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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Highlighted the part you completely missed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grey Templar wrote:a model has Preferred Enemy Orks.

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

Grey Templar wrote:a model has Preferred Enemy Deamons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

morgendonner wrote:

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

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

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

Waaagh!

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

Mob Rule!

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

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

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

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

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

Not really, there are no sides to this.

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

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

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

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

I'll repeat again -

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

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

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

Awsome so you agree with me then!

Thanks man!

I this really a 7 page thread? Really?

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

morgendonner wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Its the same argument, sorry man.

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

Awsome so you agree with me then!

Thanks man!

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

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

Its the same argument, sorry man.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

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

Its the same argument, sorry man.

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

iproxtaco wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

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

Its the same argument, sorry man.

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

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

nobody wrote:

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

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

(edited to save space by MorgenDonner)

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

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

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

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

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

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

Its the same argument, sorry man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Dr_Chin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

morgendonner wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

jbunny wrote:

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

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

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

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

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