hey guys. The Deamon hunters codex on page 20 says what are counted as deamons... does this mean my deamons army ignores rules like sanctuary for everything but nurglings?

frgsinwntr wrote:hey guys. The Deamon hunters codex on page 20 says what are counted as deamons... does this mean my deamons army ignores rules like sanctuary for everything but nurglings?

Yes.

For the number of times which this comes up, I'd like to suggest an alternative mechanism for settling the matter.

The Daemon player and the Daemon Hunter player both select a champion. The two chosen champions must then engage in an arm wrestling competition. The winner of the competition gets to decide what to use for the definition of 'daemon'.

Arguing over the rules of the arm wrestling competition is ensured to be more productive than any argument about what is and is not a daemon.

frgsinwntr wrote:hey guys. The Deamon hunters codex on page 20 says what are counted as deamons... does this mean my deamons army ignores rules like sanctuary for everything but nurglings?

If the nemesis forge weapen ignores eternal warrior then my answer is

HELL YES!!!

Damn sometimes I even have to go with the RAW.

frgsinwntr wrote:hey guys. The Deamon hunters codex on page 20 says what are counted as deamons... does this mean my deamons army ignores rules like sanctuary for everything but nurglings?

Probably not. The Daemon codex says they're Daemons, and page 24 of the Daemon Codex says Grey Knights are made to work against them.

gaylord500 wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:hey guys. The Deamon hunters codex on page 20 says what are counted as deamons... does this mean my deamons army ignores rules like sanctuary for everything but nurglings?

Probably not. The Daemon codex says they're Daemons, and page 24 of the Codex says Grey Knights are made to work against them.

So? Daemon is a specific term and defined as those listed

Much like how allies rules are not in the IG or SM codex, but their existence in the WH and DH codex allows IG or SM to ally with Inquisition units, the Daemons codex write something which allows the DH stuff to work against it that the DH codex does not itself mention. It seems to do this explicitly on page 24 of the Daemon's codex. So, the Daemon's codex seems to adds to the DH list of what counts as Daemons for the purposes of DH powers and abilities.

gaylord500 wrote:Much like how allies rules are not in the IG or SM codex, but their existence in the WH and DH codex allows IG or SM to ally with Inquisition units, the Daemons codex can allow the DH stuff to work against it. It seems to do this explicitly on page 24. So, the Daemon's codex seems to adds to the DH list of what counts as Daemons.

No, it doesn't. Any time Daemons is referred to in the DH codex, it refers to ONLY those things listed in the DH codex. Nothing Else.

And the Daemons codex refers to Grey Knight powers as working against Daemons, capital D. See page 24 of the Chaos Daemons codex. "[Grey Knights] are also highly trained in the ways in which Daemons can be banished back in the Warp, and to this end are armed with many bizarre weapons and items of wargear created solely for this purpose."

To argue that nearly nothing in the Daemons codex with the Daemons rule works with the DH equipment is to ignore RAW from the Daemon's codex. While the DH gives a list, it does not prevent the Daemon (or any other) codex from adding to it. The Daemons codex says its Daemons count for the purposes of Grey Knight weapons, wargear, and training.

So, it's clearly RAI that it works based off of that. It's not as red-letter, mechanistic RAW as many rules, but I think it is likely sufficiently clear.

gaylord500 wrote:And the Daemons codex refers to Grey Knight powers as working against Daemons, capital D. See page 24 of the Chaos Daemons codex. "[Grey Knights] are also highly trained in the ways in which Daemons can be banished back in the Warp, and to this end are armed with many bizarre weapons and items of wargear created solely for this purpose."

To argue that therefore nothing in the Daemons codex with the Daemons rule does not work with the DH equipment is to ignore RAW from the Daemon's codex. While the DH gives a list, it does not prevent the Daemon (or any other) codex from adding to it. The Daemons codex says its Daemons count for the purposes of Grey Knight weapons, wargear, and training.

Nowhere does the DH codex reference the Daemons Codex or anything else other than the list provided on Page 20. To say anything else counts as a Daemon is cheating, plain and simple.

RaI Can sleep with my sister for all I care. You play the Game by the rules. If you want to play Househammer, go ahead, I'll stick to Warhammer.

So where in the IG codex does it say that IG can take WH or DH allies?

It says it in the WH and DH codexes.

gaylord500 wrote:So where in the IG codex does it say that IG can take WH or DH allies?

It doesn't have to, the DH and WH codex say they may, just like the DH lists exactly what counts as a Daemon.

Similarly, it says in the Daemons codex that DH equipment works against Daemons. Just read the words; it's right there. While Codex > BRB, there's no Codex precedence here. DH is not > Chaos Daemons, necessarily. Where the specific terms are mentioned, you follow what it says. DH gives a list, Daemons says, "add us too".

DH doesn't say it does. However, Daemons says it does. RAI, ironclad; RAW, strong.

gaylord500 wrote:Similarly, it says in the Daemons codex that DH equipment works against Daemons. Just read the words; it's right there. While Codex > BRB, there's no Codex precedence here. DH is not > Chaos Daemons, necessarily. Where the specific terms are mentioned, you follow what it says. DH gives a list, Daemons says, "add us too".

DH doesn't say it does. However, Daemons says it does.

Codex: Space Wolves says all my Non Long Fang Non Vehicle Units have Counter Attack, can I let my Dark Angels have it?

Where in the Daemons Codex does it say "All Models in this army are to be added to page 20 of the Daemonhunters codex?" I'm looking at the Daemon Special Rule and all it mentions are Fearless, Invulnerable, Daemonic Assault and Daemonic Rivalry.

Face it, you are Wrong.

yea... i don't see in the RULES anywhere it mentions that Deamons from codex deamons are the same as listed in the the DH book... besides to say so would unbalance some powers such as sanctuary (written when in 3rd ed for VPs not objective based missions)

frgsinwntr wrote:yea... i don't see in the RULES anywhere it mentions that Deamons from codex deamons are the same as listed in the the DH book... besides to say so would unbalance some powers such as sanctuary (written when in 3rd ed for VPs not objective based missions)

Indeed. Anyone saying that it works is cheating. If GW were to issue an Errata to the DH codex, then it would work. Sadly GW are incompetent idiots so nothing that works against Daemons from the DH codex works against Non-Nurglings.

It's 100% RAW all the time or no RAW at all. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's 100% RAW all the time or no RAW at all. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

G

A Saying I have never understood. What else would you want to do with Cake?

It is in reference to the late queen of France. When they told here the people were starving and had no bread to eat, she said feed them cake.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:It is in reference to the late queen of France. When they told here the people were starving and had no bread to eat, she said feed them cake.

G

A Perfectly reasonable suggestion.

Gwar! wrote:Where in the Daemons Codex does it say "All Models in this army are to be added to page 20 of the Daemonhunters codex?" I'm looking at the Daemon Special Rule and all it mentions are Fearless, Invulnerable, Daemonic Assault and Daemonic Rivalry.

I told you twice already. Page 24. And I quoted it as well.

It says, specifically, that Grey Knight equipment and wargear works against Daemon - capital D - not daemons in general. Which is what the Chaose Daemon codex is about.

gaylord500 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Where in the Daemons Codex does it say "All Models in this army are to be added to page 20 of the Daemonhunters codex?" I'm looking at the Daemon Special Rule and all it mentions are Fearless, Invulnerable, Daemonic Assault and Daemonic Rivalry.

I told you twice already. Page 24. And I quoted it as well.

It says, specifically, that Grey Knight equipment and wargear works against Daemon - capital D - not daemons in general. Which is what the Chaose Daemon codex is about.

Oh lol, You're quoting Fluff and trying to use it as rules?

Hahah! Thanks, I needed cheering up.

-Laughs Uncontrollably-

Fluff are not rules.

I have noticed Mr. Deadshane and sour clams have not chimed in yet to grace us with their opinions.

G

gaylord500 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Where in the Daemons Codex does it say "All Models in this army are to be added to page 20 of the Daemonhunters codex?" I'm looking at the Daemon Special Rule and all it mentions are Fearless, Invulnerable, Daemonic Assault and Daemonic Rivalry.

I told you twice already. Page 24. And I quoted it as well.

It says, specifically, that Grey Knight equipment and wargear works against Daemon - capital D - not daemons in general. Which is what the Chaose Daemon codex is about.

If fluff were rules, a single space marine could crush your army! OR on page 12 of the DH codex a psycher with hammer hand could cause me to roll on the catastrophic damage table for my baneblade by poking it.

frgsinwntr wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Where in the Daemons Codex does it say "All Models in this army are to be added to page 20 of the Daemonhunters codex?" I'm looking at the Daemon Special Rule and all it mentions are Fearless, Invulnerable, Daemonic Assault and Daemonic Rivalry.

I told you twice already. Page 24. And I quoted it as well.

It says, specifically, that Grey Knight equipment and wargear works against Daemon - capital D - not daemons in general. Which is what the Chaose Daemon codex is about.

If fluff were rules, a single space marine could crush your army!

If Fluff were rules, I'd just take an Inquisitor and "Nuke it from Orbit" on Turn 2 for an automatic Draw. Unless it was against Tyranids in which case it's an automatic win.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:It is in reference to the late queen of France. When they told here the people were starving and had no bread to eat, she said feed them cake.

G

A Perfectly reasonable suggestion.

They cut off her pretty little head.

Mob rulez !

G

While I have to agree with Mr. Gwar mostly, there is a small part I must add in. The DH codex says in that list on page 20 that all greater demons are affected. And on the top of page 78 of the demon codex it says;
'These two pages list all the greater demons available to lead...'

That seems rather clear that they would fall under the blanket rule in the DH codex. But other than those and the poor Nurglings, it seems that Mr. Gwar is correct.

yes, greater deamons fall under that rule and so do nurglings. But not anything else as far as Raw goes

Green Blow Fly wrote:Fluff are not rules.

I have noticed Mr. Deadshane and sour clams have not chimed in yet to grace us with their opinions.

G

The Daemons referenced in C: Daemonhunters are specific units found within the codex. Much like the mutants found in the Witchhunter's codex, they're a self-contained strawman army meant to be just good enough to get some sucker to play in order for the Daemonhunters to kick their ass.

In other words, yes, there's some good to having a horribly outdated codex (Allies rules, Nemesis Force Weapons), but it's mostly overshadowed by all the negatives, including horribly useless wargear.

I have never lost to DH regardless of what list I am running.

* cups hands together *

Let me help you up on that high horse you ride. I have heard the air is thinner up there. If so that would explain a lot.



G

I suggest reading comprehension. It's FTW.

sourclams wrote:I suggest reading comprehension. It's FTW.

Mr. Sourclams, as one of a select few whom I respect for their actual debating ability, what is your take on gaylord500's claim that one may take background material and present it as rules?

Blaspemy.
In all it's goriness.

G

With respect to Gaylord's opinion, I agree RAI Daemons are Daemons, regardless of their origin (by its very nature Chaos is mutable and multi-formed), but there's rules in there that just don't mix.

