iproxtaco wrote:I gave you an answer, also, the rules make the fluff as well. Get it right jeez.

Where is this answer? Please restate what happens when the rules say one thing and the fluff says another.

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

+2

Maybe look back through the thread jbunny?

It'd be easier if that's what it actually said.

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

Can either of you cite where in the Preferred Enemy rule it states this is the way it works?

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar which is in the Eldar codex.

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar aswell.

YES ROGER! I LOVE YOU <3 LOL

we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar which is in the Eldar codex.

White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

Yeah but this is roger. He doesnt make mistakes !!!

cheapbuster wrote:Yeah but this is roger. He doesnt make mistakes !!!

Roger is the bomb! He has proved even the best gamer at our FLGS wrong!

frgsinwntr wrote:White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

I always deep strike my units out of Landraiders.....

frgsinwntr wrote:

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar which is in the Eldar codex.

White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

The Eldar Codex is though.

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

iproxtaco wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar which is in the Eldar codex.

White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

The Eldar Codex is though.

And why does the Avatar count accoding to your logic?

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

I always deep strike my units out of Landraiders.....

Same, because I can do that with Chaos and Tau...

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

I always deep strike my units out of Landraiders.....

gate of infinity that is...

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

EDIT: You don't need a fluff = rules arguement for the Avatar. You should probably read their rules entry in the Eldar codex and it explains really well why they are considered Daemons.

There's a list a few pages back which gives what was in that codex.


The Avatar counts because it's stated as being a Daemon in it's rules, when perhaps it wouldn't have been considered one without it.

iproxtaco wrote:The Eldar Codex is though.

Of corse. "see page..." OMG THIS STUPID PAGE ISNT HERE!!!

iproxtaco wrote:
It'd be easier if that's what it actually said.

What do you mean by this comment? I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:The Eldar Codex is though.

Of corse. "see page..." OMG THIS STUPID PAGE ISNT HERE!!!

Maugan Ra has a built in executioner (see page 21...)

Page 21: Nope....

Pages 22-30: Nope...

Page 31: OHHHHHHHHHH HERE IT IS!!!

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:The Eldar Codex is though.

Of corse. "see page..." OMG THIS STUPID PAGE ISNT HERE!!!

Try page 24, the first rule under the Avatar's entry.

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

+1

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

+1

+3

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work. As long as the model/unit has a rule that refers to them as such a unit, then they are treated as one. Pg 61 of the CSM codex explains why I am arguing that the Lesser and Greater Daemons are affected.

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
It'd be easier if that's what it actually said.

What do you mean by this comment? I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

What? In what context? I don't recall exactly where or why I said that, and I was likely in response to something, and part of a larger post, so please specify.

cheapbuster wrote:

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

+1

+3

Sorry, I should have said +10, because that's how many more pages the entry was after the one stated!

this argument is stupid, we shold be arguing that a vindicare gets 4d6 shots against a monolith even though it says "weapons only ever roll a singel d6 for armour penatration"

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work. As long as the model/unit has a rule that refers to them as such a unit, then they are treated as one. Pg 61 of the CSM codex explains why I am arguing that the Lesser and Greater Daemons are affected.

Please quote the preferred enemy rule for me. I am at work and do not have a codex

cheapbuster wrote:this argument is stupid, we shold be arguing that a vindicare gets 4d6 shots against a monolith even though it says "weapons only ever roll a singel d6 for armour penatration"

It doesn't roll anything, there is no point arguing, it can't penetrate a monolith

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

iproxtaco wrote:

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
It'd be easier if that's what it actually said.

What do you mean by this comment? I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

What? In what context? I don't recall exactly where or why I said that, and I was likely in response to something, and part of a larger post, so please specify.

Ok so you don't know what you are saying? Congrats

People in this thread have said the rules make the fluff and the fluff makes the rules.

My follow up question to that is what happens when the rules and fluff say two different things?

Jbunny is right, there is no doubt that at the end of the day the rules are what you use in games, not the fluff, I hope that what we have said is enough to get you to stop this argument, if this was in real life, we would have wasted several hours discussing how one combat would have gone in a game, not the best when 1500 point games normally take an hour and a half if run smoothly, right?

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

yeah i agree with jbunny

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
It'd be easier if that's what it actually said.

What do you mean by this comment? I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

What? In what context? I don't recall exactly where or why I said that, and I was likely in response to something, and part of a larger post, so please specify.

Ok so you don't know what you are saying? Congrats

People in this thread have said the rules make the fluff and the fluff makes the rules.

My follow up question to that is what happens when the rules and fluff say two different things?

So, searching back, that was a response to a different person.

I've answered your question, look back as you made me look back for no reason.

Difference of opinion people, agree to disagree.

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

perfered enemy eldar. so does that include dark eldar as they have eldar in the name and, fluff wise, come from the same race ?

If you have answered then you should be able to restate the answer for me. I will just assume this means you have no answer and therefor all of your arguements are invalid.

