.
I never said everything with 'Daemon' in the name. Units like possessed and defilers are debatable on their status. In MY opinion, they contain a Daemon inside them, controlling them, granting them power from within, so the rule would apply.
Also, making a pact with a Daemon is different from possession, unless the pact involves the Daemon possessing the invoker of the pact which is not common.

I am sorry man, I just dont understand your logic then, according to the GW and daemon special rule NO according to fluff yes. Like I stated this is typical GW pitting one type of player against another. The question is how do we solve it, in a worthless internet poll? lol in my thinking everything that does not have Daemon as a rule is debatable that is why we are here talking about it right? If it was clear there would be no argument right?

How can you not understand? A summoned Daemon is a Daemon in name, description, in the fluff, the fact that it's a warp spawned entity associated with a Chaos god and in model. IT IS A DAEMON. There is no debate about it. Whether the summoned Daemon is affected by the Preferred Enemy Rule is down to personal opinion. IMO it is, in yours, it isn't. Any poll is useless. The only thing that will clear this up once and for all in an FAQ.

the reason summoned deamons and Deamon princes weren't given specific rules associated with deamons is because the Deamon Hunter codex actually said what were deamons and what weren't for the purposes of certain items of Wargear(preferred enemy didn't exist at the time of that codexs writing)


at the time the CSM, Deamon, and Eldar codex were written, there was no need to debate this issue. the DH codex defined what were deamons and what weren't.


at the time the list was

Everything in the Deamon Codex,

Deamon princes,

Summoned Deamons,

Lesser Deamons,

the Avatar,

Chaos Lords with 50+ points of deamonic gifts,

and any vehicles with the Deamonic Posession upgrade.




we have no current definition of Deamon(and the Deamon special rule is NOT a good bar)


Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons were deamons with the old DH codex and they still are with the GK codex.

So according to your logic, and I have the CSM codex in front of me, most CSM is a daemon lol read the fluff. This is why the rule needs to be clear. I do hope a FAQ will clear this up but some how I dont think it will, and this still will go on. I will agree to disagree with you and lets hope we never have to battle ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:the reason summoned deamons and Deamon princes weren't given specific rules associated with deamons is because the Deamon Hunter codex actually said what were deamons and what weren't for the purposes of certain items of Wargear(preferred enemy didn't exist at the time of that codexs writing)


at the time the CSM, Deamon, and Eldar codex were written, there was no need to debate this issue. the DH codex defined what were deamons and what weren't.


at the time the list was

Everything in the Deamon Codex,

Deamon princes,

Summoned Deamons,

Lesser Deamons,

the Avatar,

Chaos Lords with 50+ points of deamonic gifts,

and any vehicles with the Deamonic Posession upgrade.




we have no current definition of Deamon(and the Deamon special rule is NOT a good bar)


Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons were deamons with the old DH codex and they still are with the GK codex.

You are correct in the OLD DH codex but this is the new DH codex, and if it stated that I would agree 100% with you but it does not, so I can not I am sorry. I understand this will be a debate for a long time till a GW tell us what it is untill then we will disagree. All because there exists the special rule of Daemon, if GW did not make that rule then I would agree with you but since they did I do not.

Actually......No, not in any way. A Daemon is a Daemon because it's stated as and modeled to be a Daemon. A Bloodletter is a Daemon in the CSM codex and in the DoC codex. Why you would think a Bloodletter isn't a Daemon is beyond me.

iproxtaco wrote:Actually......No, not in any way. A Daemon is a Daemon because it's stated as and modeled to be a Daemon. A Bloodletter is a Daemon in the CSM codex and in the DoC codex. Why you would think a Bloodletter isn't a Daemon is beyond me.

Beacuse it does not have the deamon special rule that was introduced before that codex came out. You can not use the story of 2 seperate people wrote the codex thats like saying each person does not know the others codex, its mental, they where what 11 months apart? lol.

So, simply because it doesn't have a rule that's specific to the DoC codex, a Bloodletter is magically no longer a Daemon? Eh? It's a Daemon, there's no way you can swing this without being very wrong, and very stupid.
Again, whether it comes under the Preferred Enemy special rule is what is up for debate, not whether a Bloodletter is a Daemon, because it is.

Lol you think logical not GW just like you can get a cover save if someone lobs a bomb at you and somoene is standing inbetween you and the tank that lobed it lol, a rule is a rule that is why they are there if they dont say Daemon in the rule then they are not a daemon. And that is they way I am going to play it like I said agree to disagree and lets hope we never play against each other. But no you have to keep going lol. I should say DONT mix Logic with GW rules lol.

Obvious Troll, is obvious.

A Bloodletter is a Daemon. End of discussion.

iproxtaco wrote:Obvious Troll, is obvious.

A Bloodletter is a Daemon. End of discussion.

I am sorry you are troll, you must not understand the term lol, a bloodletter is not a summoned daemon in the CSM, it could be a type of daemon if it was then I would insist that it had the same stats and special rules of a bloodletter, if you have not noticed that is why they split the codex's who is the Obvious Troll lol. YOU state that a bloodletter is a Daemon you are correct but its not a summoned lesser daemon lol. Ugh read your codex please.
I could also argue that in the Summoned lesser Daemon they show a artist rendition of the new Bloodletter so they had prior knowledge that they were going to change the rules, why did they not just put it in then for the sake of doing it to save arguments like this.

You think that a Bloodletter isn't a Daemon, and then spout some nonsense about 'logic isn't the same as rules'.
You=Troll.

I fail to understand how you can think that the Bloodletter isn't a Daemon. It is. Everyone else but you thinks it is.

Once more, a Bloodletter is a Daemon. Whether the CSM Summoned Daemons fall under the Preferred Enemy special rule is debatable, due to a lack of any Special Rule which is present in the DoC Codex.

Grey Templar wrote:
Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons were deamons with the old DH codex and they still are with the GK codex.

While I agree with your RaP, I think that the logic is terrible.

When people argue via fluff, blurbs, and other non-rules settings in YMDC, they are usually shut down. Hard.

RAW, this one is fuzzy. What is a Daemon is not clearly defined, beyond things in the C:CD codex. I know how I will be playing it, but RAW you cannot use the logic presented above.

Another point, the Special Rule : Daemon is not there to give clarification. It is present in order to give all units in the Daemons of Chaos Codex a blanket rule which gives them an Invulnerable Save or Ward safe if IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong about the effect.

It's purpose is not to define what a Daemon is, nor does the Grey Knights codex define what comes under the rule.

iproxtaco wrote:You think that a Bloodletter isn't a Daemon, and then spout some nonsense about 'logic isn't the same as rules'.
You=Troll.

I fail to understand how you can think that the Bloodletter isn't a Daemon. It is. Everyone else but you thinks it is.

Once more, a Bloodletter is a Daemon. Whether the CSM Summoned Daemons fall under the Preferred Enemy special rule is debatable, due to a lack of any Special Rule which is present in the DoC Codex.

Another point, the Special Rule : Daemon is not there to give clarification. It is present in order to give all units in the Daemons of Chaos Codex a blanket rule which gives them an Invulnerable Save or Ward safe if IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong about the effect.

Maybe I fail to see bloodletter is a lesser daemon in the CSM if it was and it had the daemon rule I would agree but its not and it does not so I disagree. Sorry man the logic is that sometimes GW rules do not make since but they are the rules and you have to follow them.

If it was only in the daemons codex I would agree 100% but since its in the eldar codes I can not agree with you.

But there is no rule to define a Daemon, it's down to common sense and descriptions in certain cases.

A Bloodletter in the CSM codex is a Daemon. That is what kind of entity it is.

iproxtaco wrote:But there is no rule to define a Daemon, it's down to common sense. A Bloodletter in the CSM codex is a Daemon

There is no bloodletters in the CSM's lol there is just lesser daemons, you have to get that in your head.

And a Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon. In the title of the unit it confirms what they are.

iproxtaco wrote:And a Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon. In the title of the unit it confirms what they are.

Ok so rapters define what they are? I am sorry it does not work that way, there is nothing in the rules that say I have to take bloodletters as lesser daemons, or any other model at that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no agueing with you, you really need to read your codex, as I have stated many times now lets agree to disagree and vow never to face each other in battle lol.

Specifically the title of 'Lesser Daemon' confirms that they are Daemons. A raptor is what the unit its, jump infantry named 'Raptors', so yes, it does actually.
Of course, you don't have to take Bloodletters, at no point have I said that. A Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon, so you could take it, or a random blob, but it would still be a Daemon.

...in the Chaos Daemons codex it states that. Not in C: CSM

A Daemon Prince is not necessarily a Daemon., GT. We've been through thtis. Fluff wise they vary between a mutated human, given daemonic power (Storm of Iron) to a Daemon taking over a mortals body (Soul Hunter and Blood Reaver) - so, fluff wise, your argument is horrifically fuzzy.

Re: Avatar - or it is evidence that you NEED a special rule in order to be classified as a Daemon. Your argument fails on a point of logic....

Your argument that the name defines the object is even WORSE - Assaul;t Cannons are now assault? Heavy Flamers are heavy? A Daemon Hunter is a daemonic hunter?

As a GK player I would always take the safe, non-exploitative route, and simply follow the rules - and go for the Avatar and C : D only. WHen playing as Chaos I would let a GK player reroll against my daemon princes.

iproxtaco wrote:Specifically the title of 'Lesser Daemon' confirms that they are Daemons. A raptor is what the unit its, jump infantry named 'Raptors', so yes, it does actually.
Of course, you don't have to take Bloodletters, at no point have I said that. A Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon, so you could take it, or a random blob, but it would still be a Daemon.

Your whole argument was if you take a bloodletter in CSM its a daemon so it must be a daemon lol. Please stop you are just making yourself look worse, its a daemon only if it has the special rule END OF STORY lol. As stated in the Eladar codex 11 months before the CSM and in the Daemons codex after.

The requirement for the rule "daemon" to be there is purely a player made requirement.

I've actually provided a rules quote for this in the INAT thread, but if you look on page 61 of the CSM codex, the summoning rules specifically refer to the Greater and Lesser Daemons as, well, Daemons.

EDIT: Copying over the rules quote:

Units of Daemons always start the game in Reserve, even in Missions that do not normally allow the Reserves rule to be used. When a Daemon unit becomes available from Reserve, it must be deployed as detailed below.

Once Deployed, the Daemons cannot do anything else in that turn's Movement phase, but after that they are free to act as normal (they can Assault in the same turn that they enter the game).

nosferatu1001 wrote:...in the Chaos Daemons codex it states that. Not in C: CSM

States what? A Lesser Daemon is by it's title and then it's description, a Daemon.

A Daemon Prince is not necessarily a Daemon., GT. We've been through thtis. Fluff wise they vary between a mutated human, given daemonic power (Storm of Iron) to a Daemon taking over a mortals body (Soul Hunter and Blood Reaver) - so, fluff wise, your argument is horrifically fuzzy.

Yes, it is debatable, in fluff. What is the unit that is 'The Daemon Prince.'? A Chaos Champion granted Daemonhood by the Chaos Gods. Daemonhood. As in, transformed into a Daemon.

Re: Avatar - or it is evidence that you NEED a special rule in order to be classified as a Daemon. Your argument fails on a point of logic....

Nah it's not though. The Avatar doesn't have the same special rule as those in the Daemons of Chaos Codex. A Bloodletter was always going to be a Daemon, regardless of special rule.

Your argument that the name defines the object is even WORSE - Assaul;t Cannons are now assault? Heavy Flamers are heavy? A Daemon Hunter is a daemonic hunter?

That's only if you take the name literally. Assault is not a noun for an entity on it's own. Heavy Flamers actually are heavy, the name Heavy Flamer suggests a large flamethrower. A Daemon Hunter hunts Daemons, oddly enough.