For example, Daemonic Summoning doesn't combine very well with the Daemonic Assault. If you try to blend the rules, it's impossible for a Daemons army to deploy since they need to deep strike off of a "host" unit, which a pure Daemons army does not contain. Although I think it's rather fluffy for me to tell my Daemons opponent that his ravening Hell-horde is trapped within the Immaterium while my Purgation squads give them the collective finger, I don't think it would go over very well.

So, in short, although we always clamor for greater specificity from GW, in the case of horribly outdated codices it can work against you when their definitions are all worthless.

This is a 'for fun because it's cool' army, not a competitive army. Play against your friends and discuss how Daemonhammers work against Bloodthirsters at the beginning of your game. I'd trade all the Daemonic stuff for frag grenades, anyhow.

Gwar! wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Where in the Daemons Codex does it say "All Models in this army are to be added to page 20 of the Daemonhunters codex?" I'm looking at the Daemon Special Rule and all it mentions are Fearless, Invulnerable, Daemonic Assault and Daemonic Rivalry.

I told you twice already. Page 24. And I quoted it as well.

It says, specifically, that Grey Knight equipment and wargear works against Daemon - capital D - not daemons in general. Which is what the Chaose Daemon codex is about.

Oh lol, You're quoting Fluff and trying to use it as rules?

It's your opinion that it's fluff instead of rules. Nothing in that text indicates fluff - no named fictional characters, no fictional dates, no planets mentioned, no invasions. It's not even congruent with the rest of the text in the page. It's a callout box whose purposes is to tell Chaos Daemons players that Daemons are affected by Daemonhunter special equipment.

So, while the Space Marines don't explicitly allow you to take Sisters of Battles as allies, we all agree that they can because of the Witch Hunter codex. You ought to notice that while the Daemonhunters codex doesn't specifically mention the Daemons in the Chaos Daemons codex, the Chaos Daemons codex says Daemons are specifically affected by the Grey Knights' wargear, special rules, etc. So, it works.

Eldar FAQ says the Avatar isn't invulnerable to incinerators, inferno cannons, and inferno pistols as they are melta or flame weapons under different names. How do you think GW would rule on this question? So, how do you think the original poster should play his games?

From what we have so far, the OP's answer should be clear: Chaos Daemons are affected by the DH anti-Daemon equipment. Thinking otherwise would be strange, especially by RAI but even by RAW. No, GW didn't handhold to tell you so in the exact font, page and way ultra-rules lawyers might need to agree. However, they did say enough so that it's pretty clear in any case.

Yes like a 5th edition codex needs help against some measly craptastic 3rd edition codex.

gaylord500 wrote:It's your opinion that it's fluff instead of rules.

I'll stop you right there.
It is not opinion, it is fact. The actual rules for Chaos Daemons are found on Pages 27-55 and 73-88. Everything else is Fluff and Hobby material.

If we are to use your logic, Calgar always wins in Close Combat against Avatars, because there is a bit in the codex where he wins against one. Clearly that's rules too isn't it!

Please, if you are going to post in a Rules forum, try to actually quote rules and not fluff.

An excellent example of fluff for rules was the ATSKNF in the 4th edition SM cod3x. One paragraph stated the rules as we know them then the last paragraph stated SM always regroup to access the situation. I saw some players interpret it both ways whichever was most beneficial to them at that particular point in time. ANother example was the 13th Company Rune Priest gating... The fluff said he was teleporting but in a team game people said he could not lock onto a teleport homer beacon. A lot of it just comes down to how the people you play as a group interpret the rules. You can come here and win an argument but the folks back home could care less. To mr it seems most dicsussions here tend to focus on exploitation of a loophole.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:An excellent example of fluff for rules was the ATSKNF in the 4th edition SM cod3x. One paragraph stated the rules as we know them then the last paragraph stated SM always regroup to access the situation. I saw some players interpret it both ways whichever was most beneficial to them at that particular point in time. ANother example was the 13th Company Rune Priest gating... The fluff said he was teleporting but in a team game people said he could not lock onto a teleport homer beacon. A lot of it just comes down to how the people you play as a group interpret the rules. You can come here and win an argument but the folks back home could care less. To mr it seems most dicsussions here tend to focus on exploitation of a loophole.

G

This isn't even a case of Fluff mixing with rules. He is taking a line a good 3 pages before the actual rules start and trying to pass them off as rules.

Not at all. Read the codices cited. The SM instance are two short paragraphs, one following the other.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not at all. Read the codices cited. The SM instance are two short paragraphs, one following the other.

G

Firstly, it is in the rules section of the book. The page title "Space marine Special Rules" might have given that away. Secondly, the rules are not even present in the codex at all, the rules tell you to look at the Rulebook. The extra two paragraphs are Fluff Justification for how the rule interacts with other rules. That is fine. What is not fine is to take fluff from 3 pages before in the fluff section that and pass it off as rules.

gaylord500 is just 100% plain wrong yet refuses to admit it, which will result in this thread being locked as he carrys on in his attempts to coax out a inflammatory response from myself and others.

Well. To put it another way, this is the inverse of the Chimera/Fire Points issue; the rule is quite specific, then presents some "restrictive" fluff. Based on the fluff, some people say that special weapons etc. cannot be shot out of the fire points, because they're supposed to be using the integrated lasguns. That's bogus, however, because the rule is quite clear.

In this circumstance, the rule is quite specific, however the fluff is unrestrictive. We still can't apply the fluff, for the same reasons that meltaguns can be shot out of Chimeras.

Grey Knights never learned how to use Frag Grenades, their Grand Masters are less skilled than Space Marine Captains, and they only know how to hunt some Daemons, in the same way that Fudd hunts Wabbits.

I console my 2.5k pts Daemonhunters army with tender promises of becoming WTFOVRPWR when GW does finally update the Inquisition.

sourclams wrote:Well. To put it another way, this is the inverse of the Chimera/Fire Points issue; the rule is quite specific, then presents some "restrictive" fluff. Based on the fluff, some people say that special weapons etc. cannot be shot out of the fire points, because they're supposed to be using the integrated lasguns. That's bogus, however, because the rule is quite clear.

In this circumstance, the rule is quite specific, however the fluff is unrestrictive. We still can't apply the fluff because the rules are quite clear.

Grey Knights never learned how to use Frag Grenades, their Grand Masters are less skilled than Space Marine Captains, and they only know how to hunt some Daemons, in the same way that Fudd hunts Wabbits.

I console my 2.5k pts Daemonhunters army with tender promises of becoming WTFOVRPWR when GW does finally update the Inquisition.

QFT. I know we have our disagreements Sourclams, but I am glad to see someone with a modicum of intelligence and rationality on this Forum

Although from a pure RAW standpoint I understand the ruling, I wouldn't expect any tournament organizer to go by the logic present here for why Chaos Daemons don't count as daemons for the purpose of the Daemonhunter book.

While thinking of the rules arguments in an abstract sense is nice, keep in mind whats likely to be the ruling at the event you're attending

targetawg wrote:Although from a pure RAW standpoint I understand the ruling, I wouldn't expect any tournament organizer to go by the logic present here for why Chaos Daemons don't count as daemons for the purpose of the Daemonhunter book.

While thinking of the rules arguments in an abstract sense is nice, keep in mind whats likely to be the ruling at the event you're attending

The event you are attending might give all marines Toughness 9, or Ban Pink Models. Or Ban Tau. It is implicit in any rules debate that "It all depends on your TO" and "RaW says if both players want you can make up ". The forum is here to debate what the actual RaW says, nothing else. If you want to debate RaI or propose rules, there is a separate forum for that.

Gwar! wrote:

targetawg wrote:Although from a pure RAW standpoint I understand the ruling, I wouldn't expect any tournament organizer to go by the logic present here for why Chaos Daemons don't count as daemons for the purpose of the Daemonhunter book.

While thinking of the rules arguments in an abstract sense is nice, keep in mind whats likely to be the ruling at the event you're attending

The event you are attending might give all marines Toughness 9, or Ban Pink Models. Or Ban Tau. It is implicit in any rules debate that "It all depends on your TO" and "RaW says if both players want you can make up ". The forum is here to debate what the actual RaW says, nothing else. If you want to debate RaI or propose rules, there is a separate forum for that.

You are just canned troll. Your posts intentionally flame bait, and yet you wonder why people respond negatively.

Read: I'm not saying you're wrong about the rules argument. But when debating rules, its important to realize that the abstract discussions we have on these boards translate very poorly into real world events, so relying on them and then saying "but on dakkadakka we decided.." is a good way to get surprised, and not in a good way, at a tournament.

I know the OP, and was posting it for his benefit, not to somehow incite you into a ranting lecture about how I should use the YMDC forums, how you assume the tournaments I attend to be rediculous, or any other point.

I know you like your post count, but you don't have to respond to absolutely every post that takes place.

targetawg wrote:You are just canned troll.

Personal Attack

targetawg wrote:Your posts intentionally flame bait

More personal attacks

targetawg wrote: and yet you wonder why people respond negatively.

I do because I do not do anything to illicit such a negative response. It is not my fault GW write the rules they do.

targetawg wrote:Read: I'm not saying you're wrong about the rules argument. But when debating rules, its important to realize that the abstract discussions we have on these boards translate very poorly into real world events, so relying on them and then saying "but on dakkadakka we decided.." is a good way to get surprised, and not in a good way, at a tournament.

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

targetawg wrote:I know you like your post count, but you don't have to respond to absolutely every post that takes place.

I can reply to whatever Thread I feel like until an Administrator or Moderator tells me otherwise. I have done nothing wrong in this thread (apart from point out the actual rules, which is a Very bad Thing™ Apparently), so I do not see that happening soon.

Now, as I do not intend to drag this thread any more off topic as it has been by myself and others, I bid you adieu.

Simply amazing.

As for the issue of if DH wargear works or not, I will refer to the main rule book under TMIR. Thats as RAW as it gets.

I will gladly concede Nemesis force weapon to work like a normal force weapon to work out DH wargear working on deamons. Its a freaking game of toy soldiers.

thehod wrote:As for the issue of if DH wargear works or not, I will refer to the main rule book under TMIR. Thats as RAW as it gets.

Ah yes, the last refuge of the beaten: "THE RULEBOOK SAYS I CAN IGNORE RAW I WIN WAAA WAAA!!"

Gwar! wrote:

thehod wrote:As for the issue of if DH wargear works or not, I will refer to the main rule book under TMIR. Thats as RAW as it gets.

Ah yes, the last refuge of the beaten: "THE RULEBOOK SAYS I CAN IGNORE RAW I WIN WAAA WAAA!!"

or that their following the RAW and using the rules for that weapon as its updated.

i'd have to say as per the original poster. all deamons are deamons, especially from the deamon codex where the deamons are chosen from and you play deamons, and deamon's deepstrike and you get assaulted by deamons and fight deamons because its a deamons army.

rules are updated as new codex's come out. all of these weapons effect deamons as listed on PG. 20 of the GK codex. however it doesn't say you can't include all deamons in the game.


and how does a deamon hunter nemesis weapon not work?

