Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

Deamonhosts are Deamons for all intents and purposes.



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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not in their rules.

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

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

morgendonner wrote:

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

You are correct sir!

but the Avatar doesn't have the Deamon rule.


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

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


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

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

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

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

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

to quote you:
Obvious Troll is obvious

Dr_Chin wrote:

morgendonner wrote:

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

You are correct sir!

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

iproxtaco wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:

morgendonner wrote:

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

You are correct sir!

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

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

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

to quote you:
Obvious Troll is obvious

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

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

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

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

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

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

iproxtaco wrote:

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

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

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

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

I'll repeat -

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

iproxtaco wrote:I'll repeat -

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

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

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

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

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

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Yarp.

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

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

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

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

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

however it involves the same special rule, Preferred Enemy.


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


a model has Preferred Enemy Orks.

is an ork Boy an Ork? yes

is a Nob an Ork? yes

is a Warboss an Ork? yes

is a Deff Dred an Ork? yes

is a Grot an Ork? no

is a killa kan an Ork? no



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

a model has Preferred Enemy Deamons


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

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

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

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

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




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

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:I'll repeat -

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

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

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

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

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

iproxtaco wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your improper use of grammer damages your own credibility.

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

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

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

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

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