As a GK player I would always take the safe, non-exploitative route, and simply follow the rules - and go for the Avatar and C : D only. WHen playing as Chaos I would let a GK player reroll against my daemon princes.

I'm also a Grey Knights player. I follow the rule. The Preferred Enemy rule does not state that Daemons are defined by having a Special Rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Specifically the title of 'Lesser Daemon' confirms that they are Daemons. A raptor is what the unit its, jump infantry named 'Raptors', so yes, it does actually.
Of course, you don't have to take Bloodletters, at no point have I said that. A Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon, so you could take it, or a random blob, but it would still be a Daemon.

Your whole argument was if you take a bloodletter in CSM its a daemon so it must be a daemon lol. Please stop you are just making yourself look worse, its a daemon only if it has the special rule END OF STORY lol. As stated in the Eladar codex 11 months before the CSM and in the Daemons codex after.

My argument is that, a Lesser Daemon in the CSM codex, just by name, is a Daemon. A Bloodletter is a Lesser Daemon, a Bloodthirster is a Greater Daemon. Both are Daemons.
Right, so if the Bloodletter in the Chaos Daemons book didn't have the Special Rule which isn't there to define what a Daemon is anyway, it wouldn't be a Daemon? FAIL LOGIC.

Iprox - wrong way round. In the C : D book blood letters are stated to be lesser daemons.

Secondly - you do realise you used fluff to define a Daemon Prince as a daemon? Also, as pointed out - the fluff is contradictory. At points they are a mortal granted daemonic powers, at others times a daemon permanently inhabiting a (mutated, warped) mortals body.

You seem to draw an arbitrary distinction between codex fluff (which is even then contradictory...) and fluff from other sources, and pretend only one is important. Using fluff to justify rules is ALWAYS a bad idea, yet you not only do that but you then only look at one side. Crazy.

Re Avatar: right, I will try this again. It is evidence you need A special rule to be classified as a daemon. It is NOT evidence you are just a daemon unless classified otherwise, that is terribad as an argument (GTs argument that the "positive" side had proven thheir argument by absence of evidence)

Heavy flamers actually are ASsault, same as normal flamers. GTs argument is that the name defines the object - which is patently false. You have no actual contra to this, as none is possible.

The preferred enemy rule only tells you that it affects Daemons. Without any further guidance the SAFEST, least likely to be exploitative route is to take the least powerful interpretation. This is common to rules which are not well defdined, by the way.

We're going to lock this for a wee while, let some people cool off/down. With a bit of luck we can re open it later once people are capable of being somewhat more polite towards each other.

.. it's toy soldiers people, stay groovy.

nobody wrote:The requirement for the rule "daemon" to be there is purely a player made requirement.

Yes but in the absence of an FAQ, there is literally no way for us to know what is and what is not a Daemon.

Defining it by what has the Daemon rule is the tidiest definition we have.

All other definitions are messier.
Going by fluff then you can justify Defilers, Possessed, Mandrakes, etc. all being affected by this rule.
Going by name is just ridiculous and has similar problems as mentioned above.

That being said, I would still count Lesser Daemons and Greater Deamons as Daemon.
On P61 of the CSM book it states that Units of Daemons start in Reserve and then goes on to refer to Greater and Lesser Daemons.
If Daemon Princes were Daemons, then they would have been included in this list.

In the fluff Daemon Princes can be described as
Mortals, with many Daemonic Gifts
As half mortal and half daemon.
And as fully Daemon as well.

Even if we split the difference and go half mortal and half daemon, GK will not get their bonus as it only works on Daemons.
E.g. If you had a sword of horse-decapitation, it wouldn't give you a bonus vs Mules.

Haven't seen circular argument ridiculousness like this in a while.

Looking forward to the FAQ.

I really don't get how someone could say that a Daemon Prince/bloodletter/bloodcrusher isn't a Daemon.

The GK preferred enemy doesn't say "Preferred Enemy: Models with 'daemon' special rule", it just says Daemons.

Can you say with a straight face, "No, my Daemon Prince is in fact, not a Daemon."

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

nobody wrote:The requirement for the rule "daemon" to be there is purely a player made requirement.

Yes but in the absence of an FAQ, there is literally no way for us to know what is and what is not a Daemon.

Defining it by what has the Daemon rule is the tidiest definition we have.

All other definitions are messier.
Going by fluff then you can justify Defilers, Possessed, Mandrakes, etc. all being affected by this rule.
Going by name is just ridiculous and has similar problems as mentioned above.

That being said, I would still count Lesser Daemons and Greater Deamons as Daemon.
On P61 of the CSM book it states that Units of Daemons start in Reserve and then goes on to refer to Greater and Lesser Daemons.
If Daemon Princes were Daemons, then they would have been included in this list.

In the fluff Daemon Princes can be described as
Mortals, with many Daemonic Gifts
As half mortal and half daemon.
And as fully Daemon as well.

Even if we split the difference and go half mortal and half daemon, GK will not get their bonus as it only works on Daemons.
E.g. If you had a sword of horse-decapitation, it wouldn't give you a bonus vs Mules.

My post primarily dealt with Lesser and Greater Daemons (specifically, the rules quote).

As to the meat of your post, the problem with relying on a "daemon" rule is that it sets a precident as to how you determine Preferred Enemy. For example, if you follow that then how does Preferred Enemy: Orks work? Is Vect's rule that gives him Preferred Enemy: Eldar and Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar completely worthless now because there is no unit with the rule "Dark Eldar" or "Eldar?" The method I've always relied on is what do the units' rules say? Does it refer to it as a Daemon/Eldar/Ork? If so, it counts.

The Avatar had the Daemon rule for one reason only: The codex came out after the Daemonhunters codex and all of the gnashing of teeth over people finding out that a different codex was dictating new rules about their army. This way the Eldar codex had control over the fact that the Avatar was a Daemon and is affected by Daemon-specific rules.

The fact that the newer CSM codex didn't include a clear statement on what is/isn't a Daemon is, IMO, a failing of that codex, as it seems that Daemon Princes, Possessed, Defilers, and other Daemonically Possessed vehicles are no longer considered Daemons. Which, honestly, doesn't really bug me that much gameplay wise.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Can you say with a straight face, "No, my Daemon Prince is in fact, not a Daemon."

Yes actually.

Daemon Princes are weaksauce and need all the help they can get anyway.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Looking forward to the FAQ.

Its the only way this debate will be settled.
I'd be able to live with either ruling.

Yes. Daemon Princes in the C: CSM codex are not daemons - they have daemonic powers, but are not themselves daemons.

iproxtaco wrote:
A Bloodletter is a Daemon. End of discussion.

wat? Yea, sure. The only place where a "bloodletter" is found is in C:CD, where it is defined in that codex as a lesser daemon.

There are lesser daemons in the CSM codex, but they have nothing in common with a blood letter, CSM LD can assault after DS, they lack power weapons, and they lack frumious charge... and they lack the "daemon special rule". These all make them quite different from blood letters.

So I really fail to see how this argument works at all, because these are totally different units, which do totally different things, and are in totally different codexes. Its been said a million times that you can't just go about willy nilly using inherently contradictory fluff to make rules determinations...

I have no doubt that the FAQ will rule in favor of the GKs, but for the time being RAW, there is no rules justification for stuff in the CSM codex to be considered Daemons for the purposes in the GK codex.

As for telling you with a straight face that the DP isn't a daemon...
Its not too hard when the chaos player is already dealing with s8 autocannons, and s5 storm bolters, and I6 power weapons, and GK tanks all ignore shaken and stunned (most of the time), then to add insult to injury you are saying that GK should get re rolls against CSM's only good HQ while you're at it...

Let C:CSM have their peace. The FAQ will rule against them because it is GW policy to always rule in favor of Imperium when making an FAQ, so let them have their moment in the sun.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes. Daemon Princes in the C: CSM codex are not daemons - they have daemonic powers, but are not themselves daemons.

/facepalm

Whatever you say guys. I mean, its fine if you want to say "since my old rules codex Daemon Prince is terrible, how about you let me get away with your guys not having preferred enemy against him?" That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Rather than, "no, my Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon, even though his body is clearly covered in daemonflesh, and in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is at the very height of Daemonhood, but he is not a Daemon. Nope. Definitely not a Daemon."

Circular argument is circular.

daedalus-templarius wrote: and in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is at the very height of Daemonhood

and herein lies the rub. You can't use fluff to make rules determinations... So its not circular at all, because you need to take the fluff bit out of your argument because it has no place in this forum. Its merely saying that by the rules, these units in CSM dex are not Daemons. Because their name, and their fluff is irrelevant to a debate about the rules.

Assault Cannons are not Assault Weapons
Heavy Flamers are not Heavy Weapons
Chaos Raptors are not Birds of Prey nor are they the most dangerous dinosaur in Jurassic Park.
Striking Scorpions are not Insects (er Arachnids)
Tyranid Gargoyles are not stone statutes on gothic buildings

you get the idea.

I mean, if a codex had a Preferred Enemy: Arachnids, would you say they should get re rolls against Striking Scorpions and Warp Spiders- Because of their names?
Thats what the argument for PE against Lesser and Greater Daemons in the CSM Dex looks like to me.

You can't make a ruling on the basis that the name includes a word because the English language is too inconsistent to make those sorts of rulings. Specifically, we have at least four different things that all follow the Daemon <noun> pattern, but some we know are definitely not Daemons.

Daemon Prince, Daemon Hammer, Daemon Weapon and Daemon Host.

One is a hammer used on Daemons, but is definitely not a Daemon itself. If we want to look at other instances, Codex: Grey Knights replaces a codex called Daemonhunters. It's name includes the word Daemon, so they must be hunters who are Daemons. Except that we know they weren't, they were hunters what hunt Daemons.

Greater and Lesser Summoned Daemons have rules that indicate they are Daemons. Specifically the rules for summoning them consistently refer to them as "units of Daemons". CSM Daemon Princes have no rules to indicate, only the name and fluff which gives a 50/50 chance they were Daemons who are princes or Lords who were elevated to be a prince of Daemons but may or may not be an actual Daemon.

And anyway, being a Daemon Prince isn't the height of Daemonhood. It's the best a Mortal is going to get, but the Greater Daemons are still ranked higher among Daemons even if they can't manifest in the mortal plane as easily.

akaean wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
A Bloodletter is a Daemon. End of discussion.

wat? Yea, sure. The only place where a "bloodletter" is found is in C:CD, where it is defined in that codex as a lesser daemon.

There are lesser daemons in the CSM codex, but they have nothing in common with a blood letter, CSM LD can assault after DS, they lack power weapons, and they lack frumious charge... and they lack the "daemon special rule". These all make them quite different from blood letters.

So I really fail to see how this argument works at all, because these are totally different units, which do totally different things, and are in totally different codexes. Its been said a million times that you can't just go about willy nilly using inherently contradictory fluff to make rules determinations...

I have no doubt that the FAQ will rule in favor of the GKs, but for the time being RAW, there is no rules justification for stuff in the CSM codex to be considered Daemons for the purposes in the GK codex.

As for telling you with a straight face that the DP isn't a daemon...
Its not too hard when the chaos player is already dealing with s8 autocannons, and s5 storm bolters, and I6 power weapons, and GK tanks all ignore shaken and stunned (most of the time), then to add insult to injury you are saying that GK should get re rolls against CSM's only good HQ while you're at it...

Let C:CSM have their peace. The FAQ will rule against them because it is GW policy to always rule in favor of Imperium when making an FAQ, so let them have their moment in the sun.

Please read the rules quote I provided above. Their own rules state they are daemons. Daemon Princes are currently off-limits, but Greater and Lesser Daemons do have a rules basis for being considered Daemons.

I still say that Deamon Princes are Deamons.