A note to the main protagonists, whose posts have been removed. Please do not flame each other. Reasoned arguements are welcome in YMDC, trolling and personal attacks are not

Very well, let's call that callout box fluff, then.

As has been pointed out in other threads (on other sites) on the topic, in addition to the above, Chaos Daemons, page 78, defines named HQs as Greater Daemons.

Nowadays, 'Daemon' is a listed characteristic for a unit. Prior to the Chaos Daemon's codex, daemon was an adjective for wargear, unit names, etc. As to the DH Codex definition, 'Daemon' Termonology refers to Daemons without need for further clarification. It's self-evident that A is A even if A is also B, C, and D. QED. So, a Daemon may be a Nurgling. This does not keep a Daemon from being a Daemon.

Daemonhunters having anti-Daemon gear and tactics is not a controversial or particularly strange position to stand by. If you come across it, it's the opposite that needs justification and is not obvious.

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

Just admit it and everyone will be happy.

storm sheilds in the new marine codex are different than storm shields on an older dex because they are defined in their dex. Just saying

frgsinwntr, I believe its up to you on if you want to or not. If it was a game between you and me, I would ask if you wanted to play with DH affecting or just roll off the dice and let it be the judge.

thehod wrote:frgsinwntr, I believe its up to you on if you want to or not. If it was a game between you and me, I would ask if you wanted to play with DH affecting or just roll off the dice and let it be the judge.

I would tell you to play by the rules or not play at all. If I was at a tournament then whatever the TO says goes I have no control over it. Bear in Mind To's 99% of the time go for what the actual rules say.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not at all. Read the codices cited. The SM instance are two short paragraphs, one following the other.

G

Firstly, it is in the rules section of the book. The page title "Space marine Special Rules" might have given that away. Secondly, the rules are not even present in the codex at all, the rules tell you to look at the Rulebook. The extra two paragraphs are Fluff Justification for how the rule interacts with other rules. That is fine. What is not fine is to take fluff from 3 pages before in the fluff section that and pass it off as rules.

gaylord500 is just 100% plain wrong yet refuses to admit it, which will result in this thread being locked as he carrys on in his attempts to coax out a inflammatory response from myself and others.

The two paragraphs run consecutively. The rune priest bit of fluff about teleporting appears on the same page as the rule for gating.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am citing the 4th edition SM codex.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not at all. Read the codices cited. The SM instance are two short paragraphs, one following the other.

G

Firstly, it is in the rules section of the book. The page title "Space marine Special Rules" might have given that away. Secondly, the rules are not even present in the codex at all, the rules tell you to look at the Rulebook. The extra two paragraphs are Fluff Justification for how the rule interacts with other rules. That is fine. What is not fine is to take fluff from 3 pages before in the fluff section that and pass it off as rules.

gaylord500 is just 100% plain wrong yet refuses to admit it, which will result in this thread being locked as he carrys on in his attempts to coax out a inflammatory response from myself and others.

The two paragraphs run consecutively. The rune priest bit of fluff about teleporting appears on the same page as the rule for gating.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am citing the 4th edition SM codex.

Yes I know you are, 13th company isn't in the 4th edition SM Codex. Also, I have already said, that is where fluff is mixed in with rules. That is fine. You cannot however just take fluff and use it as rules like gaylord500 is.

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

Codex: Angry Warp Monsters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

they do since they work against any deep striking unit

Will I see you at the Necro frgs?

Warp arse!

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

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

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

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

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

*Edit: spelling*

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

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

A is A, by definition.

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

gaylord500 wrote:A is A, by definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gaylord500 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

*Edit: spelling*

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

AND

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

Has Gwar finally met his match ?

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

G

You can't have your cake and Eat it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

Thank you. That is much more eloquent then I could have put it

Time for some cakey wakey and wacky tobaccie 2

so what do i do when I am playing with a guy who has daemons and I claim the force weapon is insta kill, he says its identical to instant death so it is the same, Should I claim all of my daemon rules then, (eg strikes at initiative 1 on the charge, ) or should i tell him to suck it as I insta kill his bloodthirster?

Grey Knight Luke wrote:so what do i do when I am playing with a guy who has daemons and I claim the force weapon is insta kill, he says its identical to instant death so it is the same, Should I claim all of my daemon rules then, (eg strikes at initiative 1 on the charge, ) or should i tell him to suck it as I insta kill his bloodthirster?

First you explain that you would prefer to play by the rules. You then ask him to read the rule out of your codex, showing that the Rules say it is not Instant Death. If he still will not relent, offer him the compromise of "If my NFW no longer 'Slay Outright', then in return I want all your Daemons to actually count as Daemons for any and all Effects my Grey Knights have."

If he refuses the compromise, tell him to suck it and play the RaW.

You instakill the thirster if it doesn't have the 2+ save thing.

Your force weapon is defined in your codex. It works differently then the BBB force weapon. Same thing with your:
smoke launchers
assault cannons
teleport homers
storm sheilds
... the list goes on

frgsinwntr wrote:You instakill the thirster if it doesn't have the 2+ save thing.

Your force weapon is defined in your codex. It works differently then the BBB force weapon. Same thing with your:
smoke launchers
assault cannons
teleport homers
storm sheilds
... the list goes on

Well, as you said, a "Nemesis Force Weapon" follows its own rules. Ergo, it is NOT a "Force Weapon" (As defined by the BRB), but a "Nemesis Force Weapon", so the Blessing of the Blood God will not provide the 2+ save against a NFW, because it only provides the 2+ save against wounds caused by "psychic powers or force weapons"

Yup, RAW only nurglings (and everything else mentioned) are daemons.
This'll be fixed when DH gets a codex update, or maybe get at least some errata.
But for now that's how you should play it, because that is how the codex was designed. It might end up being crazy overpowered if all models with the Daemons special rule were daemons under the DH codex, just be happy you get great advantages against those models mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:You instakill the thirster if it doesn't have the 2+ save thing.

Your force weapon is defined in your codex. It works differently then the BBB force weapon. Same thing with your:
smoke launchers
assault cannons
teleport homers
storm sheilds
... the list goes on

Well, as you said, a "Nemesis Force Weapon" follows its own rules. Ergo, it is NOT a "Force Weapon" (As defined by the BRB), but a "Nemesis Force Weapon", so the Blessing of the Blood God will not provide the 2+ save against a NFW, because it only provides the 2+ save against wounds caused by "psychic powers or force weapons"

Thus proving once again that for every crazy disadvantage DH and WH have, they have something that is a great advantage.

Canonness Rory wrote:Thus proving once again that for every crazy disadvantage DH and WH have, they have something that is a great advantage.

QFT. As 3rd edition Codex's go, the Hunter Codex's are actually pretty powerful if you know how to use them.

ummm, if it's a deamon, shouldn't it count as a deamon?

Emperors Faithful wrote:ummm, if it's a deamon, shouldn't it count as a deamon?

Show me the rules that back that up. That's like me saying, it's a Space Marine, it should have 10's for all stats and a 0+ invulnerable save.

Emperors Faithful wrote:ummm, if it's a deamon, shouldn't it count as a deamon?

And all Eldar should count as Psykers. Game balance dictates otherwise.

combo wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:ummm, if it's a deamon, shouldn't it count as a deamon?

And all Eldar should count as Psykers. Game balance dictates otherwise.

Oh and All Tau should be Immune to Psychic Powers, because ya know they don't do the whole warp thing.

Again, Game Balance and the rules state otherwise.

Instant death is the same thing as killed outright from a RAI perspective. Just for some reason they worded it differently. Check the text for force weapons from other older codices as a reference.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Instant death is the same thing as killed outright from a RAI perspective. Just for some reason they worded it differently. Check the text for force weapons from other older codices as a reference.

G

Yes, but guess what, this isn't 3rd anymore. In 5th, Instant Death is a VERY specific rule, which the NFW does not inflict.

Also unless you are the author of the codex, do not even attempt to try and guess what the RaI is. For all we know this was all part of a GW master plan to allow NFW to kill 2 + wound Daemons where nothing else can, thus reinforcing the Grey Knights as an Anti Daemon Force.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Instant death is the same thing as killed outright from a RAI perspective. Just for some reason they worded it differently. Check the text for force weapons from other older codices as a reference.

G

this can be read the other way however.

"If GW wanted the NFW to stay the same as a regular Force Weapon they'd of kept the wording the same, or mentioned that the new force weapon rules includes all force weapons, including Nemisis ones."

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:ummm, if it's a deamon, shouldn't it count as a deamon?

Show me the rules that back that up. That's like me saying, it's a Space Marine, it should have 10's for all stats and a 0+ invulnerable save.

no, that is like saying that 'all space marines benefit from X' and this line would affect DA, BA, Space wolves, BT and vanilla SM despite the codex of its origin. Which believe it or not is actually a common reading to a line such as this.

This can be a dumb conversation except for the fact that on page 20 the DH codex fully discloses what is meant by the term 'Daemons'. And RAW speaking here, most of what is listed in that paragraph no longer exist, and a good majority of the units in the daemon codex are *not* found in that paragraph.

Which is why pure RAW is a pretty dumb way to play the game. We can chock this one up with Banshee masks that RAI is pretty darn clear on this and virtually kicks RAW in the balls on this one.


And for all those RAW crazy players; the #1 rule, even greater than the know all see all RAW, is from page 2 of the RB: "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important!"..."So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines"

padixon wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:ummm, if it's a deamon, shouldn't it count as a deamon?

Show me the rules that back that up. That's like me saying, it's a Space Marine, it should have 10's for all stats and a 0+ invulnerable save.

no, that is like saying that 'all space marines benefit from X' and this line would affect DA, BA, Space wolves, BT and vanilla SM despite the codex of its origin. Which believe it or not is actually a common reading to a line such as this.

This can be a dumb conversation except for the fact that on page 20 the DH codex fully discloses what is meant by the term 'Daemons'. And RAW speaking here, most of what is listed in that paragraph no longer exist, and a good majority of the units in the daemon codex are *not* found in that paragraph.

Which is why pure RAW is a pretty dumb way to play the game. We can chock this one up with Banshee masks that RAI is pretty darn clear on this and virtually kicks RAW in the balls on this one.


And for all those RAW crazy players; the #1 rule, even greater than the know all see all RAW, is from page 2 of the RB: "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important!"..."So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines"

Stop quoting the page 2 rule first of all, Gwar has already highlighted the flaws of such an arguement so I wont bother.

Secondly lets take "And they shall know no fear" BT and DA will only get it if it is listed in there codex or directly says in their codex to refer to the rules in the space marine codex. They dont automatically get it because they are space marines.

Hence daemons arent automatically counted as being effected by Grey Hunters weaponry just because they are demons.

combo wrote:Stop quoting the page 2 rule first of all, Gwar has already highlighted the flaws of such an arguement so I wont bother.

Secondly lets take "And they shall know no fear" BT and DA will only get it if it is listed in there codex or directly says in their codex to refer to the rules in the space marine codex. They dont automatically get it because they are space marines.

Hence daemons arent automatically counted as being effected by Grey Hunters weaponry just because they are demons.