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

perfered enemy eldar. so does that include dark eldar as they have eldar in the name and, fluff wise, come from the same race ?

If not, Harlequins are in both codi but are clearly Eldar, explain.

jbunny wrote:If you have answered then you should be able to restate the answer for me. I will just assume this means you have no answer and therefor all of your arguements are invalid.

No, you wanted one, I gave you one, you missed it and are unwilling to go and do a simple search for it, but you want be to look back for a throw-away statement that wasn't referring to you. Your unwillingness to look for it invalidates your argument actually.

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

perfered enemy eldar. so does that include dark eldar as they have eldar in the name and, fluff wise, come from the same race ?

If not, Harlequins are in both codi but are clearly Eldar, explain.

exactley, they are the same yet the prefered enemy only effects half of them

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

perfered enemy eldar. so does that include dark eldar as they have eldar in the name and, fluff wise, come from the same race ?

I don't recall any specific unit that comes with Preferred Enemy: Eldar without also coming with Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar, and the only unit that does is Vect.

Given that there's a model in the game with a rule that makes the distinction, I'd have no choice but to make that distinction too.

(Keep in mind, I'm not one of the people arguing that fluff=rules).

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

perfered enemy eldar. so does that include dark eldar as they have eldar in the name and, fluff wise, come from the same race ?

I don't recall any specific unit that comes with Preferred Enemy: Eldar without also coming with Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar, and the only unit that does is Vect.

Given that there's a model in the game with a rule that makes the distinction, I'd have no choice but to make that distinction too.

(Keep in mind, I'm not one of the people arguing that fluff=rules).

your point is invalid, who's to say the new 'crons wont after all they hate psychers

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

perfered enemy eldar. so does that include dark eldar as they have eldar in the name and, fluff wise, come from the same race ?

I don't recall any specific unit that comes with Preferred Enemy: Eldar without also coming with Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar, and the only unit that does is Vect.

Given that there's a model in the game with a rule that makes the distinction, I'd have no choice but to make that distinction too.

(Keep in mind, I'm not one of the people arguing that fluff=rules).

your point is invalid, who's to say the new 'crons wont after all they hate psychers

Which point? And how would it be invalid based on a codex that has not been released yet?

Is point is very valid. The development team and the author of Codex : Necrons will say.

iproxtaco wrote:Is point is very valid. The development team and the author of Codex : Necrons will say.

will say what? "Some of the new necrons will have prefered enemy eldar"

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Is point is very valid. The development team and the author of Codex : Necrons will say.

will say what? "Some of the new necrons will have prefered enemy eldar"

Lol.

You said, "whose to say the new crons codex won't have preferred enemy as they hate psykers". The author and the Development team will say.

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Is point is very valid. The development team and the author of Codex : Necrons will say.

will say what? "Some of the new necrons will have prefered enemy eldar"

Do you have advance knowledge of the Necron codex and that some units will have "Preferred Enemy: Eldar?"

If not, I'm pretty sure this has no point and is pretty much trolling.

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

perfered enemy eldar. so does that include dark eldar as they have eldar in the name and, fluff wise, come from the same race ?

I don't recall any specific unit that comes with Preferred Enemy: Eldar without also coming with Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar, and the only unit that does is Vect.

Given that there's a model in the game with a rule that makes the distinction, I'd have no choice but to make that distinction too.

(Keep in mind, I'm not one of the people arguing that fluff=rules).

your point is invalid, who's to say the new 'crons wont after all they hate psychers

Which point? And how would it be invalid based on a codex that has not been released yet?

"I don't recall any specific unit that comes with Preferred Enemy: Eldar without also coming with Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar, and the only unit that does is Vect." this one, just caus eyou dont recall one doesnt mean there isnt one or wont be one

iproxtaco wrote:

jbunny wrote:If you have answered then you should be able to restate the answer for me. I will just assume this means you have no answer and therefor all of your arguements are invalid.

No, you wanted one, I gave you one, you missed it and are unwilling to go and do a simple search for it, but you want be to look back for a throw-away statement that wasn't referring to you. Your unwillingness to look for it invalidates your argument actually.

Actually I did look at all of your post, and it is possible I missed it. Which is why I want you to state what happens when the rules do not match the fluff. It does not matter who your comment was referring to. I asked a direct question, and would like a direct response. You are refusing to give a direct answer to my question. The only thing i have found is you say that if the rules don't match the fluff there should be an FAQ. Ok but what do you do in the mean time? Not play the game?

iproxtaco wrote:You said, "whose to say the new crons codex won't have preferred enemy as they hate psykers". The author and the Development team will say.

if you're going to interupt at lease read whats been said. I said the crons might get perfered enemy eldar as the hate psychers

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

jbunny wrote:If you have answered then you should be able to restate the answer for me. I will just assume this means you have no answer and therefor all of your arguements are invalid.

No, you wanted one, I gave you one, you missed it and are unwilling to go and do a simple search for it, but you want be to look back for a throw-away statement that wasn't referring to you. Your unwillingness to look for it invalidates your argument actually.