I mean, why not call them ascended mortals if they arn't actually deamons.


the process of someone becoming a deamon prince is called ascending to Deamonhood. it seems to indicate that they are deamons.


this is a fluff argument, but its really all we have here.


we can't simply say its "Things with the Deamon special rule" because that leaves out the Avatar(who would only qualify because it has a special blurb that its actually a deamon)


all we have is fluff arguments. on occasions, we need to use our common sense and expand some of the fluff to actually carry some weight in rule interpertations.


is it a Deamon?

well, its fluff indicates that it is, so it must be.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes. Daemon Princes in the C: CSM codex are not daemons - they have daemonic powers, but are not themselves daemons.

/facepalm

Whatever you say guys. I mean, its fine if you want to say "since my old rules codex Daemon Prince is terrible, how about you let me get away with your guys not having preferred enemy against him?" That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Rather than, "no, my Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon, even though his body is clearly covered in daemonflesh, and in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is at the very height of Daemonhood, but he is not a Daemon. Nope. Definitely not a Daemon."

Circular argument is circular.

Daedalus - stating, baldly, that people have ulterior motives is not being polite. i am BOTH A Chaos and GK player, and I'm playing the rules - if you have a rule stating you are a daemon, you are a daemon.

What does daemonhood mean? Oh wait!" IT means you were a normal mortal who has gained incredible daemon-like powers! Are you unstable, like daemons are known to be? No. Do you require someone to summon you to battle, like all daemons? ......erm, no!

Daemon princes in the chaos marine codex are NOT daemons, no matter how much you wish they were. They are the closest a mortal can get to being a daemon, but almost is not is.

You also fail at using fluff (and ignoring fluff you dont like) to justify an argument.

daedalus-templarius wrote:/facepalm

Whatever you say guys. I mean, its fine if you want to say "since my old rules codex Daemon Prince is terrible, how about you let me get away with your guys not having preferred enemy against him?" That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I wasn't being serious with that line, hence the emoticon.

Everything in the Daemons of Chaos Codex is a Daemon.
The Avatar is stated in it's rule set as being a Daemon.
Lesser and Greater Daemons in the Chaos Space Marine Codex are Daemons
The Unit that is the 'Daemon Prince' in both the Daemons of Chaos book and Chaos Space Marine book is a Daemon.

Possessed, Defilers and the like are debatable. They contain the essence of a Daemon inside them, so the Grey Knights, using a large amount of Psyker based attacks should be able to target the Daemon inside them. However, the unit is still not and actual Warp-spawned creature, which is why it is debatable.

The only real way this will be cleared up is in the FAQ. Just now, you either roll with the everything that is a Daemon in name, description, what the entity actually is, basically the list above, are all affected by Preferred Enemy : Daemons option, or you go with the other which is everything that is specified with a rule to be a Daemon, which is The Avatar and everything in the Daemons of Chaos book is affected by the Grey Knights rule, but the summoned Daemons in the Chaos Space Marine book aren't.

iproxtaco wrote:The Unit that is the 'Daemon Prince' in ..... .......Chaos Space Marine book is a Daemon.

Citation needed.

No, seriously. An actual rule would be good. Not fluff (that is contradictory in and of itself, as well as being not a rule), just a rule.

Not a lot to ask for.

iproxtaco wrote:....However, the unit is still not and actual Warp-spawned creature, which is why it is debatable.

Neither is a Daemon Prince. It is a once-mortal who has been granted immense amounts of power. But it still isnt a daemon. You dont need to summon a Chaos Marine daemon prince, and they are not unstable.

If you decide that a defiler is not a daemon as it is not "warp spawned", then neither is a chaos marine DP. Some consistency from the flluff-ists would be good.

Chaos Space Marine Codex p32 -

The ultimate ambition of all Champions of Chaos is to achieve daemonhood.

"Daemonhood" To be a Daemon.
The unit in the Chaos Space Marines Codex has therefore been made a Daemon, like the Summoned Daemons.

Aren't Daemon Princes, Nurglings, and Greater and Lesser Daemons listed in the first sentence of the "Daemon Summoning" rule in the Chaos SM codex? Something like:

"unlike Daemon Princes and Nurglings, Greater and Lesser Daemons must be summoned to the battlefield ..."

As far as I'm aware, that means the Chaos Space Marine codex does refer to Daemon Princes as daemons in the rules section, which is in addition to any fluff.

SJ

Iprox - so, still lacking a rule.

You quoted fluff. Again. Also adding -hood does not automatically make you the "thing" - see brotherhood. You are not actually brothers.

Anyone in a brotherhood would be a brother to every other member of the brotherhood. Them not being brothers by blood comes from the different meanings of "brother".

Again I will state that if GW wanted anything in the CSM codex to be a daemon they would have stated it, possessed have a special rule of Daemonkin, the Avatar that came out 11 months before the CSM codex has the Daemon rule, and C:CD has the Daemon rule.

As GW in the past has made Proffered Enemy = Orks they meant everything in the Ork codex So it would be safe to assume that they meant everything in the Daemons codes

rest of this post has been removed for being needlessly inflammatory.

Reds8n

Dr_Chin wrote:Again I will state that if GW wanted anything in the CSM codex to be a daemon they would have stated it, possessed have a special rule of Daemonkin, the Avatar that came out 11 months before the CSM codex has the Daemon rule, and C:CD has the Daemon rule.

As GW in the past has made Proffered Enemy = Orks they meant everything in the Ork codex So it would be safe to assume that they meant everything in the Daemons codes so GK players please go crush all the 13 year old boys at your LGS with your mediocre GK list. Because we call know that GK’s make a mediocre player in to a great player vs. anything with Daemons.

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? Just because they have preferred enemy does not instantly make one army better than the other. The Black Templar can get PE against anyone they play (with the right vow) and you don't see many people crying foul at that.

Why yes sir it is. Also Black Templar is not a over powered army!

Jidmah- they would be LIKE a brother.

A daemon prince is "like" a daemon, but isnt a daemon in a number of critical ways. THis is covered extensively in the fluff, but as we know - fluff really isnt rules.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Aren't Daemon Princes, Nurglings, and Greater and Lesser Daemons listed in the first sentence of the "Daemon Summoning" rule in the Chaos SM codex? Something like:

"unlike Daemon Princes and Nurglings, Greater and Lesser Daemons must be summoned to the battlefield ..."

As far as I'm aware, that means the Chaos Space Marine codex does refer to Daemon Princes as daemons in the rules section, which is in addition to any fluff.

SJ

Nurglings don't exist anymore for CSM so if anything you're thinking of the previous CSM codex.

The current one states that Greater and Lesser Daemons must be summoned onto the battlefield using champions and icons respectively and that units teleporting in can likewise use icons, but not units that are flying (ie daemon princes or raptors). Doesn't make any impact on this debate.

Now as far as this debate goes, I'm very curious to see this get FAQ'd at some point but this is my logic behind it all: going by strict RAW it is clear that the benefit only relates to C: D and the Avatar. The point raised about Preferred Enemy: Race only validates the ruling IMO. In this case it states the race you have preferred enemy against is Daemons. That race is represented with Codex: Daemons. In the case of the Avatar, that unit has a specific extra rule including him as being part of that race.

Counter example: If you had Preferred Enemy: Eldar, would you suggest you also get it against Dark Eldar Harlequinns, RAW?

That was my point....

morgendonner wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Aren't Daemon Princes, Nurglings, and Greater and Lesser Daemons listed in the first sentence of the "Daemon Summoning" rule in the Chaos SM codex? Something like:

"unlike Daemon Princes and Nurglings, Greater and Lesser Daemons must be summoned to the battlefield ..."

As far as I'm aware, that means the Chaos Space Marine codex does refer to Daemon Princes as daemons in the rules section, which is in addition to any fluff.

SJ

Nurglings don't exist anymore for CSM so if anything you're thinking of the previous CSM codex.

The current one states that Greater and Lesser Daemons must be summoned onto the battlefield using champions and icons respectively and that units teleporting in can likewise use icons, but not units that are flying (ie daemon princes or raptors). Doesn't make any impact on this debate.

Now as far as this debate goes, I'm very curious to see this get FAQ'd at some point but this is my logic behind it all: going by strict RAW it is clear that the benefit only relates to C: D and the Avatar. The point raised about Preferred Enemy: Race only validates the ruling IMO. In this case it states the race you have preferred enemy against is Daemons. That race is represented with Codex: Daemons. In the case of the Avatar, that unit has a specific extra rule including him as being part of that race.

Counter example: If you had Preferred Enemy: Eldar, would you suggest you also get it against Dark Eldar Harlequinns, RAW?

Your statement goes against RAW, as the CSM codex includes rules which states that the Lesser and Greater Daemons are, well, Daemons. The Preferred Enemy rule on pg 75 of the rulebook does not mention race:

Some warriors are able to predict the moves of the enemies they are used to fighting. In close combat, they have developed special techniques that enable them to counter such enemies more effectively. Such troops can always re-roll their rolls to hit in close combat against their preferred enemy. This ability does not work when attacking vehicles without a Weapon Skill characteristic.

By requiring the "Daemon" rule, you are altering the Preferred Enemy rule to state that if such a rule does not exist on the unit/model, then you don't get the bonus.

A few posts have been removed and/or edited. Whilst a degree of conversational latitude is fine and dandy, there is no point in adding inflammatory or insulting remarks. This doesn't help prove one's point in any way.It would be much groovier if members could avoid doing so in the future. Thanks

nobody - Fine, then it only affects COdex: Daemons

Same as preferred enemy Orks affects just codex: Orks, and preferred enemy: Eldar would only affect units in codex Eldar, and not DE Harlequins.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Daedalus - stating, baldly, that people have ulterior motives is not being polite.

Where did I do this? What ulterior motive would someone have? People in this thread have said C:CSM Daemon Princes need all the help they can get, so therefore they shouldn't allow GKs to have Preferred Enemy against them. Stating it doesn't really make it an ulterior motive.

What does daemonhood mean? Oh wait!" IT means you were a normal mortal who has gained incredible daemon-like powers! Are you unstable, like daemons are known to be? No. Do you require someone to summon you to battle, like all daemons? ......erm, no!

Daemon princes in the chaos marine codex are NOT daemons, no matter how much you wish they were. They are the closest a mortal can get to being a daemon, but almost is not is.

This is a fluff disagreement. I say a Daemon Prince is a daemon, you don't, based on the fact it doesn't have the daemon special rule. This is fine, and in a game, I'd likely just say "whatever", and then say you're the guy who says Daemon Princes aren't daemons. I don't have the C:CSM in front of me, so maybe it would be fine, if you don't have the daemon special rule, you might not have eternal warrior either, so say hello to force weapon wounds. I don't play against any C:CSM players, so it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other at the moment. This is simply an academic discussion for me.

You also fail at using fluff (and ignoring fluff you dont like) to justify an argument.

I hope you don't mean I fail at using fluff to point out that Daemon Princes are Daemons in the fluff. I mean, Daemon Prince is pretty broad too isn't it, it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a corrupted Space Marine. I might do a cursory search and see if I can find a Daemon Prince that wasn't a CSM first.

You were stating that everyone arguing against the CSM DP being classified was doing so in order to gain an advantage. That is insulting, as you are essentially questioning peoples integrity. You also did it in a mocking way.

No, I say it isnt a daemon for 3 reasons, and you only listed one. By fluff they arent (and sometimes are! such is the nature of fluff and why attempting to base rules on it is bogus) daemons, they arent part of the Daemons codex (which is how you define PE for EVERY OTHER RACE out there) and has no rule stating it is a daemon.

DP in the CSM book DO have Eternal Warrior.

You have - erm, one. Thats it.

I was saying "you fail" because, in using fluff to justify a rule you conveniently overlooked / ignored any fluff that contradicted your view. Willful blindness doesnt make a good argument.

A daemon prince is was and always shall be* an elevated mortal. Thats it.