QFT. If we use Page 2 as a Crux, then the game just gets silly. If I am playing you, I quote page two and say "My Space Marines should have a rule saying they win on a 0+". You disagree and we rolloff for it, I win the rolloff and I win the game. If I lose the Roll off, I quote Page 2 Again saying you should auto Lose on a 0+ ETC ETC ETC ETC. Yes that is a silly case but it is EXACTLY the same as what people trying to Claim that Units from Codex: Chaos Daemons are affected by Grey Knight Stuff

Please, if you are going to post in a Forum that is solely for the discussion of how the rules work, don't try and use Page 2 or RaI.

Please, if you are going to post in a Forum that is solely for the discussion of how the rules work, don't try and use Page 2 or RaI.

Heh, is that what it's for? I thought it was Stelek's...I mean Gwar's...private playground. It's like throwing a ball of yarn to a cat. In a couple of more posts, someone will say "But isn't a demon a demon?" and then Gwar can yell they are cheaters and spend his time telling them why they are wrong. But I guess it keeps him off the streets.

mikhaila wrote:Please, if you are going to post in a Forum that is solely for the discussion of how the rules work, don't try and use Page 2 or RaI.

Heh, is that what it's for? I thought it was Stelek's...I mean Gwar's...private playground. It's like throwing a ball of yarn to a cat. In a couple of more posts, someone will say "But isn't a demon a demon?" and then Gwar can yell they are cheaters and spend his time telling them why they are wrong. But I guess it keeps him off the streets.

Someone already posted "But isn't a demon a demon?" and I told them that no it was not.

Oh and to do so is cheating .

You need to keep up with the times man!

Gwar! wrote:If we use Page 2 as a Crux, then the game just gets silly. If I am playing you, I quote page two and say "My Space Marines should have a rule saying they win on a 0+". You disagree and we rolloff for it, I win the rolloff and I win the game. If I lose the Roll off, I quote Page 2 Again saying you should auto Lose on a 0+ ETC ETC ETC ETC. Yes that is a silly case but it is EXACTLY the same as what people trying to Claim that Units from Codex: Chaos Daemons are affected by Grey Knight Stuff

Please, if you are going to post in a Forum that is solely for the discussion of how the rules work, don't try and use Page 2 or RaI.

As a point of order, Gwar!, I'd suggest you try and stay away from arguments like this, which are logical fallacies. IN fact, this is probably the best example of reductio ad absurdum I've ever seen.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

Gwar! wrote:If we use Page 2 as a Crux, then the game just gets silly. If I am playing you, I quote page two and say "My Space Marines should have a rule saying they win on a 0+". You disagree and we rolloff for it, I win the rolloff and I win the game. If I lose the Roll off, I quote Page 2 Again saying you should auto Lose on a 0+ ETC ETC ETC ETC. Yes that is a silly case but it is EXACTLY the same as what people trying to Claim that Units from Codex: Chaos Daemons are affected by Grey Knight Stuff

Please, if you are going to post in a Forum that is solely for the discussion of how the rules work, don't try and use Page 2 or RaI.

As a point of order, Gwar!, I'd suggest you try and stay away from arguments like this, which are logical fallacies. IN fact, this is probably the best example of reductio ad absurdum I've ever seen.

Wait what's the best example? Using Fluff as Rules or me?

-Confused-

There already is a rulebook that tries for fluff, it's called Codex: Movie Marines and it's a disaster.
Fluff and rules are entirely different things, otherwise the game would get batspit crazy real quick.

Gwar! wrote:

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

Gwar! wrote:If we use Page 2 as a Crux, then the game just gets silly. If I am playing you, I quote page two and say "My Space Marines should have a rule saying they win on a 0+". You disagree and we rolloff for it, I win the rolloff and I win the game. If I lose the Roll off, I quote Page 2 Again saying you should auto Lose on a 0+ ETC ETC ETC ETC. Yes that is a silly case but it is EXACTLY the same as what people trying to Claim that Units from Codex: Chaos Daemons are affected by Grey Knight Stuff

Please, if you are going to post in a Forum that is solely for the discussion of how the rules work, don't try and use Page 2 or RaI.

As a point of order, Gwar!, I'd suggest you try and stay away from arguments like this, which are logical fallacies. IN fact, this is probably the best example of reductio ad absurdum I've ever seen.

Wait what's the best example? Using Fluff as Rules or me?

-Confused-

Using Fluff as Rules is a flawed and unbalanced state, but my comment was directed at you.

Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy in which you derive a concept or proposition to the point where the argument is untenable because of (normally) hyperbole. Since no one in their right mind would utilize rule 2 in the way you describe it being abused, you have reduced the argument to absurdity, which does NOT defend your point, because it would be impossible to argue the other side.

Consider the example utilizing RAW reduced to absurdity. At multiple points in the rulebook, it states that if I am new, or lack sufficient models for a force, I may, in friendly games, utilize any models I have, even if from different codices. From this example, if I were to purchase only a few specific models, using RAW, I could argue that I may field an army with Abaddon(or Calgar, or Eldrad), Vendettas, and troops of ork boyz.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

Gwar! wrote:If we use Page 2 as a Crux, then the game just gets silly. If I am playing you, I quote page two and say "My Space Marines should have a rule saying they win on a 0+". You disagree and we rolloff for it, I win the rolloff and I win the game. If I lose the Roll off, I quote Page 2 Again saying you should auto Lose on a 0+ ETC ETC ETC ETC. Yes that is a silly case but it is EXACTLY the same as what people trying to Claim that Units from Codex: Chaos Daemons are affected by Grey Knight Stuff

Please, if you are going to post in a Forum that is solely for the discussion of how the rules work, don't try and use Page 2 or RaI.

As a point of order, Gwar!, I'd suggest you try and stay away from arguments like this, which are logical fallacies. IN fact, this is probably the best example of reductio ad absurdum I've ever seen.

Wait what's the best example? Using Fluff as Rules or me?

-Confused-

Using Fluff as Rules is a flawed and unbalanced state, but my comment was directed at you.

Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy in which you derive a concept or proposition to the point where the argument is untenable because of (normally) hyperbole. Since no one in their right mind would utilize rule 2 in the way you describe it being abused, you have reduced the argument to absurdity, which does NOT defend your point, because it would be impossible to argue the other side.

Consider the example utilizing RAW reduced to absurdity. At multiple points in the rulebook, it states that if I am new, or lack sufficient models for a force, I may, in friendly games, utilize any models I have, even if from different codices. From this example, if I were to purchase only a few specific models, using RAW, I could argue that I may field an army with Abaddon(or Calgar, or Eldrad), Vendettas, and troops of ork boyz.

Yes, but you must understand, that the mention of that is an exception, not the rule. The main Premise of the game is that you have a full, legal army and that you follow the rules as written in the rulebook.

Using page 2 in the way I describes is ridiculous, but it is exactly the same as what was being proposed, that is, to fundamentally alter the balance of the rules because you think it should be that way.

It is not exactly the same, because you are taking the stance to an extreme state, is what the fallacy (and I) are saying.

(Note before I continue: As a DH player, I am saddened that the definition of Daemon is exclusionary, but I accept it. That's not why I'm discussing this with you. I'm merely trying to point out what I've noticed is a fairly consistent flaw in your arguments.)

There is a vast difference between "Hey, my stuff works on Daemons, your things are called Daemons, can we agree these terms are identical?" to "Hey, I want to win, I have a very flimsy reason I should. Let me."

It's like if I asked my friend to loan me ten dollars, as opposed to mugging someone.

Utilizing rule 2 to agree that you can affect daemons with DH stuff is understandable, agreeable, and fits the setting.
On the other hand, Marines have lost battles, and wars, and while super-HUMAN, are known to fall. Trying to utilize rule 2 to win automatically is not agreeable, only by the slimmest margins understandable, and highly contestable in the fluff.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:Utilizing rule 2 to agree that you can affect daemons with DH stuff is understandable, agreeable, and fits the setting.
On the other hand, Marines have lost battles, and wars, and while super-HUMAN, are known to fall. Trying to utilize rule 2 to win automatically is not agreeable, only by the slimmest margins understandable, and highly contestable in the fluff.

In your opinion. In mine it is the opposite. Who are you to say my view is any less valid?

See, it is the same.

But surely you must adhere to the most important rule just as much as you should adhere to each and every other rule with all your heart. Who are we to pick and choose which rules we follow?

"If we use Page 2 as a Crux, then the game just gets silly."

As silly as Daemonhunters not affecting Daemons in the latest editions? Silliness is in the eye of the beholder. Those who live by the rules, die by the rules, and cannot ignore the rules just because they crack a hole below the waterline in their iron frigates of self-righteousness. Anything else is hypocritical!

Keyasa wrote:But surely you must adhere to the most important rule just as much as you should adhere to each and every other rule with all your heart. Who are we to pick and choose which rules we follow?

"If we use Page 2 as a Crux, then the game just gets silly."

As silly as Daemonhunters not affecting Daemons in the latest editions? Silliness is in the eye of the beholder. Those who live by the rules, die by the rules, and cannot ignore the rules just because they crack a hole below the waterline in their iron frigates of self-righteousness. Anything else is hypocritical!

Errrm, ok... how does one play by the rules if you use the rules to ignore the rules? It just becomes a Circular illogical nightmare.

I am not "picking and Choosing" what rules to use.

Keyasa wrote:But surely you must adhere to the most important rule just as much as you should adhere to each and every other rule with all your heart. Who are we to pick and choose which rules we follow?

"If we use Page 2 as a Crux, then the game just gets silly."

As silly as Daemonhunters not affecting Daemons in the latest editions? Silliness is in the eye of the beholder. Those who live by the rules, die by the rules, and cannot ignore the rules just because they crack a hole below the waterline in their iron frigates of self-righteousness. Anything else is hypocritical!

I honestly dont think its silly at all. from a game balance perspective I dont think its silly at all.

But a circular illogical nightmare that you have reached through the complete embracing of the rules. You may find peace in your soul knowing that you followed the rule that lets you ignore the rules. It is a harmonious state of being. I find it strange that one can discount the most important rule and yet so vehemently defend the other rules; no matter what future conclusions are drawn, we are still tarnished by the fact that we ignored the first rule, and in doing so our rule judgments become tarnished likewise.

I love the 40k, but sometimes these rules battles feel like an argument over a game of Kerrplunk.

Edit: I'm not even from America, what's with the flag of the brave?

Keyasa wrote:Edit: I'm not even from America, what's with the flag of the brave?

Most likely an Error in DakkaDakka's Geolocation Algorythms or your ISP playing Silly Buggers. PM a Moderator and ask to get it locked (I have mine locked for example. I am A Limey but live in Potatoville across the sea )

Forgive my smoked out musings on the rules by the way, its very late and I just enjoyed a rare Necron victory over the Nidzilla! Good luck in potatoville, I always love visiting the family down Cork way and across in Mayo. Cead Mille Failte!

this discussion beautifully illustrates why RAW is not always the way to go and RAI has it's place.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:this discussion beautifully illustrates why RAW is not always the way to go and RAI has it's place.

