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.

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.