So, to summarise: given people arent accepting the "xdaemon special rule, or something that has a RULE saying it is a daemon" argument, then you fall back on how PE enemy works for EVERY army: only entries in the COdex: Daemons are daemons. That's it.

*unless GW changes it, of course.

I think I did it in a mocking way, because it is difficult to not have a somewhat mocking tone when someone says a Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon(nothing to do with special rules, etc), which is effectively what I was arguing. However, this is just a fluffy argument, where I see a Daemon Prince as a Daemon. An ascended mortal, I would still see as a Daemon, in fluff.

I agree with you on it not having the "Daemon" special rule. I see where you are coming from, but for the ruling, we will just have to wait for the FAQ.


Interesting way how the Daemon Prince is actually used in the C:CSM... 50 points of daemonic upgrades? I guess I could get behind a C:CSM Daemon Prince not being affected by preferred enemy, since he is really just a Chaos Lord (although they are pretty daemon-y as well, I certainly wouldn't say they should be affected by PE).

nosferatu1001 wrote:nobody - Fine, then it only affects COdex: Daemons

Same as preferred enemy Orks affects just codex: Orks, and preferred enemy: Eldar would only affect units in codex Eldar, and not DE Harlequins.

False, the Preferred Enemy rule does not state it is on a codex by codex basis. You'll need to provide a rules quote to support that unless you are admitting to making up rules.

EDIT: The Preferred Enemy Rule is written to be very open-ended. For example, GW could release a codex where a unit has "Preferred Enemy: Walkers" and the unit would be able to get their re-rolled hits on Space Marine Dreadnoughts, Chaos Defilers, and Ork Killer Kanz.

nobody wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:nobody - Fine, then it only affects COdex: Daemons

Same as preferred enemy Orks affects just codex: Orks, and preferred enemy: Eldar would only affect units in codex Eldar, and not DE Harlequins.

False, the Preferred Enemy rule does not state it is on a codex by codex basis. You'll need to provide a rules quote to support that unless you are admitting to making up rules.

EDIT: The Preferred Enemy Rule is written to be very open-ended. For example, GW could release a codex where a unit has "Preferred Enemy: Walkers" and the unit would be able to get their re-rolled hits on Space Marine Dreadnoughts, Chaos Defilers, and Ork Killer Kanz.

Or anything that walks lol so if a space marine was in a tank IE not walking then they do not get at re-roll but if they are not in a tank IE now walking they would? that is how I would take that rule anything that walks! lol But GW never makes up rules that dont make since so this will never be a rule, OR Did they (Tank hunters?) Insert evil music here!

Then you would be VERY wrong.

nobody wrote:
EDIT: The Preferred Enemy Rule is written to be very open-ended. For example, GW could release a codex where a unit has "Preferred Enemy: Walkers" and the unit would be able to get their re-rolled hits on Space Marine Dreadnoughts, Chaos Defilers, and Ork Killer Kanz.

This is a poor example because Walkers are a specific unit type. Daemons are not. The simple fact is that by strict RAW nowhere in the CSM codex does it outline rules wise that a CSM DP is a daemon, and a unit name is not a valid claim of definition as has already been pointed out many times in this and every other GK vs CSM DP thread. Similarly I think it's bogus for anybody to think Possessed should be counted because they have a rule called "Daemonkin".

You're debate that Preferred Enemy is written to be very open-ended is your own interpretation.

And for everyone looking at this from a RaI perspective consider this: while the older DH book had a more detailed definition, that was also when CSM was the only way to field daemons (minus Avatar). CSM lost the ability to field specific named units, so as reasonable as you think it is that daemons are daemons, I think it's equally reasonable to determine that the intention was that they should not receive the penalty since they don't have the benefits of real daemons.

It was also probably left ambiguous on purpose so they didn't corner themselves as new chaos books come out and GK become outdated like they did with DH, but that's just side commentary.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:The Unit that is the 'Daemon Prince' in ..... .......Chaos Space Marine book is a Daemon.

Citation needed.

No, seriously. An actual rule would be good. Not fluff (that is contradictory in and of itself, as well as being not a rule), just a rule.

Not a lot to ask for.

iproxtaco wrote:....However, the unit is still not and actual Warp-spawned creature, which is why it is debatable.

Neither is a Daemon Prince. It is a once-mortal who has been granted immense amounts of power. But it still isnt a daemon. You dont need to summon a Chaos Marine daemon prince, and they are not unstable.

If you decide that a defiler is not a daemon as it is not "warp spawned", then neither is a chaos marine DP. Some consistency from the flluff-ists would be good.

Nos,


you are overlooking that we arn't told to use any specific rules to define what is and isn't a deamon.

the Deamon Prince isn't called a Deamon Prince for nothing.



we can't, RAW, say that its just things with the Deamon Rule as there are deamons without that rule and it wouldn't be inclusive.


for the Fluff argument, I can't see how anyone can say they arn't actually deamons in the fluff. they have been turned into proper deamons. if it wasn't then it really wouldn't be much of a reward.


a Deamon Prince doesn't need to be summoned because, with his ascention, he already has. once his original form is destroyed, he would reform in the warp and would be need to be summoned from that point on, but the original form is completely stable. but he is still deamonflesh.

Grey Templar wrote:you are overlooking that we arn't told to use any specific rules to define what is and isn't a deamon.

We are though. As is the case with other uses of Preferred Enemy, it applies to anything found in Codex: Daemons. Additionally, Avatar has a specific rule declaring itself to be a Daemon. Both are very specific answers to what defines a daemon.

That's not true though. What defines a Daemon isn't specified. There's nowhere that it says it only includes the units in Codex: Daemons of Codex, just Daemons in general, ergo. everything that is a Daemon is affected. Everything in C: DC are Daemons, The Avatar is stated as being a Daemon, Lesser and Greater Daemons in C:CSM are Daemons, the Daemon Prince is a Daemon.

Correct, which is why the Avatar gets lumped in. In a serious game if you wish to gain PE against my CSM DP, you need to show me a rule that says he's a daemon.

Where does it say that its limited to Codex Deamons and the Avatar?


the GK codex simply says Preferred Enemy: Deamons


the Preferred Enemy rule is even more vague. it just says "models with this special rule reroll misses in CC against the specified foe"


Preferred Enemy: Orks doesn't apply to everything in Codex: Orks. it applies only to orks, not Gretchin or Killa Kans. there isn't a special rule Ork to define what an Ork is. we just know what an ork is.


we supposed to just know what a deamon is. the only grey areas i see are things like Defilers and posessed vehicles.

There is no rule, like there's no rule to say Lesser and Greater Daemons are what they are. It's down to us to know what they are, Daemon Princes are stated as being mortals raised by the Chaos Gods to become Daemons.

morgendonner wrote:

nobody wrote:
EDIT: The Preferred Enemy Rule is written to be very open-ended. For example, GW could release a codex where a unit has "Preferred Enemy: Walkers" and the unit would be able to get their re-rolled hits on Space Marine Dreadnoughts, Chaos Defilers, and Ork Killer Kanz.

This is a poor example because Walkers are a specific unit type. Daemons are not. The simple fact is that by strict RAW nowhere in the CSM codex does it outline rules wise that a CSM DP is a daemon, and a unit name is not a valid claim of definition as has already been pointed out many times in this and every other GK vs CSM DP thread. Similarly I think it's bogus for anybody to think Possessed should be counted because they have a rule called "Daemonkin".

You're debate that Preferred Enemy is written to be very open-ended is your own interpretation.

And for everyone looking at this from a RaI perspective consider this: while the older DH book had a more detailed definition, that was also when CSM was the only way to field daemons (minus Avatar). CSM lost the ability to field specific named units, so as reasonable as you think it is that daemons are daemons, I think it's equally reasonable to determine that the intention was that they should not receive the penalty since they don't have the benefits of real daemons.

It was also probably left ambiguous on purpose so they didn't corner themselves as new chaos books come out and GK become outdated like they did with DH, but that's just side commentary.

The reason I provided the example was due to people arguing that it was on a race by race (rather, codex by codex) basis. If you are going to state that it is not open-ended, you will need to provide rules quotes to back it up.

Correct, what falls under the jurisdiction of the rule is not even said, just Daemons in general.

So is a Daemonhost a daemon? I love GK use the good parts of the Daemon but kill the rest (Daemon wepon)

Eh, where did anyone bring up Daemonhosts? Not that the typical Grey Knight player will play with or against a Daemonhost, but they're on the fence along with Defilers and the like. And there's one Daemon Weapon in the codex, it's also not used because it's a Daemon Weapon. If this is wrong, cite the page number.

This is also not a discussion about GK fluff, go make yet another thread about it if you want.

Deamonhosts are Deamons for all intents and purposes.



I don't know why anyone would use them, they are horrible in every possable way when they had every opprotunity of being awsome.

First off this is GK vs Daemons, a Daemon host is a trapped Daemon correct GK use Daemonhosts, so that being said if a GK player played another GK player and they had Daemonhosts do they get the re-roll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

iproxtaco wrote:Eh, where did anyone bring up Daemonhosts? Not that the typical Grey Knight player will play with or against a Daemonhost, but they're on the fence along with Defilers and the like. And there's one Daemon Weapon in the codex, it's also not used because it's a Daemon Weapon. If this is wrong, cite the page number.

This is also not a discussion about GK fluff, go make yet another thread about it if you want.

YOU are constantly bringing up fluff when it suits you lol I am sorry my friend as you stated a daemon is a daemon.

Grey Templar wrote:Where does it say that its limited to Codex Deamons and the Avatar?

Nowhere, but it also nowhere defines other units being Daemons like those two cases do.

Grey Templar wrote:
the GK codex simply says Preferred Enemy: Deamons

the Preferred Enemy rule is even more vague. it just says "models with this special rule reroll misses in CC against the specified foe"

Preferred Enemy: Orks doesn't apply to everything in Codex: Orks. it applies only to orks, not Gretchin or Killa Kans. there isn't a special rule Ork to define what an Ork is. we just know what an ork is.

The difference from Orks to Daemons is, there IS a Daemon rule. You gain the benefit against the specified foe, in this case daemons. Now that logically includes anything that defines itself as a daemon. Simply because another army does not specify what its units are does not make it grounds for assuming that is the model to follow.

iproxtaco wrote:Daemon Princes are stated as being mortals raised by the Chaos Gods to become Daemons.

Not in their rules.

nobody wrote:If you are going to state that it is not open-ended, you will need to provide rules quotes to back it up.

And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

morgendonner wrote:

And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

You are correct sir!

but the Avatar doesn't have the Deamon rule.


it just has an addendum saying "BTW, i'm a deamon"

Grey Templar wrote:but the Avatar doesn't have the Deamon rule.


it just has an addendum saying "BTW, i'm a deamon"

YES IT DOES page 24 of the eldar codes under special rules, UGH please read the codex it even stats that that it can be affected by special rules and wapons that effect daemons.

Dr_Chin wrote:First off this is GK vs Daemons, a Daemon host is a trapped Daemon correct GK use Daemonhosts, so that being said if a GK player played another GK player and they had Daemonhosts do they get the re-roll?

As I said, I would put them on the fence, as they're similar to Possessed Marines.

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Eh, where did anyone bring up Daemonhosts? Not that the typical Grey Knight player will play with or against a Daemonhost, but they're on the fence along with Defilers and the like. And there's one Daemon Weapon in the codex, it's also not used because it's a Daemon Weapon. If this is wrong, cite the page number.

This is also not a discussion about GK fluff, go make yet another thread about it if you want.

YOU are constantly bringing up fluff when it suits you lol I am sorry my friend as you stated a daemon is a daemon.

You stated something about Daemonhosts as if someone had referred to them. Also, you brought up a unit, not fluff about it.
And yeah, a Daemon is a Daemon, I'm not wrong there.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:but the Avatar doesn't have the Deamon rule.


it just has an addendum saying "BTW, i'm a deamon"

YES IT DOES page 24 of the eldar codes under special rules, UGH please read the codex it even stats that that it can be affected by special rules and wapons that effect daemons.