G

Errr... how exactly? RaW is fine as it is.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:ummm, if it's a deamon, shouldn't it count as a deamon?

Show me the rules that back that up. That's like me saying, it's a Space Marine, it should have 10's for all stats and a 0+ invulnerable save.

Ummm...

I didn't mean that, i just mean if it is in the deamon codex (a.k.a nurgling) then wouldn't it be a deamon? I don't see how it can't be a deamon if it was born of the warp (isn't that what a deamon is?)

Just as pretty much everything in Space Marines codex is a Space Marine.

Or everything in the IG codex is basically human. (Yes there are variants, but I mean they aren't freaking deamons)

I never meant to meddle with the stats. You get weak deamons and strong deamons in the Deamon codex, but aren't they all deamons?

Gwar! wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:Much like how allies rules are not in the IG or SM codex, but their existence in the WH and DH codex allows IG or SM to ally with Inquisition units, the Daemons codex can allow the DH stuff to work against it. It seems to do this explicitly on page 24. So, the Daemon's codex seems to adds to the DH list of what counts as Daemons.

No, it doesn't. Any time Daemons is referred to in the DH codex, it refers to ONLY those things listed in the DH codex. Nothing Else.

So, you're saying, demonhunters codex special rules used to combat demons don't work against demons? Because codex demons came out with new units later, and they added an 'a' in the word Daemon?

GIVE ME A BREEEAAAAKKKK

Major TFG move

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:Much like how allies rules are not in the IG or SM codex, but their existence in the WH and DH codex allows IG or SM to ally with Inquisition units, the Daemons codex can allow the DH stuff to work against it. It seems to do this explicitly on page 24. So, the Daemon's codex seems to adds to the DH list of what counts as Daemons.

No, it doesn't. Any time Daemons is referred to in the DH codex, it refers to ONLY those things listed in the DH codex. Nothing Else.

So, you're saying, demonhunters codex special rules used to combat demons don't work against demons? Because codex demons came out with new units later, and they added an 'a' in the word Daemon?

GIVE ME A BREEEAAAAKKKK

Major TFG move

No, it's because the rules just basically suck when you try to merge the two. In other words, where do you draw the line? Try figuring out the most logical blend of the Daemonic Special Rules on pg. 49 of the DH codex and the rules contained in the Daemons codex. Your head will explode.

Some conversions are obvious and not too much a stretch; sacred incense versus Bloodthirsters, for example. Others are just a complete failure, like anything that applies to Instability tests. Yes, you can figure out something that works, but ultimately it's all going to be some sort of house rule, or based on the allowance of your tourney organizer.

The rules are just horribly outdated. It's a big tip-off that a primarily assault-based army has no frag grenades.

apwill4765 wrote:So, you're saying, demonhunters codex special rules used to combat demons don't work against demons? Because codex demons came out with new units later, and they added an 'a' in the word Daemon?

GIVE ME A BREEEAAAAKKKK

Major TFG move

Wow, way to utterly 100% Fail at both reading and Understanding.

Firstly, the Spelling is the same.
Secondly, the rules clearly list out what counts as a Daemon. The rules do not mention ANY unit in the Codex: Chaos Daemons Armylist (Exception of Nurglings) and thus do not apply to them. If I am TFG because I play by the rules, I hope you don't mind me calling you a Massive Cheater

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:So, you're saying, demonhunters codex special rules used to combat demons don't work against demons? Because codex demons came out with new units later, and they added an 'a' in the word Daemon?

GIVE ME A BREEEAAAAKKKK

Major TFG move

Wow, way to utterly 100% Fail at both reading and Understanding.

Firstly, the Spelling is the same.
Secondly, the rules clearly list out what counts as a Daemon. The rules do not mention ANY unit in the Codex: Chaos Daemons Armylist (Exception of Nurglings) and thus do not apply to them. If I am TFG because I play by the rules, I hope you don't mind me calling you a Massive Cheater

However it is spelled, the rules in the DH codex were written BEFORE codex: demons was released. So yes, you are TFG, and this has never even been an issue in any game I've played against a demons player. I guess I run into a bunch of crazy people who realize that demons are, durr, demons.

RAW serves you pretty well in most discussions, Gwar, but in this case you just seem ridiculous. Demons are Demons, and the demonhunters rules to combat demons should affect demons.

And you aren't TFG for playing by the rules, you are TFG for scouring each book and manipulating the rules to create crazy loopholes. Oh, a comma here means that valks can't disembark normally. Woops, Nork can board a vendetta because the rules for ogryns only say that they can't board valks. It is people like you that come up with this crap. I mean really, cmon. Now GW has to come out with errata that says demons are demons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and another thing, the damn codex: demons specifically mentions that demonhunters are specifically trained to destroy their kind. Or maybe it's just a coincidence and the rules shouldn't affect them. /rolls eyes

Pg 24 btw, a whole page on the demonhunters

apwill4765 wrote:RAW serves you pretty well in most discussions, Gwar, but in this case you just seem ridiculous. Demons are Demons, and the demonhunters rules to combat demons should affect demons.

Well Bugger me Sideways, I hadden't tho... oh wait, they DO still affect Daemons, namely the Daemons listed on Page 20. How Amazing is that!

apwill4765 wrote:And you aren't TFG for playing by the rules, you are TFG for scouring each book and manipulating the rules to create crazy loopholes. Oh, a comma here means that valks can't disembark normally. Woops, Nork can board a vendetta because the rules for ogryns only say that they can't board valks. It is people like you that come up with this crap. I mean really, cmon.

Errrm... You can't disembark from a Valk because you can't get within 2" of an Acess point.... and Nork Cannot board a Vendetta because the Rules for the vendetta are a Subsection of the Valkyrie rules, and as such all vendettas follow the rules for Valkyries. If you are gonna Insult me at least do it right.

Now GW has to come out with errata that says demons are demons?

Yes, and until they do claiming Grey Knights Affect Units from Codex: Chaos Daemons is cheating.

apwill4765 wrote:And another thing, the damn codex: demons specifically mentions that demonhunters are specifically trained to destroy their kind. Or maybe it's just a coincidence and the rules shouldn't affect them. /rolls eyes

Oh really? Please quote to me the part of THE RULES that says that? I cannot seem to find it in my Codex.

1. No one is insulting you, you are being TFG. And I suspect trolling. Those aren't insults, just facts.

2. Valks are a transport vehicle that you absolutely can disembark from. No one agrees with your point of view except Those FGs. This includes tournament organizers at GW hq in glen burnie, and in every single game I've played since the rules came out. It's a scenic base, and you have absolutely no imagination to think that a valk/vend cannot hover low enough to disembark. The rules specifically state that the representations on the board are only static approximations of a dynamic environment.

3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there



Also, pg 27. Daemon, this rule affects every model in this army. They're demons. Period. Demonhunters rules affect demons, and a slight Unintended change in the terminology of a subsequent codex doesn't cahnge that

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

Gwar! wrote:Massive Cheater

Umm, wouldn't rule two telling him that that it okay keep him from being a cheater? Rule two may not be great for RaW discussions, but it does still exist. In the actual application of the rules in a game, I hardly see how following rule two is cheating.

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Massive Cheater

Umm, wouldn't rule two telling him that that it okay keep him from being a cheater? Rule two may not be great for RaW discussions, but it does still exist. In the actual application of the rules in a game, I hardly see how following rule two is cheating.

Rule two also lets me roll a 1+ and Autowin. Rule two in the context of a Rules Discussion is worse than meaningless, as I have pointed out about 9001 times in this thread.

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

Good, another win for me. I hope you enjoy playing whatever game it is you play, cause it Certainly is not Warhammer 40,000.

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

Good, another win for me. I hope you enjoy playing whatever game it is you play, cause it Certainly is not Warhammer 40,000.

Actually, you're a bit confused. I play 40k, you play "Who's the best at Rules Lawyering"

enjoy

And I'm really glad you consider that a win =) berating your opponent into not playing with you obviously gives you more joy than the actual game. Hope you don't run out of opponents man

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

Good, another win for me. I hope you enjoy playing whatever game it is you play, cause it Certainly is not Warhammer 40,000.

Actually, you're a bit confused. I play 40k, you play "Who's the best at Rules Lawyering"

enjoy

Last I checked people played 40k by using the rules.

Shocking I know

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

Good, another win for me. I hope you enjoy playing whatever game it is you play, cause it Certainly is not Warhammer 40,000.

Actually, you're a bit confused. I play 40k, you play "Who's the best at Rules Lawyering"

enjoy

Last I checked people played 40k by using the rules.

Shocking I know

Again, you are confused. Most people play this game using:

1. THE RULES (to quote you)

2. COMMON SENSE

TFGs ignore the second part

Gwar! wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Massive Cheater

Umm, wouldn't rule two telling him that that it okay keep him from being a cheater? Rule two may not be great for RaW discussions, but it does still exist. In the actual application of the rules in a game, I hardly see how following rule two is cheating.

Rule two also lets me roll a 1+ and Autowin. Rule two in the context of a Rules Discussion is worse than meaningless, as I have pointed out about 9001 times in this thread.

You didn't refute that you can't call someone a cheater (for following rule two)...

Unfortunately, gwar is right, although being right does not preclude you from being TFG.

apwill4765 wrote:
2. Valks are a transport vehicle that you absolutely can disembark from. No one agrees with your point of view except Those FGs. This includes tournament organizers at GW hq in glen burnie, and in every single game I've played since the rules came out. It's a scenic base, and you have absolutely no imagination to think that a valk/vend cannot hover low enough to disembark. The rules specifically state that the representations on the board are only static approximations of a dynamic environment.

Valks are a transport that you probably can't disembark from (whether or not you can depends on whether or not disembarking is measured horizontally or horizontally and vertically, something not explicitly stated in the RB.)
Everyone just houserules it that they can.

apwill4765 wrote:
3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

Fluff is not rules. Fluff cannot be used to support arguments about rules. Otherwise everything other than IG would be totally unstoppable.

apwill4765 wrote:
Also, pg 27. Daemon, this rule affects every model in this army. They're demons. Period. Demonhunters rules affect demons, and a slight Unintended change in the terminology of a subsequent codex doesn't change that

Refer to the earlier point about inquisitors (i.e. read the whole thread)
Basically, things in different codexes with the same name don't have the same rules (unless they do). For example:
GK storm shields are not SM storm shields, even though they have the same name.
Fleet in the 'nids codex is the same as Fleet in the Eldar codex (although if 'nids were still at 3rd ed it wouldn't be.)

when you figure that out I'll salute you bro. If I could explain it to ya I surely would.

G

Crucius wrote:Unfortunately, gwar is right, although being right does not preclude you from being TFG.

apwill4765 wrote:
2. Valks are a transport vehicle that you absolutely can disembark from. No one agrees with your point of view except Those FGs. This includes tournament organizers at GW hq in glen burnie, and in every single game I've played since the rules came out. It's a scenic base, and you have absolutely no imagination to think that a valk/vend cannot hover low enough to disembark. The rules specifically state that the representations on the board are only static approximations of a dynamic environment.