Actually I did look at all of your post, and it is possible I missed it. Which is why I want you to state what happens when the rules do not match the fluff. It does not matter who your comment was referring to. I asked a direct question, and would like a direct response. You are refusing to give a direct answer to my question. The only thing i have found is you say that if the rules don't match the fluff there should be an FAQ. Ok but what do you do in the mean time? Not play the game?

And you still missed it? Wow. Still no, I have already, it's up to you to find it. It exists, your point is invalid if you're unwilling to take 2 minutes out and look for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:You said, "whose to say the new crons codex won't have preferred enemy as they hate psykers". The author and the Development team will say.

if you're going to interupt at lease read whats been said. I said the crons might get perfered enemy eldar as the hate psychers

That differs from my quote in what way?

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work.

yes it would, it mentions all units from that codex

From when I quoted it on page 5:

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

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

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

Does your version of the book include an additional statement stating that it is on a codex basis?

perfered enemy eldar. so does that include dark eldar as they have eldar in the name and, fluff wise, come from the same race ?

I don't recall any specific unit that comes with Preferred Enemy: Eldar without also coming with Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar, and the only unit that does is Vect.

Given that there's a model in the game with a rule that makes the distinction, I'd have no choice but to make that distinction too.

(Keep in mind, I'm not one of the people arguing that fluff=rules).

your point is invalid, who's to say the new 'crons wont after all they hate psychers

Which point? And how would it be invalid based on a codex that has not been released yet?

"I don't recall any specific unit that comes with Preferred Enemy: Eldar without also coming with Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar, and the only unit that does is Vect." this one, just caus eyou dont recall one doesnt mean there isnt one or wont be one

If there is another one right now, I'm sure you can point it out?

Regardless, there is a unit in the game with a special rule that does indicate that Preferred Enemy Eldar and Preferred Enemy Dark Eldar are separate. There is precidence to say that Preferred Enemy Eldar does not carry over to Dark Eldar.

EDIT: With the way Preferred Enemy is written, technically they can add "Preferred Enemy: Psykers" to the Necron codex and it would work based on how the Preferred Enemy rule is worded.

iproxtaco wrote:

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

jbunny wrote:If you have answered then you should be able to restate the answer for me. I will just assume this means you have no answer and therefor all of your arguements are invalid.

No, you wanted one, I gave you one, you missed it and are unwilling to go and do a simple search for it, but you want be to look back for a throw-away statement that wasn't referring to you. Your unwillingness to look for it invalidates your argument actually.

Actually I did look at all of your post, and it is possible I missed it. Which is why I want you to state what happens when the rules do not match the fluff. It does not matter who your comment was referring to. I asked a direct question, and would like a direct response. You are refusing to give a direct answer to my question. The only thing i have found is you say that if the rules don't match the fluff there should be an FAQ. Ok but what do you do in the mean time? Not play the game?

And you still missed it? Wow. Still no, I have already, it's up to you to find it. It exists, your point is invalid if you're unwilling to take 2 minutes out and look for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:You said, "whose to say the new crons codex won't have preferred enemy as they hate psykers". The author and the Development team will say.

if you're going to interupt at lease read whats been said. I said the crons might get perfered enemy eldar as the hate psychers

That differs from my quote in what way?

Yup, I missed it. And the polite thing would be to take 2 secs and restate it.

Nobody, can you please answer my question on Harlequins, i think you are doing to me what Iprox did to Jbunny.

Which was answer him, you however haven't got one yet.

It's strange because Harlequins are neither, although I would say they lean more towards The Eldar than The Dark Eldar.

nobody wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Is point is very valid. The development team and the author of Codex : Necrons will say.

will say what? "Some of the new necrons will have prefered enemy eldar"

Do you have advance knowledge of the Necron codex and that some units will have "Preferred Enemy: Eldar?"

If not, I'm pretty sure this has no point and is pretty much trolling.

yeah nice one, you partially illiterate or something? I said "who's to say the new 'crons wont"
implying that i didnt know

iproxtaco wrote:Which was answer him, you however haven't got one yet.

It's strange because Harlequins are neither, although I would say they lean more towards The Eldar than The Dark Eldar.

I think if you actually look back like your previous posts claim that you do. You will find that he was questioning cheapbuster.

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:Nobody, can you please answer my question on Harlequins, i think you are doing to me what Iprox did to Jbunny.

My answer is pretty much in my replies to Cheapbuster. At this time, there is no known unit that has Preferred Enemy: Eldar without also having Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar. There are units that can grant Preferred Enemy towards whoever they are currently fighting, so that would not be a problem.

Once a unit has been added that has only Preferred Enemy: Eldar, or Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar alone then this question would become valid. At that point, barring a clarification within that unit's rules, I would most likely have to discuss this with my opponent.

I think this thread has wandered on long enough. I also have Preferred Enemy: Snarky Posts.