No it doesn't. It says it is a Daemon for all intents and purposes, it does not have the Daemon Special Rule.

iproxtaco How old are you? I am not trying to be rude but you seem young, This thread is about GK vs Daemons if it was about bad daemons I would say that the daemonhost should be left out its not its GK vs Daemons YOU constantly bring up in the fluff a Daemon prince is a daemon so its a daemon I bring up a Daemonhost you tell me to start a new thread lol and then say its fluff. I dont get you.

to quote you:
Obvious Troll is obvious

Dr_Chin wrote:

morgendonner wrote:

And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

You are correct sir!

That's completely relevant. Not every unit that is a Daemon is given a rule to specify that it's a Daemon, the same as Orks don't have one. It's down to the common sense of the players to agree on something. Daemon Princes are obviously sketchy about what they are. As fluff is used to define what most units are, the description of what a unit actually is, is definitely something you have to consider. IMHO, Daemon Princes are described as Daemons, so they are in my eyes, Daemons.

iproxtaco wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:

morgendonner wrote:

And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

You are correct sir!

That's completely relevant. Not every unit that is a Daemon is given a rule to specify that it's a Daemon, the same as Orks don't have one. It's down to the common sense of the players to agree on something. Daemon Princes are obviously sketchy about what they are. As fluff is used to define what most units are, the description of what a unit actually is, is definitely something you have to consider. IMHO, Daemon Princes are described as Daemons, so they are in my eyes, Daemons.

Leave the fluff out of it if you would like to qoute fluff go start a new thread lol, IF GW did not make a Daemon special Rule 11 months before the CSM codex came out and then after the CSM codex came out in C:CD then I would agree with you 100% but they did and they did not give anything in the CSM codex the rule.

Dr_Chin wrote:iproxtaco How old are you? I am not trying to be rude but you seem young, This thread is about GK vs Daemons if it was about bad daemons I would say that the daemonhost should be left out its not its GK vs Daemons YOU constantly bring up in the fluff a Daemon prince is a daemon so its a daemon I bring up a Daemonhost you tell me to start a new thread lol and then say its fluff. I dont get you.

to quote you:
Obvious Troll is obvious

You are trying to be rude. On the age of people, would it harm you to use proper Grammar?
My argument is basically, the Daemon Prince is a Daemon so it's a Daemon if you want to put it in simple terms. You started to argue about the irrelevant fluff in the Grey Knights book. If you need answers as to 'why', go and make another thread for them.
Go and look at the definition of troll, yours is incorrect at the moment.

Are you still trying to argue that a Lesser Daemon isn't a Daemon? Marvelous.

Na I dont like Grammer, this is the internet lol, I dont think it is irrelevent if 2 GK players are against each other. All I am saying is GW made the daemon rule for a reason. ITs only irrelevant to you, it might not be for others.

It's rule for the forum. It's also polite to at least try.

They gave the Daemons of Chaos codex a blanket rule because it was easier.
The lack of specification is due to Mat Ward's incompetence and the lack of continuity between authors.
What's irrelevant? The 'whys' of the Grey Knight book? Yeah, actually. In this forum the 'whys' of irrelevant fluff don't matter. Why do Grey Knights use Daemonhosts? Their new radicalization and Mat Ward making a huge mistake.

Then why did they have the rule for the Avatar and not in the CSM like I said it was stated before the CSM and AFTER the CSM codex.

iproxtaco wrote:

morgendonner wrote:And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

That's completely relevant. Not every unit that is a Daemon is given a rule to specify that it's a Daemon, the same as Orks don't have one. It's down to the common sense of the players to agree on something. Daemon Princes are obviously sketchy about what they are. As fluff is used to define what most units are, the description of what a unit actually is, is definitely something you have to consider. IMHO, Daemon Princes are described as Daemons, so they are in my eyes, Daemons.

You've just stated that not every unit that is a daemon is given a rule to specify it is a daemon. How are you forming your initial basis that they are daemons to begin with then?

The ork example is not a useful benchmark because it does not provide any specification. Daemons do provide specification, there's no way around that.

I'll repeat -

iproxtaco wrote: The lack of specification is due to Mat Ward's incompetence and the lack of continuity between authors.

iproxtaco wrote:I'll repeat -

iproxtaco wrote: The lack of specification is due to Mat Ward's incompetence and the lack of continuity between authors.

SO you exploit the rule and I say it should not happen so it would be up to a coin toss if we ever play, maybe that is how GW does it for the FAQ?

Iprox- still waiting on an actual rules quote. Currently you have given an assertion, and not only that one which is contradicted by the same fluff you say supports it.

Daemonhood /= actual daemon, same as brotherhood /= actually brothers.

And back round again. It falls back to: one side can demonstrate actual rule support that is NOT reliant on fluff, the other cannot.

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

morgendonner wrote:And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

That's completely relevant. Not every unit that is a Daemon is given a rule to specify that it's a Daemon, the same as Orks don't have one. It's down to the common sense of the players to agree on something. Daemon Princes are obviously sketchy about what they are. As fluff is used to define what most units are, the description of what a unit actually is, is definitely something you have to consider. IMHO, Daemon Princes are described as Daemons, so they are in my eyes, Daemons.

You've just stated that not every unit that is a daemon is given a rule to specify it is a daemon. How are you forming your initial basis that they are daemons to begin with then?

The ork example is not a useful benchmark because it does not provide any specification. Daemons do provide specification, there's no way around that.

Due to their names firstly, their descriptions then tell you what they are, also reading in other places what a Daemon Prince is, so that I actually instinctively know what I talk about when I say Daemon Prince.
The Preferred Enemy rule provides no specification. Lesser Daemons. They are Daemons, it's just common sense, their names and their descriptions, there is no rule that specifies they are Daemons, but it's fairly obvious that they are, for the reasons already stated.

Aren't possessed Daemons? Something about the "Daemonkin" rule? I don't have my codex on hand.

Again and again you can not use common sense when playing 40K or any other games worksshop game.

Lets say a squad of SM can see one or model on a unit of 10 they do 15 wounds and I made 3 saves (MY rolling Sucks!) Do I remove 1 model because they can only see the one and common sense says if they can only see one model they can only shoot at one model and only kill one model, but the rules dont agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Aren't possessed Daemons? Something about the "Daemonkin" rule? I don't have my codex on hand.

Yarp.

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

morgendonner wrote:And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

That's completely relevant. Not every unit that is a Daemon is given a rule to specify that it's a Daemon, the same as Orks don't have one. It's down to the common sense of the players to agree on something. Daemon Princes are obviously sketchy about what they are. As fluff is used to define what most units are, the description of what a unit actually is, is definitely something you have to consider. IMHO, Daemon Princes are described as Daemons, so they are in my eyes, Daemons.

You've just stated that not every unit that is a daemon is given a rule to specify it is a daemon. How are you forming your initial basis that they are daemons to begin with then?

The ork example is not a useful benchmark because it does not provide any specification. Daemons do provide specification, there's no way around that.

however it involves the same special rule, Preferred Enemy.


it shows that Preferred Enemy isn't done on a Codex basis, but on a fluff basis.


a model has Preferred Enemy Orks.

is an ork Boy an Ork? yes

is a Nob an Ork? yes

is a Warboss an Ork? yes

is a Deff Dred an Ork? yes

is a Grot an Ork? no

is a killa kan an Ork? no



thats how Preferred Enemy is worked out as far as what models the model gets a bonus against.

a model has Preferred Enemy Deamons


is a Bloodletter a deamon? well, it has a special rule called Deamon and its in the Deamon codex

is a Great Unclean One a deamon? it has a special rule called Deamon and its in the Deamon codex

is a lesser deamon a deamon? well, it is called a Lesser Deamon, so it must be a deamon.

is a Deamon Prince a deamon? well, it is called a Deamon Prince, so it must be a deamon.

is Deamonhost a deamon? well, its a deamon that has possessed a body(not of its own will, but still) so it must be a deamon.




I conclude that Preferred Enemy, unless specifically stated otherwise, is determined using fluff.

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:I'll repeat -

iproxtaco wrote: The lack of specification is due to Mat Ward's incompetence and the lack of continuity between authors.

SO you exploit the rule and I say it should not happen so it would be up to a coin toss if we ever play, maybe that is how GW does it for the FAQ?

What rule? Tell us what rule I'm 'exploiting'. If it's Preferred Enemy, then everyone is exploiting it in different ways due to their perception of what it entails.

iproxtaco wrote:
What rule? Tell us what rule I'm 'exploiting'. If it's Preferred Enemy, then everyone is exploiting it in different ways due to their perception of what it entails.

the rule of what is and what is not a daemon again how old are you?

iproxtaco wrote:

morgendonner wrote:You've just stated that not every unit that is a daemon is given a rule to specify it is a daemon. How are you forming your initial basis that they are daemons to begin with then?

The ork example is not a useful benchmark because it does not provide any specification. Daemons do provide specification, there's no way around that.

Due to their names firstly, their descriptions then tell you what they are, also reading in other places what a Daemon Prince is, so that I actually instinctively know what I talk about when I say Daemon Prince.
The Preferred Enemy rule provides no specification. Lesser Daemons. They are Daemons, it's just common sense, their names and their descriptions, there is no rule that specifies they are Daemons, but it's fairly obvious that they are, for the reasons already stated.

And now we've come full circle. Again, unit names are not rules. As has been provided as examples before: Striking Scorpions are not scorpions nor are Fire Dragons dragons. A name cannot be used in and of itself as a basis of any ruling.

Going off strict RAW (anything else would be based on personal interpretation and not require a debate) you've yet to provide me with any rule indication that a CSM DP is a daemon. We've provided rules that outline things that are RAW daemons. And we all know common sense is not how the game of 40k works, so that's a moot point.

Dr_Chin: i would lay off the age accusations. it really has no place here, is irrelevant, and is bordering on a personal attack.

Your improper use of grammer damages your own credibility.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Iprox- still waiting on an actual rules quote. Currently you have given an assertion, and not only that one which is contradicted by the same fluff you say supports it.

Daemonhood /= actual daemon, same as brotherhood /= actually brothers.

And back round again. It falls back to: one side can demonstrate actual rule support that is NOT reliant on fluff, the other cannot.

'hood' as in part of a sect or group. Brotherhood can be attached to many different organisations, it usually comes after another noun to dictate what the Brotherhood stands for, or a description is needed.
Daemonhood, means that the group consists of Daemons. Therefore, anything in the Daemonhood is a Daemon.

You can't just dismiss 'fluff' because it suits you, same as you shouldn't dismiss the fact that Lesser and Greater Daemons don't have this mythical rule that you want, and yet they're thought of as Daemons. Fluff defines the unit you're using, defines what it is, why it has this and that. The lack of an actual rule like what The Avatar has is due to the lack of specification due to Mat Ward's incompetence in parts and the lack of continuity between authors.

Grey Templar wrote:Dr_Chin: i would lay off the age accusations. it really has no place here, is irrelevant, and is bordering on a personal attack.

Ok but its just very hard to talk to this person.

Miraclefish wrote:Do I think they should be counted as Daemons? Yes, absolutely. It's clear that they are, in fact, Daemons.

Do they have the Daemons rule? No. Therefore, technically, they are not affected by the Grey Knights' rules.

Stupid but 100% factually correct. That's GW in a nutshell.