Valks are a transport that you probably can't disembark from (whether or not you can depends on whether or not disembarking is measured horizontally or horizontally and vertically, something not explicitly stated in the RB.)
Everyone just houserules it that they can.

apwill4765 wrote:
3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

Fluff is not rules. Fluff cannot be used to support arguments about rules. Otherwise everything other than IG would be totally unstoppable.

apwill4765 wrote:
Also, pg 27. Daemon, this rule affects every model in this army. They're demons. Period. Demonhunters rules affect demons, and a slight Unintended change in the terminology of a subsequent codex doesn't change that

Refer to the earlier point about inquisitors (i.e. read the whole thread)
Basically, things in different codexes with the same name don't have the same rules (unless they do). For example:
GK storm shields are not SM storm shields, even though they have the same name.
Fleet in the 'nids codex is the same as Fleet in the Eldar codex (although if 'nids were still at 3rd ed it wouldn't be.)

Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

apwill4765 wrote:Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

You don't have to buy it. Doesn't make it any less true.

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

You don't have to buy it. Doesn't make it any less true.

Whatever you say buddy--I mean, what you're saying doesn't make sense or anything, but whatever you say. lol. Demons aren't demons, cool. I'm done posting on this subject, as we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

You don't have to buy it. Doesn't make it any less true.

Whatever you say buddy--I mean, what you're saying doesn't make sense or anything, but whatever you say. lol. Demons aren't demons, cool. I'm done posting on this subject, as we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

So, basically you know I am right and are not gonna post anymore because you know you are wrong?

Splendid.

Ya know, all you have to do is show me where in the Daemonhunters Codex it says to count models from Codex: Chaos Deamons...

Oh wait, you can't. Page 20 has a VERY specific list. If it is not on that list, GK stuff does not work. It's that simple.

Well this is all very...what's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes. Childish.

Anyway, the problem is that Daemons got a massive revamp after the Daemonhunter Codex. Simply put the DH rules no longer work right against the new Daemons. It's a bizarre situation but precedent is clear...if a piece of wargear or a rule no longer works, such as anything that would affect a Daemon's instability test, or if something isn't in the Codex (Space Marines that aren't Smurfed getting the finger) then you're stuffed.

Since the DH rules specifically state which units there powers work on the situation is pretty clear. Is it stupid as hell? Oh lord yes. And can you play it differently with a friend? Of course you can, since despite what Gwar says the idea is for both people to have fun not fanatically follow a rule set that seems to have been created by madmen. But from a pure rules stand point...most Daemons do not count as such when fighting the Grey Knights.

Jon Garrett wrote:despite what Gwar says the idea is for both people to have fun not fanatically follow a rule set that seems to have been created by madmen. But from a pure rules stand point...most Daemons do not count as such when fighting the Grey Knights.

I have issue with your statement there. I derive my fun from playing the game by the rules. Are you flat out telling my how I play the game is "Wrong"?

Furthermore, this is the Rules Section of DakkaDakka. In this forum, we discuss how the Rules as Written work, or how those Rules as Written interact with other Rules as Written. Of course, this is in the Knowlege that you can also ignore the rules if you want. it is Implicit in every post I would Imagine. Of course by then you stop Playing Warhammer 40,000 by Games Workshop but I digress.

If you want to Propose Rules, there is a whole section just for you.

Gwar! wrote:I have issue with your statement there. I derive my fun from playing the game by the rules. Are you flat out telling my how I play the game is "Wrong"?

Not wrong, but not the only perfectly legal way to play the game. Playing the game using TMIR is just as legal as your method (psst, the rules agree with me).

Gwar! wrote:it is Implicit in every post I would Imagine.

In a lot of your posts, you strongly imply that following TMIR is wrong.

Gwar! wrote:Of course by then you stop Playing Warhammer 40,000 by Games Workshop but I digress.

No, that someone is just playing 40k and utilizing TMIR.

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I have issue with your statement there. I derive my fun from playing the game by the rules. Are you flat out telling my how I play the game is "Wrong"?

Not wrong, but not the only perfectly legal way to play the game. Playing the game using TMIR is just as legal as your method (psst, the rules agree with me).

Gwar! wrote:it is Implicit in every post I would Imagine.

In a lot of your posts, you strongly imply that following TMIR is wrong.

Gwar! wrote:Of course by then you stop Playing Warhammer 40,000 by Games Workshop but I digress.

No, that someone is just playing 40k and utilizing TMIR.

So, if I were to play you, you would be perfectly 100% fine for me to use TMIR to insist that I win on a 0+, then you lose on a 0+, then I win on a 1+ etc etc Until I win a Roll off?

After all, the rules also say when 2 players cannot reach an agreement to roll off for it.

I hope you say yes, because saying no would make you seem just a tad hypocritical

Gwar! wrote:So, if I were to play you, you would be perfectly 100% fine for me to use TMIR to insist that I win on a 0+, then you lose on a 0+, then I win on a 1+ etc etc Until I win a Roll off?

No, I would just decline to play you. You're not being a cheater or playing the game wrong.

Gwar! wrote:I hope you say yes, because saying no would make you seem just a tad hypocritical

Hypocritical how? I'm saying that you can't ignore TMIR (only when making a RaW argument).

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So, if I were to play you, you would be perfectly 100% fine for me to use TMIR to insist that I win on a 0+, then you lose on a 0+, then I win on a 1+ etc etc Until I win a Roll off?

No, I would just decline to play you. You're not being a cheater or playing the game wrong.

Which means for all your trumpeting about TMIR you refuse to play by it.

Of course I'm not. I'm saying the idea is for both people to have fun. That means that both people enjoy themselves which may not happen with a completely strict adherence to a set of rules that can only be defined as poorly written.

I do, indeed, seem to recall somewhere something about a rule in the big rule book that was along the lines of have fun. Unfortunately I'm also running on 1 and 1/4 hours sleep so I can't actually recall the details.

Your interpretation of the rules themselves is correct. Your application of them? Not so much. If two people can't agree to let something go then it's rules as written, and I won't argue. If they want to come up with a fix for one of GW's many, many cock ups for themselves it doesn't stop, suddenly, being 40k as you so love to suggest.

Especially since they themselves say to do it.

Now, if you want to play fanatically rules as written, and ignore that rule for your games, that's fine for you. Others are going to want to want to play things differently. For example, they may want to play a scenario not in the current Big Rule Book, one they made themselves or from an old codex. It's not RAW, but it's still fun and, shock of shock, it's still 40k. Same thing applies to agreeing to patch up a feth up with a house rule.

Because, at the end of the day, the fact that I spend all damned day working means I wanna do something fun at the end of the day and some badly written sentence or codex in dire need of an update isn't going to stop me.

However, I am aware you very rarely change your opinion and on this issue you believe you're right with little to no change of changing your mind. It's either rules as written or not 40k for you. Fine. That's cool. Other people are gonna use that 'Have Fun' rule and, you know, have fun playing the game they've invested vast sums of money, time and effort into.

-Sigh- Why do people assume I am a Unforgiving Bastard?

If someone wants to try something for fun, I more than likely will humour them. What I won't do is let them just alter Game balance on a whim because they feel like it.

Also, you guys have to freaking remember, this is a Rules forum. What else am I gonna argue?

And I don't ever "believe" I am always right, I am always right because I argue what the actual rules say. If you want to ignore the Rules as Written on a Rules forum, or go crying to Page 2 whenever things don't go your way, that's your choice. I choose to stick to what I can actually prove and quote.

In this case of Daemonhunters and Daemons, I am Right, because I am following the rules as laid out in the codex. If people don't like that, that's their problem.

Anyway, this thread has gone totaly off the corner of 4th street and bananas because people couldn't accept I was right (If you look Closely, I answered the OP in the First Reply with a Single word. Nothing has changed since then, and I sure as hell didn't start the Argument)

Gwar! wrote:
Which means for all your trumpeting about TMIR you refuse to play by it.

Are you trying to get the thread locked by calling me a hypocrite? I'm not going to report you, but I would hate for a passerby to.

Anywho, I'm not being hypocritical in the least. My argument is that it is okay for two players to AGREE to play a game of 40k and twist/alter/ignore as many rules as they want AND that such a method of playing is just as correct as playing a strict RaW game. Me not agreeing to your rules twist because it would stop me from gaining enjoyment from the game does not conflict with my above argument at all. (course, it would prolly be just be easier to let you roll a dice and for me to say," well, damn, a fine game there, I'm gonna go find another game")

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Which means for all your trumpeting about TMIR you refuse to play by it.

Are you trying to get the thread locked by calling me a hypocrite? I'm not going to report you, but I would hate for a passerby to.

Anywho, I'm not being hypocritical in the least. My argument is that it is okay for two players to AGREE to play a game of 40k and twist/alter/ignore as many rules as they want AND that such a method of playing is just as correct as playing a strict RaW game. Me not agreeing to your rules twist because it would stop me from gaining enjoyment from the game does not conflict with my above argument at all. (course, it would prolly be just be easier to let you roll a dice and for me to say," well, damn, a fine game there, I'm gonna go find another game")

How can I get the thread locked by saying "In my Opinion, you are a hypocrite?" That is as much a "Personal Attack" or "Rude" as Boiled Water is Catholic (i.e. not at all)

Dude, I agreed with you on the rules. Look up. See? What I disagree with you on is the idea that a house rule or a temporary fix of one of the botches makes the game not 40k or cheating. For myself I love the game, probably a little too much, but I know the rules are messed up. A house rule isn't going to screw up the balance of the game. Games Workshop already got there.

Why do we assume you're an unforgiving bastard? Because that's how you put yourself across. You come over as the guy who won't let the new guy role for reserves after he declares movement or will yell at someone for doing something they remember at 4th ed, preferably until they urinate into there underwear. You certainly don't come across as someone likely to say, 'Yeah, it's cool if you embark on a Valkyrie. I mean, it's a frikin' grav vehicle, of course it can land. Just make sure it's the same for my meltaguns.'

Honestly, the image you project of yourself suggests you'd dive over your Space Wolves, across the table and gnaw the guys throat out if he suggested such a thing.

Ignore me, too late

Gwar! wrote:How can I get the thread locked by saying "In my Opinion, you are a hypocrite?" That is as much a "Personal Attack" or "Rude" as Boiled Water is Catholic (i.e. not at all)

So, me saying," In my opinion, you're a facist dog" isn't a personal attack against you? lolwut? No, it isn't very offensive (and it doesn't bother me), but I could see it being percieved as a violation of rule one.

Gwar! wrote:In this case of Daemonhunters and Daemons, I am Right

From a strict RaW understanding. Everyone who chooses to play otherwise isn't wrong or a cheater.

Jon Garrett wrote:Dude, I agreed with you on the rules. Look up. See? What I disagree with you on is the idea that a house rule or a temporary fix of one of the botches makes the game not 40k or cheating. For myself I love the game, probably a little too much, but I know the rules are messed up. A house rule isn't going to screw up the balance of the game. Games Workshop already got there.