I see we still haven't gotten any further than my point on Page One of this thread...

iproxtaco wrote:
You can't just dismiss 'fluff' because it suits you, same as you shouldn't dismiss the fact that Lesser and Greater Daemons don't have this mythical rule that you want, and yet they're thought of as Daemons. Fluff defines the unit you're using, defines what it is, why it has this and that. The lack of an actual rule like what The Avatar has is due to the lack of specification due to Mat Ward's incompetence in parts and the lack of continuity between authors.

iproxtaco wrote:
Eh, where did anyone bring up Daemonhosts? Not that the typical Grey Knight player will play with or against a Daemonhost, but they're on the fence along with Defilers and the like. And there's one Daemon Weapon in the codex, it's also not used because it's a Daemon Weapon. If this is wrong, cite the page number.

This is also not a discussion about GK fluff, go make yet another thread about it if you want.

You did dismiss fluff when I asked about Daemonhost and told me to start a new thread, so you are now saying you can not dismiss fluff, UGH!

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

morgendonner wrote:You've just stated that not every unit that is a daemon is given a rule to specify it is a daemon. How are you forming your initial basis that they are daemons to begin with then?

The ork example is not a useful benchmark because it does not provide any specification. Daemons do provide specification, there's no way around that.

Due to their names firstly, their descriptions then tell you what they are, also reading in other places what a Daemon Prince is, so that I actually instinctively know what I talk about when I say Daemon Prince.
The Preferred Enemy rule provides no specification. Lesser Daemons. They are Daemons, it's just common sense, their names and their descriptions, there is no rule that specifies they are Daemons, but it's fairly obvious that they are, for the reasons already stated.

And now we've come full circle. Again, unit names are not rules. As has been provided as examples before: Striking Scorpions are not scorpions nor are Fire Dragons dragons. A name cannot be used in and of itself as a basis of any ruling.

Going off strict RAW (anything else would be based on personal interpretation and not require a debate) you've yet to provide me with any rule indication that a CSM DP is a daemon. We've provided rules that outline things that are RAW daemons. And we all know common sense is not how the game of 40k works, so that's a moot point.

Highlighted the part you completely missed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Dr_Chin: i would lay off the age accusations. it really has no place here, is irrelevant, and is bordering on a personal attack.

Ok but its just very hard to talk to this person.

You think it's difficult to talk to me? When you either have a poor grasp of, or are too lazy to use proper Grammar.
It's also difficult when you think a Lesser Daemon isn't a Daemon for whatever reason and completely ignore what I say and start arguing about some irrelevant point that has no place in this thread.
I've said my peace, any insults you fling again I'll ignore.

I am sorry I don’t like Grammar (I cant spell either!) but as I stated its the internet baby! lol I miss where i said a blanket statement that ALL Lesser Daemons are not daemons I did say that in the CSM codex they are not due to the fact they do not have the Daemon special rule that was in place before and after the codex was made. Which is a very valid argument due to the fact that other are agreeing with me.

This is also Dakka. we have rules about proper spelling and grammer that you agree to follow when you join.

Grey Templar wrote: it shows that Preferred Enemy isn't done on a Codex basis, but on a fluff basis.

No, that statement has no basis. All it shows is that the game currently provides poor definitions for Ork units.

Grey Templar wrote:a model has Preferred Enemy Orks.

Irrelevant to this debate as per my above comment. Simply put the fact that we're left with little to no clarity on Orks has no impact on Daemons which do provide us with clarity. We already know what preferred enemy confers, and in this case we are applying it to attacks against "Daemons". This leads us to...

Grey Templar wrote:a model has Preferred Enemy Deamons

is a Bloodletter a deamon? well, it has a special rule called Deamon and its in the Deamon codex

is a Great Unclean One a deamon? it has a special rule called Deamon and its in the Deamon codex

Correct, these units have a rule that defines them as being Daemons meaning they logically confer PE to any unit with "PE: Daemons".

Grey Templar wrote:is a lesser deamon a deamon? well, it is called a Lesser Deamon, so it must be a deamon.

is a Deamon Prince a deamon? well, it is called a Deamon Prince, so it must be a deamon.

is Deamonhost a deamon? well, its a deamon that has possessed a body(not of its own will, but still) so it must be a deamon.

Show me anywhere in any valid rulebook that states a unit's name defines what it is. You are free to use that as a house rule, but it's not supported by the RAW of the game. These units do not appear in Codex: Daemons, nor do they have any rule stating they are daemons. Removing fluff from game mechanics as currently written, you have no leg to stand on.

Grey Templar wrote: I conclude that Preferred Enemy, unless specifically stated otherwise, is determined using fluff.

Again, this is a determination you have made on your own that has no backing in any form from the rule books.

How about this I will use Microsoft Office to check my Spelling and Grammar, the funny part is it’s only brought up when the GK side is losing lol

--- Checked by MS Word for Spelling and Grammar!

No real backing with rules either. A few of the units that are Daemons have rules, some don't.

iproxtaco wrote:No real backing with rules either. A few of the units that are Daemons have rules, some don't.

IF they don’t have the Daemon rule, they are not Daemons because of the fact that GW made the Special Rule Daemon before and after the CSM codex.

morgendonner wrote:

nobody wrote:If you are going to state that it is not open-ended, you will need to provide rules quotes to back it up.

And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

No, you haven't. Orks actually do have rules that state that they are orks, check out the Mob Rules and Waaagh rules. Here, I'll even quote them for you:

Waaagh!

...For the Duration of that turn, all friendly Ork infantry units have the fleet of foot rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!)

Mob Rule!

...Because of this, Ork mobs may always choose to substitue the number of Orks in their mob for their normal Leadership value

As long as an Ork unit has one of those two rules, they have a rule which states that they are Orks. Every unit in the Ork codex that's not a vehicle or a unit made up of Gretchin has one or both of the rules. By the same token, the Lesser and Greater Daemons have rules in their codex on pg 61 that refers to them as Daemons, thus they are considered Daemons (note, I'm not arguing that Daemon Princes, Possessed, or Defilers are Daemons in the CSM codex).

A requirement for a "Daemons" rule, again, is purely a player made rule.

Dr_Chin wrote:How about this I will use Microsoft Office to check my Spelling and Grammar, the funny part is it’s only brought up when the GK side is losing lol

--- Checked by MS Word for Spelling and Grammar!

Not really, there are no sides to this.

iproxtaco wrote:No real backing with rules either. A few of the units that are Daemons have rules, some don't.

This is quickly degrading to a back and forth. Regarding the units that don't have a rule making them daemons, you have no way to determine they're daemons in the first place with our current books and faq's. Until that changes your statement only further proves that we have very clear definitions of what is or isn't a daemon.

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:No real backing with rules either. A few of the units that are Daemons have rules, some don't.

IF they don’t have the Daemon rule, they are not Daemons because of the fact that GW made the Special Rule Daemon before and after the CSM codex.

I'll repeat again -

iproxtaco wrote:The lack of specification is due to Mat Ward's incompetence and the lack of continuity between authors.

The authors do not collaborate. One or possibly two are assigned. It's proof read, play-tested and released. The FAQ is for these kind of issues.

iproxtaco wrote:
Not really, there are no sides to this.

Awsome so you agree with me then!

Thanks man!

I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:No real backing with rules either. A few of the units that are Daemons have rules, some don't.

This is quickly degrading to a back and forth. Regarding the units that don't have a rule making them daemons, you have no way to determine they're daemons in the first place with our current books and faq's. Until that changes your statement only further proves that we have very clear definitions of what is or isn't a daemon.

Yeah I do, names and then descriptions. Lesser Daemon, it's called a Daemon, the description of the unit then tells you what it actually is, a Daemon.

FireWolf698 wrote:I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

Its the same argument, sorry man.

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
Not really, there are no sides to this.

Awsome so you agree with me then!

Thanks man!

I'll re-word. I'm not taking sides. I play both Word Bearers, Daemon heavy, and Grey Knights.
You just defined Troll though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:

FireWolf698 wrote:I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

Its the same argument, sorry man.

Same as what? Specify. It's a very good point though. There are other instances where the criteria for the affected unit isn't given, and it's then down to the players to define. In this case, and probably in the case he's referring to, the same arguments will be used, but it's still a good and relevant argument.

FireWolf698 wrote:I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

The problem is, the sensible answer isn't the correct one. Yes, they clearly are meant to be/represented as daemons but they have not been given the Daemon special rule. And if you allow one likely case to be bundled in, what about borderline ones? Possessed Marines? Well they're host to a daemon. Defilers? Well, they're daemon-engines, aren't they? Soul Grinders even more so. Oh, and what about Daemonhosts? Well, it's in the name!

40K is a permissive rule set. If the rule, not the fluff or the name or common sense, says you can do it, you can do it. Assault Cannons aren't assault weapons etc.

Dr_Chin wrote:

FireWolf698 wrote:I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

Its the same argument, sorry man.

EDIT: I thought you said its NOT the same argument. My bad. The fight continues.

iproxtaco wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:

FireWolf698 wrote:I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

Its the same argument, sorry man.

Same as what? Specify. It's a very good point actually. There are other instances where the criteria for the affected unit isn't given.

Really do I have to explain it to you, if it’s a weapon that is against Daemons, then it would have the same problem defining what is a daemon. Ugh
Also no comment on personal attacks? really its only when I do it hu? lol

nobody wrote:

morgendonner wrote:And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

No, you haven't. Orks actually do have rules that state that they are orks, check out the Mob Rules and Waaagh rules.

(edited to save space by MorgenDonner)

As long as an Ork unit has one of those two rules, they have a rule which states that they are Orks. Every unit in the Ork codex that's not a vehicle or a unit made up of Gretchin has one or both of the rules. By the same token, the Lesser and Greater Daemons have rules in their codex on pg 61 that refers to them as Daemons, thus they are considered Daemons (note, I'm not arguing that Daemon Princes, Possessed, or Defilers are Daemons in the CSM codex).

A requirement for a "Daemons" rule, again, is purely a player made rule.

Going to be honest, my main points of contention are the exact units you are not arguing.

That said, this is how I see it. Units that are classified as Daemons have a rule for it much similar to units that are classified as Psykers. Imagine you had Preferred Enemy: Psyker. You would then gain PE against any unit that is defined as being a Psyker. Now to further this example, you would not gain PE against units that use psychic powers but are not defined as psykers. To push it to the extreme, let's say there was a unit called a Psyker Chief that was not actually defined as being a pysker. Again, you would not gain PE against it.

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:

FireWolf698 wrote:I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

Its the same argument, sorry man.

Same as what? Specify. It's a very good point actually. There are other instances where the criteria for the affected unit isn't given.

Really do I have to explain it to you, if it’s a weapon that is against Daemons, then it would have the same problem defining what is a daemon. Ugh
Also no comment on personal attacks? really its only when I do it hu? lol

Way to only quote half of my post. The rest gos on to agree that in that case the same arguments will be used.
What personal attacks? I'm sure that I haven't mentioned any or made any since that.

iproxtaco wrote:Small force I impulse bought on the Daemons of chaos second wave release.
Includes -
10 Bloodletters assembled with full command
10 Demonettes assembled with full command
3 Blood Crushers, two normal, one converted into a Herald of Khorne

I basically have a case of shiny syndrome so I bought and Arachnarok Spider and assembled only the spider half, leaving the other sprue intact.

I'm willing to trade any number for any equal value amount of unassembled Grey Knights or an amount of money. Post reply or PM me any offers or questions.

I don't have a camera but if you want pictures it will take a couple of days.

So you play Daemons hu? Not on a side hu? Thats ok, BUT like I said if it has the rule of Daemon that was stated before and after the CSM codex its a Daemon.

iproxtaco wrote: the description of the unit then tells you what it actually is

Thanks, this really made my ASSAULT cannons a whole lot better, and my opponents HEAVY Flamers a whole lot worst. No more moving and flaming me.

FireWolf698 wrote:I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

This was debated just as much when SW codex came out for that reason.

I have no interest in trying to squeeze through a loophole, in fact when I've played against GK I let my opponent count my CSM DP as a daemon but thats in a casual setting. Almost any CSM DP is going to be a psyker anyway, giving GKs bonuses.

But when we are talking about a competitive environment where all the RAW comes out, this can't be overlooked as easily. If and when an faq makes a ruling that states CSM DP's are daemons I will support it 100%, until then I cannot be provided with any rule stating they are in fact daemons. As such, I will continue to make the point that in the current rules they should not be treated as such.


I'd also just like to ask everyone else in this debate to keep things level headed and maybe take a break before commenting again if you're getting flustered. There's no reason we can't enjoy a debate without making it into a school yard scuffle.

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Small force I impulse bought on the Daemons of chaos second wave release.
Includes -
10 Bloodletters assembled with full command
10 Demonettes assembled with full command
3 Blood Crushers, two normal, one converted into a Herald of Khorne

I basically have a case of shiny syndrome so I bought and Arachnarok Spider and assembled only the spider half, leaving the other sprue intact.

I'm willing to trade any number for any equal value amount of unassembled Grey Knights or an amount of money. Post reply or PM me any offers or questions.

I don't have a camera but if you want pictures it will take a couple of days.

So you play Daemons hu? Not on a side hu? Thats ok, BUT like I said if it has the rule of Daemon that was stated before and after the CSM codex its a Daemon.

I play a Daemon heavy WORD BEARERS force. All of the above is assembled as fantasy by the way.
Lesser Daemons don't. They're still Daemons.

morgendonner wrote:

FireWolf698 wrote:I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

I hate to sound like a jerk but...I see some comments in here about Daemons not being Daemons and all I can think of is "I'm trying to squeeze through any loophole I can find, regardless of how impossibly small it is." Grey Knights will probably smack down your CSM Daemon Prince regardless. Here's an additional food for thought from a Space Wolves player: Rune Priest's runic weapon wounds Daemons on a 2+. It does NOT specify models with the rule "Daemon" and I promise you it's not suppose to be geared for a single codex. Just supporting Grey Knight's right to wtfpwn anything with Daemon in it's entry.

This was debated just as much when SW codex came out for that reason.

I have no interest in trying to squeeze through a loophole, in fact when I've played against GK I let my opponent count my CSM DP as a daemon but thats in a casual setting. Almost any CSM DP is going to be a psyker anyway, giving GKs bonuses.

But when we are talking about a competitive environment where all the RAW comes out, this can't be overlooked as easily. If and when an faq makes a ruling that states CSM DP's are daemons I will support it 100%, until then I cannot be provided with any rule stating they are in fact daemons. As such, I will continue to make the point that in the current rules they should not be treated as such.


I'd also just like to ask everyone else in this debate to keep things level headed and maybe take a break before commenting again if you're getting flustered. There's no reason we can't enjoy a debate without making it into a school yard scuffle.

I agree and just to point out most tournaments will have a ruling on this before the FAQ will so just ask the event people they will tell you whats up ok!

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote: the description of the unit then tells you what it actually is

Thanks, this really made my ASSAULT cannons a whole lot better, and my opponents HEAVY Flamers a whole lot worst. No more moving and flaming me.

Amazing. You quote only a small part of my post which is part of a larger unified point, then go on to make a statement that doesn't relate to said quote.

Those are the names of weapons that can be taken as upgrades for units. They don't have descriptions. My quote talks about the descriptions of units, which can tell you what the unit is.

The name only confirms what a unit is after you read the description. Striking Scorpions. Maybe you would think they were scorpions, that's why you read their description, to find out that they are actually members of an Aspect shrine which has a doctrine and weapon load-out similar to the physiology and behavior of a scorpion. You'd be very stupid to take the names literally too.

morgendonner wrote:

nobody wrote:

morgendonner wrote:And I have. The fact Ork units do not specify with an additional rule what is or is not an Ork is irrelevant, Daemon units clearly tell you what is or is not a Daemon.

No, you haven't. Orks actually do have rules that state that they are orks, check out the Mob Rules and Waaagh rules.

(edited to save space by MorgenDonner)

As long as an Ork unit has one of those two rules, they have a rule which states that they are Orks. Every unit in the Ork codex that's not a vehicle or a unit made up of Gretchin has one or both of the rules. By the same token, the Lesser and Greater Daemons have rules in their codex on pg 61 that refers to them as Daemons, thus they are considered Daemons (note, I'm not arguing that Daemon Princes, Possessed, or Defilers are Daemons in the CSM codex).

A requirement for a "Daemons" rule, again, is purely a player made rule.

Going to be honest, my main points of contention are the exact units you are not arguing.

That said, this is how I see it. Units that are classified as Daemons have a rule for it much similar to units that are classified as Psykers. Imagine you had Preferred Enemy: Psyker. You would then gain PE against any unit that is defined as being a Psyker. Now to further this example, you would not gain PE against units that use psychic powers but are not defined as psykers. To push it to the extreme, let's say there was a unit called a Psyker Chief that was not actually defined as being a pysker. Again, you would not gain PE against it.

I think we are agreeing, but arguing past each other due to the other arguements going on in this thread.

In the example you provided I would agree, Psyker is a defined term in the rulebook, and units that are Psykers have (one rule or another) that states they are such. A Psyker Chief without the Psyker rule or any other such rule that states "This model is a psyker" would not be effected by Preferred Enemy: Psyker.

I'm just in here purely to argue that Greater and Lesser Daemons are included based on pg 61...Daemon Princes, Defilers, Possessed, Defilers Obliterators probably should have rules that state they are Daemons, but since they don't there's nothing to support they are except fluff, and fluff != rules.

nobody wrote:

I'm just in here purely to argue that Greater and Lesser Daemons are included based on pg 61...Daemon Princes, Defilers, Possessed, Defilers Obliterators probably should have rules that state they are Daemons, but since they don't there's nothing to support they are except fluff, and fluff != rules.

I agree with that statement also I think GW will FAQ Lesser and Greater Daemons to be "Daemons" and I think they will also make Daemon Princes a "Daemon", but until that time it really is up to a coin toss in casual play or the rules of the tournament organizer.

But the fluff/=rules argument only works with stats. Rules are the majority of the time influenced by fluff, and the fluff is influenced by the rules. Since in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is a Daemon, it's irritating that this isn't reflected in pure game terms. However, the Daemon Prince unit in the codex is described as a Daemon, but it's rules don't reflect this, so it's in a perpetual state of contention, until the FAQ clears this up.
A point I would make, is that despite the rules not saying the Daemon Prince is a Daemon in rule terms, it doesn't state that it's anything else, or that it's not a Daemon. The description however says it is, with no contradiction within the book.
It is down to what people agree on the day. I suspect the FAQ will rule in favor of The Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

iproxtaco wrote:
It is down to what people agree on the day. I suspect the FAQ will rule in favor of The Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

Here here now lets all get pissed, its 5:00 some place? Right?

6:25pm here. It says I live in America but I don't, just realized that.

iprox - again, I'm not ignoring fluff. I have stated MANY times now that the fluff supports both cases - a DP being a daemon and it NOT being a daemon. THus, you cannot use it EVEN MORE than you normally cannot use it. It supports neither side.

iproxtaco wrote:But the fluff/=rules argument only works with stats.

Where are you getting that from? Rules are rules, fluff is fluff. They exist separately.

iproxtaco wrote:Rules are the majority of the time influenced by fluff, and the fluff is influenced by the rules. Since in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is a Daemon, it's irritating that this isn't reflected in pure game terms. However, the Daemon Prince unit in the codex is described as a Daemon, but it's rules don't reflect this, so it's in a perpetual state of contention, until the FAQ clears this up.
A point I would make, is that despite the rules not saying the Daemon Prince is a Daemon in rule terms, it doesn't state that it's anything else, or that it's not a Daemon. The description however says it is, with no contradiction within the book.
It is down to what people agree on the day. I suspect the FAQ will rule in favor of The Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

Commander Farsight is not rules wise stated to be a daemon, but his fluff suggests that his sword is a daemon possessed weapon that has corrupted him. Is he now a daemon too by your definition? His description also states he has not returned to the Tau Empire, does this prevent you from using him with an Ethereal? No, of course not.

The descriptions have no bearing on the impact of game play, they are unnecessary to correctly play a game. They exist simply as extra text filling to provide flavor to the game, thus the name fluff.

iproxtaco wrote:

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote: the description of the unit then tells you what it actually is

Thanks, this really made my ASSAULT cannons a whole lot better, and my opponents HEAVY Flamers a whole lot worst. No more moving and flaming me.

Amazing. You quote only a small part of my post which is part of a larger unified point, then go on to make a statement that doesn't relate to said quote.

Those are the names of weapons that can be taken as upgrades for units. They don't have descriptions. My quote talks about the descriptions of units, which can tell you what the unit is.

The name only confirms what a unit is after you read the description. Striking Scorpions. Maybe you would think they were scorpions, that's why you read their description, to find out that they are actually members of an Aspect shrine which has a doctrine and weapon load-out similar to the physiology and behavior of a scorpion. You'd be very stupid to take the names literally too.

But you only quote the small part of fluff that supports your position and ignore any fluff that contradicts your position as Nos has pointed out time and time again. I guess it is ok when you do things like that but bad when others do it.

Also have of your post have stated that the Deamon Prince is a deamon becasue it is in his name. Now you are saying you can't use the name because someone used it against you? BTW thanks for calling me stupid, you have been reported.

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:But the fluff/=rules argument only works with stats.

Where are you getting that from? Rules are rules, fluff is fluff. They exist separately.

No, they don't. An army will have specific rules according to the armies background. Conversely, GW may wish to create an army with certain attributes and rules, so the fluff will be written to support it. They are connected. The Stats of a unit are changed from what the fluff says for game balance.

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Rules are the majority of the time influenced by fluff, and the fluff is influenced by the rules. Since in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is a Daemon, it's irritating that this isn't reflected in pure game terms. However, the Daemon Prince unit in the codex is described as a Daemon, but it's rules don't reflect this, so it's in a perpetual state of contention, until the FAQ clears this up.
A point I would make, is that despite the rules not saying the Daemon Prince is a Daemon in rule terms, it doesn't state that it's anything else, or that it's not a Daemon. The description however says it is, with no contradiction within the book.
It is down to what people agree on the day. I suspect the FAQ will rule in favor of The Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

Commander Farsight is not rules wise stated to be a daemon, but his fluff suggests that his sword is a daemon possessed weapon that has corrupted him. Is he now a daemon too by your definition? His description also states he has not returned to the Tau Empire, does this prevent you from using him with an Ethereal? No, of course not.

The descriptions have no bearing on the impact of game play, they are unnecessary to correctly play a game. They exist simply as extra text filling to provide flavor to the game, thus the name fluff.

In the fluff he's not stated as a Daemon. In the fluff, the sword is powerful, SUSPECTED to be a daemonic in nature, it is also hinted to be of C'tan origin. He isn't described as a Daemon, not that Daemonic corruption actually makes you a Daemon every time anyway.

They have an impact because they create rules, just as rules create fluff. If the fluff were never to have existed, there would be no game. The fluff created the the 40k world as it is. Any new army that's added is given rules to represent it's background. Tau? GW said "Lets make a new cheerful race, that's advancing and looking towards the future, to contrast the grimdark currently dominant". The rules came from the fluff created for the Tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote: the description of the unit then tells you what it actually is

Thanks, this really made my ASSAULT cannons a whole lot better, and my opponents HEAVY Flamers a whole lot worst. No more moving and flaming me.

Amazing. You quote only a small part of my post which is part of a larger unified point, then go on to make a statement that doesn't relate to said quote.

Those are the names of weapons that can be taken as upgrades for units. They don't have descriptions. My quote talks about the descriptions of units, which can tell you what the unit is.

The name only confirms what a unit is after you read the description. Striking Scorpions. Maybe you would think they were scorpions, that's why you read their description, to find out that they are actually members of an Aspect shrine which has a doctrine and weapon load-out similar to the physiology and behavior of a scorpion. You'd be very stupid to take the names literally too.