Why do we assume you're an unforgiving bastard? Because that's how you put yourself across. You come over as the guy who won't let the new guy role for reserves after he declares movement or will yell at someone for doing something they remember at 4th ed, preferably until they urinate into there underwear. You certainly don't come across as someone likely to say, 'Yeah, it's cool if you embark on a Valkyrie. I mean, it's a frikin' grav vehicle, of course it can land. Just make sure it's the same for my meltaguns.'

Honestly, the image you project of yourself suggests you'd dive over your Space Wolves, across the table and gnaw the guys throat out if he suggested such a thing.

The problem Is, I have found that you give an Inch they take a Mile, and suddenly I become TFG for insisitng that my Meltaguns get to bonus Dice you after I let you disembark. As such, it is just a lot easier to do things by the book.

And I would never Jump over my Space Wolves, I'd Go around them. That gaks Expensive yo!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:How can I get the thread locked by saying "In my Opinion, you are a hypocrite?" That is as much a "Personal Attack" or "Rude" as Boiled Water is Catholic (i.e. not at all)

So, me saying," In my opinion, you're a fascist dog" isn't a personal attack against you? lolwut? No, it isn't very offensive (and it doesn't bother me), but I could see it being percieved as a violation of rule one.

In this case yes because I have not given any indication that I am A "fascist dog" (I'm actually a Liberal Socialist but there ya go), but I understand the example.

And thus I understand why you wanna do rules as written only. However, it isn't the only way to play and it isn't cheating or not 40k if you can find someone who won't try and violently shaft you with a house rule.

I think there is no arguing with Gwar We're playing Warhammer, not GWarhammer, so you should continue a discussion with other, more open minded players.

It seems to be an unfortunate oversight due to edition changes that Grey Knights aren't strictly allowed to use their abilities against the current Daemons. Personally, I would say that you should be allowed to gain the benefits, but unfortunately it is something an opponent could strictly call you out on.
It would be something you should discuss with opponents before a battle (as with all legacy codices that cause logical problems when RAW is strictly followed).

In the meantime, convert your bases with dead Nurglings and write about the exploits of all the horrific Nurglings that were Slain Outright by your Nemesis Force Weapons.

Amazing. Gwar is simultaneously guilty of False Dilemma,

So, if I were to play you, you would be perfectly 100% fine for me to use TMIR to insist that I win on a 0+, then you lose on a 0+, then I win on a 1+ etc etc Until I win a Roll off?

And Nirvana or Perfect Solution Fallacy

The problem Is, I have found that you give an Inch they take a Mile, and suddenly I become TFG for insisting that my Meltaguns get to bonus Dice you after I let you disembark. As such, it is just a lot easier to do things by the book.

And Argumentum ad nauseum

So, basically you know I am right and are not gonna post anymore because you know you are wrong?

Splendid.

...just to hold that in a gaming system, Demons are not Demons (or Daemons). Let's all just assume that the person across from us isn't going to be as fundamentalist in their views as Gwar is, and that reasonable people will work it out under TMIR .

Stop personally attacking Gwar! Hes not being TFG, he is on a forum debating Rules as Written.

I personally agree 100percent with him, in the real world however id have no problem house ruling.

But this isnt a forum discussing how we play the game, its a forum discussing how the rules are written.

Also whilst Gwar! may at times make his arguement look silly by taking opponents arguements to the illogicial conclusion I have a more balanced arguement to put forward.


Daemons = Demons right? Eldar = Psykers. By the logic that Daemons should be effected by the Demonhunters rules simply because they are named Demons, with no in rules reason to do so, surely all Eldar regardless of type should be effected by anti Psyker weaponry?

And yet if you were to argue that all Eldar should be effected by anti psyker weaponry, you'd definitely raise a few eyebrows. And yet the arguement is the same

combo wrote:
I have a more balanced arguement to put forward.


Daemons = Demons right? Eldar = Psykers. By the logic that Daemons should be effected by the Demonhunters rules simply because they are named Demons, with no in rules reason to do so, surely all Eldar regardless of type should be effected by anti Psyker weaponry?

And yet if you were to argue that all Eldar should be effected by anti psyker weaponry, you'd definitely raise a few eyebrows. And yet the arguement is the same

So lets ignore our malfunctioning reply servitor and go for your logic.

Demons = Demons
Eldar = psykers


Did you realize the difference between apple = apple and apple = green apple ?


It is :
Demon = Demon
Eldar = Eldar

Better example would be:

Necron = Necron?

No im afraid it isnt that simple. You are still having trouble getting beyond the problem of definition.

Demons are defined as different things in both codices. Therefore Demon(1) = Demon(2) are as different to each other as Eldar = Psyker.


I.E. in this sentence. All Demons(2) are Demons(2) but not all Demons(1) are Demons(2)

Demons(1) = Demons(2) is from a purely syntax logic point of view is identical to Eldar = Psykers.


Now that my question has been justified, can you answer it rather than suggesting improvements to it please?

Its slightly different because we actually have a list of Demons(3) that was subsequently replaced by Demons(1) in most locations.


IMO, RAW is fairly clear. You can't gain bonusses against the units that aren't listed there.
On the other hand, people who made an issue over it not working against demons would probably end up being people that I only played once.

I'm going to chalk this one up to another: RAI is slapping you in the face, but that is no help against TFG

as I said earlier, i would have no problem with an opponent house ruling this. But in a tournament I would like it to be clarified in advance by the TO before partaking in it.

However this is most definitely a forum for debating RAW, whether people then take what they learn here out to the tabletop is up to them and their opponent.

combo wrote:Stop personally attacking Gwar! Hes not being TFG, he is on a forum debating Rules as Written.

I personally agree 100percent with him, in the real world however id have no problem house ruling.

But this isnt a forum discussing how we play the game, its a forum discussing how the rules are written.

Also whilst Gwar! may at times make his arguement look silly by taking opponents arguements to the illogicial conclusion I have a more balanced arguement to put forward.

Daemons = Demons right? Eldar = Psykers. By the logic that Daemons should be effected by the Demonhunters rules simply because they are named Demons, with no in rules reason to do so, surely all Eldar regardless of type should be effected by anti Psyker weaponry?

And yet if you were to argue that all Eldar should be effected by anti psyker weaponry, you'd definitely raise a few eyebrows. And yet the arguement is the same

Thanks, and that is pretty much what I have been saying all along.

So Corum, you gonna start Attacking Combo now?

combo wrote:Stop personally attacking Gwar! Hes not being TFG, he is on a forum debating Rules as Written.

I personally agree 100percent with him, in the real world however id have no problem house ruling.

But this isnt a forum discussing how we play the game, its a forum discussing how the rules are written.

Also whilst Gwar! may at times make his arguement look silly by taking opponents arguements to the illogicial conclusion I have a more balanced arguement to put forward.


Daemons = Demons right? Eldar = Psykers. By the logic that Daemons should be effected by the Demonhunters rules simply because they are named Demons, with no in rules reason to do so, surely all Eldar regardless of type should be effected by anti Psyker weaponry?

And yet if you were to argue that all Eldar should be effected by anti psyker weaponry, you'd definitely raise a few eyebrows. And yet the arguement is the same

The argument is not the same, because you made an amusing error. You argued your case out of fluff. Eldar =/= psykers in the RULES of their codex. If there was a rule that said "all Eldar have the Psyker rule", then yes, they'd get trounced by anti-Psyker wargear. The difference is that Grey Knight rules say they do X to Daemons and ALL Daemons have the Daemon special rule. This would be ridiculously cut-and-dry IF there wasn't a list of "Daemons" in the Daemonhunter codex. Since there is, DH got boned.


And Gwar!, other than his wording (which you have little room to accuse anyone on), Corum did NOT attack you. He pointed out that your arguments are rather frequently flawed, and that debating with you is useless, given your strong stance on RaW.

(Small note: The calling of you a fascist, while strictly inaccurate, does fit when you take the alternate meaning (when used as a derogatory term, it refers to someone whose enforcement of rules, especially trivial ones, is overly aggressive and/or heavy-handed.) Which, as you yourself have stated, is how you play. You do so to prevent misuse of the rules, however you call people who disagree "cheaters", accuse them of not even playing the game correctly, and ignore a rule that allows them to do so.)

Now, personally, I don't think anything more is going to come out of this argument. Gwar! is not going to shift, a majority of people are going to disagree with him, there will be unnecessary rudeness, and in the end, we'll all resolve this our own way, in our gaming circles, as Games Workshop itself has told us to do.

As ive already pointed out the Demon rule defined in the Demonhunters is different from the Demon rule defined in the Codex: Chaos Demons codex. Therefore claiming that they are one in the same is questionable.

As I said earlier "All Demons(2) are Demons(2) but not all Demons(1) are Demons(2) "

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

You don't have to buy it. Doesn't make it any less true.

Whatever you say buddy--I mean, what you're saying doesn't make sense or anything, but whatever you say. lol. Demons aren't demons, cool. I'm done posting on this subject, as we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

So, basically you know I am right and are not gonna post anymore because you know you are wrong?

Splendid.

Ya know, all you have to do is show me where in the Daemonhunters Codex it says to count models from Codex: Chaos Deamons...

Oh wait, you can't. Page 20 has a VERY specific list. If it is not on that list, GK stuff does not work. It's that simple.

I get what has been put into question here, but it says that units that are Greater Daemons are considered Daemons. That is inclusive of anything that is a Greater Daemon. If this was not the case then would it not have to say otherwise? A Greater Daemon is a Daemon, and in the Codex: Chaos Daemons under the HQ unit information it lists the Greater Daemons that can be used to lead a Chaos Daemons army. If I did not consider the Greater Daemons in the Codex: Chaos Daemons as Daemons then is a Codex: Eldar specific Avatar excluded?

The wargear Sacred Incense works on Chaos models. Where do you draw the line on how a Chaos model is determined? I do not recall seeing anywhere specifically in the Chaos Space Marines or Chaos Daemons codex' that they are Chaos models. Did it say this in the 3rd Edition Codex'?

There has to be some room for interpretation. RAW is not always specific enough. I can see how most of the things specified would actually be excluding Chaos Daemons units, but Greater Daemons should, according to RAW, be easily susceptible to Grey Knight wargear and psychic abilities.

combo wrote:As ive already pointed out the Demon rule defined in the Demonhunters is different from the Demon rule defined in the Codex: Chaos Demons codex. Therefore claiming that they are one in the same is questionable.

As I said earlier "All Demons(2) are Demons(2) but not all Demons(1) are Demons(2) "

Which is accurate. I may not like it, but you're right. It was merely your first argument was incorrect, as it tried to make Eldar = Psykers. At least everyone arguing here, if they hadn't seen the list on page 20 of the DH codex, had a relatively valid argument. (Hell, I was on their side until I read the list.)


Also, as a general tip to people in this thread, in 40k, it's Daemon. Demon is only used in dialogue.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

combo wrote:As ive already pointed out the Demon rule defined in the Demonhunters is different from the Demon rule defined in the Codex: Chaos Demons codex. Therefore claiming that they are one in the same is questionable.

As I said earlier "All Demons(2) are Demons(2) but not all Demons(1) are Demons(2) "

Which is accurate. I may not like it, but you're right. It was merely your first argument was incorrect, as it tried to make Eldar = Psykers. At least everyone arguing here, if they hadn't seen the list on page 20 of the DH codex, had a relatively valid argument. (Hell, I was on their side until I read the list.)


Also, as a general tip to people in this thread, in 40k, it's Daemon. Demon is only used in dialogue.

So why is it when I make the exact same argument I get called a fascist? Hypocrisy is thick in this thread.

Gwar! I agree with you and I think that you have a record for being correct on RAW issues that is second to none. However you do come off as being abrasive. Your arguements are sound, but your presentation is a bit confrontational. I think that is why you were called a Fascist (however such an ad hominem is not condoned by me)

I still dont understand where this stemmed, on page 20 of the deamonhunters codex at the very bottom, in fac tthe very last listing, it says what a deamon is when the codex refers to one, which includes many things other than nurglings, greater demons, deamon packs which used to mean, bloodletters, plaguebearers, etc, but maybe not anymore, possesed vehicles(though in that case is says "like" the defiler, which since it doesnt specifically say just "defiler" that would lead me to believe even a soulgrinder would count as being a vehicle with a built in demonic possesion.

In any case, as arrogant as GWAR! can be, no offense you insufferable know-it-all jk, calling him names gets us nowhere. Also saying your auto-right gets us nowhere either, GWAR! and makes further discussion on topic rather hard.

So lets be adults and keep it on topic, and maybe lazy GW will notice, make force weapons clear, and make the deamons rule clear, comprende?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and DEAMON vs demon, is just the difference between old english or Britain vs US, like COLOUR vs COLOR, I know us americans, changin everything....

combo wrote:Gwar! I agree with you and I think that you have a record for being correct on RAW issues that is second to none. However you do come off as being abrasive. Your arguements are sound, but your presentation is a bit confrontational. I think that is why you were called a Fascist (however such an ad hominem is not condoned by me)

He was called a fascist as an example of how putting,"in my opinion" did not make something automatically polite. The rules on page 20 of the Daemonhunter codex are crystal clear (as crystal clear as GW can get). I only entered into this discussion because I was tired of Gwar! calling anyone who used TMIR a cheater and trying to make his way of playing 40k superior.

This discussion is definitely getting a lot more jnteresting.

G

You can always just Ignore Gwar.

Trasvi wrote:I think there is no arguing with Gwar We're playing Warhammer, not GWarhammer, so you should continue a discussion with other, more open minded players.

It seems to be an unfortunate oversight due to edition changes that Grey Knights aren't strictly allowed to use their abilities against the current Daemons. Personally, I would say that you should be allowed to gain the benefits, but unfortunately it is something an opponent could strictly call you out on.
It would be something you should discuss with opponents before a battle (as with all legacy codices that cause logical problems when RAW is strictly followed).

In the meantime, convert your bases with dead Nurglings and write about the exploits of all the horrific Nurglings that were Slain Outright by your Nemesis Force Weapons.

thank you for seeing the raw... It is a thing you need to discuss with your opponent... but by raw, chaos deamons are not deamons in the DH codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thehod wrote:You can always just Ignore Gwar.

Except Gwar is right :p

Well if people feel Gwar is getting under their skin, they dont have to read what he says.

(shrug) Eh, its actually kind of funny watching someone trying to justify "Deamons aren't Deamons!".

Emperors Faithful wrote:(shrug) Eh, its actually kind of funny watching someone trying to justify "Deamons aren't Deamons!".

Daemons are indeed Daemons. However Daemons are NOT Daemon PACKS.

As a GK player, I find this a sigh of releif. Since most of the special daemon rules are more of a hindrance than a benefit.

Any GK player that fights to have all of the Daemon rules in place should have his head examined.

The important point is we know all units except possibly soul grinders in the daemon codex are indeed daemons. This again shows the failing of using RAW to blindly interpret the rules. To say a daemon is not a daemon is looking for loop holes in regards to how the rules are written. Again I come back to the INAT FAQ that does not use RAW to interpret the majority of the rules that were questioned. Most of the rules in question were clarified. So using the INAT FAQ as an example how to solve rules disputed RAW is not always the best choice. I am okay with this as I am an advocate for common sense. I don't think anyone can say that to daemons are daemons based on common sense does not make sense. As Hod has said we could say they are angry critters from the warp but that is another description of daemons. Does the SM codec define what is a Space Marine? Does the eldar codex define what is an eldar? Does the ork codex define what is an ork? If you say yes to any of these I say you are basing this on fluff, not rules. In this particular case is could be important what rule/s we use to define what is a daemon since we want to know if a psychic power such as sanctuary works against say Bloodletters. If you truly believe a Bloodletter is not a daemon then by all means discuss it with your gaming group and TOs where you play. Don't be surprised if you get some funny looks or if no one wants to play you. You have a right to your opinion but so does everyone else and there may be instances where no one is interested in using RAW for this type of situation.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The important point is we know all units except possibly soul grinders in the daemon codex are indeed daemons. This again shows the failing of using RAW to blindly interpret the rules. To say a daemon is not a daemon is looking for loop holes in regards to how the rules are written. Again I come back to the INAT FAQ that does not use RAW to interpret the majority of the rules that were questioned. Most of the rules in question were clarified. So using the INAT FAQ as an example how to solve rules disputed RAW is not always the best choice. I am okay with this as I am an advocate for common sense. I don't think anyone can say that to daemons are daemons based on common sense does not make sense. As Hod has said we could say they are angry critters from the warp but that is another description of daemons. Does the SM codec define what is a Space Marine? Does the eldar codex define what is an eldar? Does the ork codex define what is an ork? If you say yes to any of these I say you are basing this on fluff, not rules. In this particular case is could be important what rule/s we use to define what is a daemon since we want to know if a psychic power such as sanctuary works against say Bloodletters. If you truly believe a Bloodletter is not a daemon then by all means discuss it with your gaming group and TOs where you play. Don't be surprised if you get some funny looks or if no one wants to play you. You have a right to your opinion but so does everyone else and there may be instances where no one is interested in using RAW for this type of situation.

G

If you're going to argue that RAI needs to be used in this situation, then you clearly do not know the Daemonhunter rules in question.

The fact is in many cases...they CANNOT be used in any logical way. Unless you can figure a way for fearless units to be caused to run away or fall back.

Many of the Daemonhunter rules require leadership checks from Daemons that they would all pass automatically now since they count as fearless. Other times they are woefully inadequate when you consider current basic leadership of daemons (10) compared to the older versions (7-8?)

However...at least all the disadvantages to Daemonhunters (GK's in particular) are in place. Without Number rules in particular. Sounds fair and logical huh?

The best way to use the Daemonhunter specific rules...is to simply not include any of them....its the only logical avenue.

hmmm, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of being a 'deamon hunter'?

thehod wrote:You can always just Ignore Gwar.

Modquisition on:

This thread has been reported. there have been mutliple attacks on posters in this thread, all violating Rule #1: BE POLITE.

Argue the issues at hand and avoid personal atatcks. If you cannot post without a snide comment or personal attack, then DON'T POST. As thehod noted above you can always put a poster on ignore. It does wonders.

Emperors Faithful wrote:hmmm, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of being a 'deamon hunter'?

to discuss RAI on this situation:
well the sad thing is the DH codex, written in 2002-2004 was put out to be a self contained gaming experience. The idea was that the deamon rules in the back of the dex would be the ones to be deamons and the powers were balanced when dealing with those units and 4th/3rd editioin rules with a friendly campaign. The codex was not written to have balanced powers with the newer codex deamons release or the 5th edition release.

I have pointed that out before and agree. Maybe the best solution would be to just shelf this codex until it can be updated.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have pointed that out before and agree. Maybe the best solution would be to just shelf this codex until it can be updated.

G

How about we just shelf your army till you get an update? Just as fair no?

If I was playing my daemons against DH I would have no issue with not recycling my daemons during the game.

G

Hmmm, but...hmmm.

The problem is that the Daemonhunter rules are so incredibly old at this point that you're better off discussing how to fix them in proposed rules.

The Daemonhunter rules clearly apply to every "Daemon Pack" and "Daemon Beast" in the Chaos Daemons codex. If you want to talk about what constitutes a "Daemon Pack" or "Daemon Beast", there's that Designer's Note on page eight and the Daemonic Infestation rule to consider. Hey, look, it's the one instance where RAW includes an element of RAI.

Daemons are daemons. I don't care what the RAW states in this instance.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Daemons are daemons. I don't care what the RAW states in this instance.

G

Inquisitors can use Exterminatus. I don't care what the RAW states in this instance.

I win automatically yay!

I'll drop a vortex grenade inside your battlebarge first...

BOOM !!!

Green Blow Fly wrote:Daemons are daemons. I don't care what the RAW states in this instance.

G

There's this old saying, "If you want a brown horse, any old horse won't do. How, then, can you say that a brown horse is a horse?"

Are Black Templars Space Marines? Obviously they are, but the rules in Codex: Space Marines don't apply to them. Are the units in Codex: Chaos Daemons daemons? Sure, but because they aren't on the Daemonhunter list, the Daemonhunter list rules don't apply to them because they aren't Daemonhunter's Daemons.

Tell that to your opponents or a TO and see what they have to say. I think you'll find your horse is still a horse regardless if it's striped, spotted or purple. Sure you can try to pass it off by saying they are just angry warp creatures but that's just another way to describe a daemon at the end of the day.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't care what the RAW states in this instance.

That is pure gold. 24k, you should make a necklace out of that one.

I wish I had room in my sig...this quote is like a metaphor for every rules issue you've brought up concerning the DH codex.

Looking at RAW, Gwar is definitely correct. The real problem here is that when the Daemonhunter's codex was written, the anti daemon rules were designed to deal with what was essentially a small section of the Chaos Marine codex. That is what the Daemonhunter rules were intended for. If these rules were applied to an entire army list it would simply be broken. Look at Sanctuary. A guy with sanctuary can sit on an objective, in a land raider and no Daemon can come within 3 inches of the landraider OR draw line of sight to it. So essentially, taking that objective is utterly impossible. Yeah...How is that fun? The daemon hunter's codex is just too old but RAI was definitely not intended to apply to the new Daemon Codex.

jsullivanlaw wrote:Looking at RAW, Gwar is definitely correct.

Yes, I am

The rest of your post is, sadly, the standard "Omg we must Play RaI" talk I despise, but thank you for your kind words.

If you keep looking into the mirror one day you'll be too blind to see. Sometimes I don't know where I am and I really don't give a damn. It's just like a left turn at a red light. I'll just buy myself a ticket right on down the line. I've always been a rambler and I've known I am right .

G

Deadshane1 wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't care what the RAW states in this instance.

That is pure gold. 24k, you should make a necklace out of that one.

I wish I had room in my sig...this quote is like a metaphor for every rules issue you've brought up concerning the DH codex.