But you only quote the small part of fluff that supports your position and ignore any fluff that contradicts your position as Nos has pointed out time and time again. I guess it is ok when you do things like that but bad when others do it.

Also have of your post have stated that the Deamon Prince is a deamon becasue it is in his name. Now you are saying you can't use the name because someone used it against you? BTW thanks for calling me stupid, you have been reported.

Care to quote the part that apparently contradicts it? And no, there are no descriptions of the Daemon Prince in the current codices which contradict what I mean.
By the way, EVERYONE quotes parts FROM FLUFF. You ignored basically my entire argument to make a needless point. Essentially, we're arguing that names don't tell you what a unit is, and I AGREE, as that was in the same post you quoted from.
I never stated it's a Daemon solely because of the name. The description goes on to back that up however. As I said in the post you just quoted, names alone do not tell you what a unit is. The description tells you what it is.
You also wrongly reported me. I didn't say you were stupid. I said you WOULD be. Are you saying you're stupid for having the same arguments I think are stupid?

daedalus-templarius wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes. Daemon Princes in the C: CSM codex are not daemons - they have daemonic powers, but are not themselves daemons.

/facepalm

Whatever you say guys. I mean, its fine if you want to say "since my old rules codex Daemon Prince is terrible, how about you let me get away with your guys not having preferred enemy against him?" That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Rather than, "no, my Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon, even though his body is clearly covered in daemonflesh, and in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is at the very height of Daemonhood, but he is not a Daemon. Nope. Definitely not a Daemon."

Circular argument is circular.

You really are not getting the crux of the issue.

iproxtaco wrote:

morgendonner wrote:Where are you getting that from? Rules are rules, fluff is fluff. They exist separately.

No, they don't. An army will have specific rules according to the armies background. Conversely, GW may wish to create an army with certain attributes and rules, so the fluff will be written to support it. They are connected. The Stats of a unit are changed from what the fluff says for game balance.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect, you could cut out every fluffy explanation and the game would operate the same (albeit more dull). Units have stat values that reflect a story, yes, but that story does not control them. Do you really think all the different armies in the story of 40k can be summarized into 6 different armor values?

iproxtaco wrote:They have an impact because they create rules, just as rules create fluff. If the fluff were never to have existed, there would be no game. The fluff created the the 40k world as it is. Any new army that's added is given rules to represent it's background. Tau? GW said "Lets make a new cheerful race, that's advancing and looking towards the future, to contrast the grimdark currently dominant". The rules came from the fluff created for the Tau.

Yes they serve as inspirations for each other, but the story doesn't control game mechanics. You're talking about a game where you can kill a squad easier by just shooting 2 plasma guns than by shooting 2 plasma guns and 5 bolters. The fluff states Eldrad is dead or at least MIA, but you can still put him in your army list and he won't be instantly dead turn 1.

iproxtaco wrote: And no, there are no descriptions of the Daemon Prince in the current codices which contradict what I mean.

There's also no rule that supports your argument. Would it make any impact on the game if a diabolical printer replaced the description of a Space Marine Captain to say "These heroic guys eat lots of bananas because they think they're absolutely great and they would never ever fight a Tyranid". No it would not make any impact on the game, it's pointless babble. Not everyone plays 40k for the story.

Bottom line is if you want to play the game Rules as Fluff Suggests, you are free to do that and I'm sure a lot of players love to interpret the game in different ways like that. But your logic that because descriptions say this then the game must play this way is a very skewed perspective for running a RAW game.

iproxtaco wrote:Amazing. You quote only a small part of my post which is part of a larger unified point, then go on to make a statement that doesn't relate to said quote.

Those are the names of weapons that can be taken as upgrades for units. They don't have descriptions. My quote talks about the descriptions of units, which can tell you what the unit is.

The name only confirms what a unit is after you read the description. Striking Scorpions. Maybe you would think they were scorpions, that's why you read their description, to find out that they are actually members of an Aspect shrine which has a doctrine and weapon load-out similar to the physiology and behavior of a scorpion. You'd be very stupid to take the names literally too.

So does that mean that my Tau Stealth Team have the Stealth USR and +1 to all cover saves? Awesome, cheers dude!

No, what it means is that:

Marines ALWAYS win. After al, in the fluff they always win!

But - ORks never lose! Meaning at worst they draw - but Marines vs Orks would be a problem.

Sorry, fluff /= Rules. An argument based on that automatically fails the logic test.

I really don't care anymore.


the GW FAQ will be out soon.


I am 100% certain they will clarify that CSM Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons are, in fact, Deamons for all purposes.


enjoy your couple of week of GKs not getting rerolls against your deamons untill GW hits you with the stick of reason(they should hit themselves too) and puts this argument in its proper place.

GT - you missed my posts, where as a Chaos player I would let them have the rerolls, and as a GK I wouldnt.

It's that ambiguous currently

Miraclefish wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Amazing. You quote only a small part of my post which is part of a larger unified point, then go on to make a statement that doesn't relate to said quote.

Those are the names of weapons that can be taken as upgrades for units. They don't have descriptions. My quote talks about the descriptions of units, which can tell you what the unit is.

The name only confirms what a unit is after you read the description. Striking Scorpions. Maybe you would think they were scorpions, that's why you read their description, to find out that they are actually members of an Aspect shrine which has a doctrine and weapon load-out similar to the physiology and behavior of a scorpion. You'd be very stupid to take the names literally too.

So does that mean that my Tau Stealth Team have the Stealth USR and +1 to all cover saves? Awesome, cheers dude!

Why you would come to that conclusion I have no idea.

Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

No, other wise they get bonuses against 'daemon host' or 'daemon hunters' just cause they have daemon in the name. Fluff doesnt count for anything either, if it did then every codex would end up as movie marines.

Miraclefish wrote:Do I think they should be counted as Daemons? Yes, absolutely. It's clear that they are, in fact, Daemons.

Do they have the Daemons rule? No. Therefore, technically, they are not affected by the Grey Knights' rules.

Stupid but 100% factually correct. That's GW in a nutshell.

In RAW no, but in logical terms yes. As a CSM player, I wouldn't allow it, but that's because I am simply following the rules and am really competetive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

This.

iproxtaco wrote:Yeah I do, names and then descriptions. Lesser Daemon, it's called a Daemon, the description of the unit then tells you what it actually is, a Daemon.

iproxtaco, if you're saying that anything with daemon in the name has the Daemon Special Rule, how can you say that anything with stealth in the name doesn't have the Stealth USR? I await your answer with baited breath!

Miraclefish wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

This. iproxtaco, if you're saying that anything with daemon in the name has the Daemon Special Rule, how can you say that anything with stealth in the name doesn't have the Stealth USR? I await your answer with baited breath!

Technically, there's no "Daemon" USR, while "Stealth" is an USR. One could therefore argue that the only units to have a special rule is the ones that has it, since daemon isn't an USR this would (in theory) have no effect on what's considered a daemon or not.


As for myself, I'm in the camp that a Daemon Prince is, in fact, a daemon, but as the rules do not yet reflect that fact there's no bonus to be had against CSM Daemon Princes.

Miraclefish wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

This. iproxtaco, if you're saying that anything with daemon in the name has the Daemon Special Rule, how can you say that anything with stealth in the name doesn't have the Stealth USR? I await your answer with baited breath!

Just because a peice of wargear or a unit has a word in it's name does not mean it would have a rule associated with that word. Take an 'Assault Cannon' or 'Heavy Flamer' for example, an 'Assault Cannon' may have assault in the name, but it's a heavy weapon. And a 'Heavy Flamer' may have 'heavy' in it's name, but it's an assault weapon.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Technically, there's no "Daemon" USR, while "Stealth" is an USR. One could therefore argue that the only units to have a special rule is the ones that has it, since daemon isn't an USR this would (in theory) have no effect on what's considered a daemon or not.

As for myself, I'm in the camp that a Daemon Prince is, in fact, a daemon, but as the rules do not yet reflect that fact there's no bonus to be had against CSM Daemon Princes.

There's no Daemon USR but there is a unit type/special rule called Daemon. It's not found in the Rulebook but instead in the appropriate Codex.

And I'm exactly the same as you, I think that a Daemon Prince is a a daemon and should be affected by rules that cover Daemons, but there is no rule to say so. I'd let my opponant count them as if I had a Daemon Prince, but that's 'cos I'm not an arse. Ha.

Yeah they should be daemons...but they're not...RAW

Miraclefish wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Technically, there's no "Daemon" USR, while "Stealth" is an USR. One could therefore argue that the only units to have a special rule is the ones that has it, since daemon isn't an USR this would (in theory) have no effect on what's considered a daemon or not.

As for myself, I'm in the camp that a Daemon Prince is, in fact, a daemon, but as the rules do not yet reflect that fact there's no bonus to be had against CSM Daemon Princes.

There's no Daemon USR but there is a unit type/special rule called Daemon. It's not found in the Rulebook but instead in the appropriate Codex.

And I'm exactly the same as you, I think that a Daemon Prince is a a daemon and should be affected by rules that cover Daemons, but there is no rule to say so. I'd let my opponant count them as if I had a Daemon Prince, but that's 'cos I'm not an arse. Ha.

As much as RAW is a pain, because GW somehow cannot specify this between what is a 'daemon model' or a 'model with the daemon special rule' but it pays to follow RAW because it stops the unesessary arguments and wasting 30-45 minutes deciding whether it is a Daemon or it isn't and by deciding on the roll of a dice. This ruins the game for everyone as you have wasted loads of time arguing about a rule and the person who lost the dice roll will obviously feel hard done by.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

Despite saying myself saying numerous times that the name doesn't solely define the unit, we're still having this argument. You people must be blind.

Miraclefish wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Yeah I do, names and then descriptions. Lesser Daemon, it's called a Daemon, the description of the unit then tells you what it actually is, a Daemon.

iproxtaco, if you're saying that anything with daemon in the name has the Daemon Special Rule, how can you say that anything with stealth in the name doesn't have the Stealth USR? I await your answer with baited breath!

Eh, no, not at all. I'm simply stating that by the description of the unit, it is defined as a Daemon. That is what kind of entity it is. You then applied a ridiculous filter, that I then meant that everything has USR's because of the unit name, which is not in any way what I was talking about.

So... you're proposing that the name only defines the unit in some cases?

I never said then, and never have said that at all either. The name can give you hints of what a unit will be on it's own, however a description is needed to actually tell you what it is.

This is just getting stagnant. You don't need a description to play 40k.

If some prankster at GW last minute decided to change the Space Marine Captain's description to say "this guy will never fight a tyranid", that would have 0 impact on a game. Surely you can't be suggesting that if somebody slipped that into a Codex that from then on a player couldn't use a SM Captain against a tryanid?

It's important when certain contentious units have no obvious definition in the rules when they should.
If in the description of a unit, it says he will never fight Tyranids, then there should be a rule.

You can't say that sometimes a unit description affects game play and sometimes it doesn't. That's not a rule then, that's just picking and choosing.

Missed my point though. Fluff defines the rules a unit has, or the rules that GW wants a certain army to have will have background to support it. Daemon Prince's are described in the book as being Daemons, and yet there's no definite rule to say that, which is why it's contentious.

It's just a difference of opinion on how things are defined. The FAQ will clear this up, but as I said before, it will likely rule in favor of the Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

I understand you're point, there's just nothing that supports it.

Fluff does not define the rules a unit has, it merely serves as inspiration for the writer. Fluff says space marines can spit acid, but they don't have a game rule allowing them to do so.

A unit's rules are the only words that matter, and anything else is just for icing on the cake for players to enjoy but ultimately not necessary to play a game.

And as I've said before I'm not debating what a future FAQ may rule, I have no problem with that. This has just been a debate on the current RAW.