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.

morgendonner wrote:

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.

I think we are agreeing, but arguing past each other due to the other arguements going on in this thread.

In the example you provided I would agree, Psyker is a defined term in the rulebook, and units that are Psykers have (one rule or another) that states they are such. A Psyker Chief without the Psyker rule or any other such rule that states "This model is a psyker" would not be effected by Preferred Enemy: Psyker.

I'm just in here purely to argue that Greater and Lesser Daemons are included based on pg 61...Daemon Princes, Defilers, Possessed, Defilers Obliterators probably should have rules that state they are Daemons, but since they don't there's nothing to support they are except fluff, and fluff != rules.

nobody wrote:

I'm just in here purely to argue that Greater and Lesser Daemons are included based on pg 61...Daemon Princes, Defilers, Possessed, Defilers Obliterators probably should have rules that state they are Daemons, but since they don't there's nothing to support they are except fluff, and fluff != rules.

I agree with that statement also I think GW will FAQ Lesser and Greater Daemons to be "Daemons" and I think they will also make Daemon Princes a "Daemon", but until that time it really is up to a coin toss in casual play or the rules of the tournament organizer.

But the fluff/=rules argument only works with stats. Rules are the majority of the time influenced by fluff, and the fluff is influenced by the rules. Since in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is a Daemon, it's irritating that this isn't reflected in pure game terms. However, the Daemon Prince unit in the codex is described as a Daemon, but it's rules don't reflect this, so it's in a perpetual state of contention, until the FAQ clears this up.
A point I would make, is that despite the rules not saying the Daemon Prince is a Daemon in rule terms, it doesn't state that it's anything else, or that it's not a Daemon. The description however says it is, with no contradiction within the book.
It is down to what people agree on the day. I suspect the FAQ will rule in favor of The Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

iproxtaco wrote:
It is down to what people agree on the day. I suspect the FAQ will rule in favor of The Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

Here here now lets all get pissed, its 5:00 some place? Right?

6:25pm here. It says I live in America but I don't, just realized that.

iprox - again, I'm not ignoring fluff. I have stated MANY times now that the fluff supports both cases - a DP being a daemon and it NOT being a daemon. THus, you cannot use it EVEN MORE than you normally cannot use it. It supports neither side.

iproxtaco wrote:But the fluff/=rules argument only works with stats.

Where are you getting that from? Rules are rules, fluff is fluff. They exist separately.

iproxtaco wrote:Rules are the majority of the time influenced by fluff, and the fluff is influenced by the rules. Since in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is a Daemon, it's irritating that this isn't reflected in pure game terms. However, the Daemon Prince unit in the codex is described as a Daemon, but it's rules don't reflect this, so it's in a perpetual state of contention, until the FAQ clears this up.
A point I would make, is that despite the rules not saying the Daemon Prince is a Daemon in rule terms, it doesn't state that it's anything else, or that it's not a Daemon. The description however says it is, with no contradiction within the book.
It is down to what people agree on the day. I suspect the FAQ will rule in favor of The Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

Commander Farsight is not rules wise stated to be a daemon, but his fluff suggests that his sword is a daemon possessed weapon that has corrupted him. Is he now a daemon too by your definition? His description also states he has not returned to the Tau Empire, does this prevent you from using him with an Ethereal? No, of course not.

The descriptions have no bearing on the impact of game play, they are unnecessary to correctly play a game. They exist simply as extra text filling to provide flavor to the game, thus the name fluff.

iproxtaco wrote:

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.

But you only quote the small part of fluff that supports your position and ignore any fluff that contradicts your position as Nos has pointed out time and time again. I guess it is ok when you do things like that but bad when others do it.

Also have of your post have stated that the Deamon Prince is a deamon becasue it is in his name. Now you are saying you can't use the name because someone used it against you? BTW thanks for calling me stupid, you have been reported.

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:But the fluff/=rules argument only works with stats.

Where are you getting that from? Rules are rules, fluff is fluff. They exist separately.

No, they don't. An army will have specific rules according to the armies background. Conversely, GW may wish to create an army with certain attributes and rules, so the fluff will be written to support it. They are connected. The Stats of a unit are changed from what the fluff says for game balance.

morgendonner wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Rules are the majority of the time influenced by fluff, and the fluff is influenced by the rules. Since in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is a Daemon, it's irritating that this isn't reflected in pure game terms. However, the Daemon Prince unit in the codex is described as a Daemon, but it's rules don't reflect this, so it's in a perpetual state of contention, until the FAQ clears this up.
A point I would make, is that despite the rules not saying the Daemon Prince is a Daemon in rule terms, it doesn't state that it's anything else, or that it's not a Daemon. The description however says it is, with no contradiction within the book.
It is down to what people agree on the day. I suspect the FAQ will rule in favor of The Grey Knights, simply because it makes more sense.

Commander Farsight is not rules wise stated to be a daemon, but his fluff suggests that his sword is a daemon possessed weapon that has corrupted him. Is he now a daemon too by your definition? His description also states he has not returned to the Tau Empire, does this prevent you from using him with an Ethereal? No, of course not.

The descriptions have no bearing on the impact of game play, they are unnecessary to correctly play a game. They exist simply as extra text filling to provide flavor to the game, thus the name fluff.

In the fluff he's not stated as a Daemon. In the fluff, the sword is powerful, SUSPECTED to be a daemonic in nature, it is also hinted to be of C'tan origin. He isn't described as a Daemon, not that Daemonic corruption actually makes you a Daemon every time anyway.

They have an impact because they create rules, just as rules create fluff. If the fluff were never to have existed, there would be no game. The fluff created the the 40k world as it is. Any new army that's added is given rules to represent it's background. Tau? GW said "Lets make a new cheerful race, that's advancing and looking towards the future, to contrast the grimdark currently dominant". The rules came from the fluff created for the Tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

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.

But you only quote the small part of fluff that supports your position and ignore any fluff that contradicts your position as Nos has pointed out time and time again. I guess it is ok when you do things like that but bad when others do it.

Also have of your post have stated that the Deamon Prince is a deamon becasue it is in his name. Now you are saying you can't use the name because someone used it against you? BTW thanks for calling me stupid, you have been reported.

Care to quote the part that apparently contradicts it? And no, there are no descriptions of the Daemon Prince in the current codices which contradict what I mean.
By the way, EVERYONE quotes parts FROM FLUFF. You ignored basically my entire argument to make a needless point. Essentially, we're arguing that names don't tell you what a unit is, and I AGREE, as that was in the same post you quoted from.
I never stated it's a Daemon solely because of the name. The description goes on to back that up however. As I said in the post you just quoted, names alone do not tell you what a unit is. The description tells you what it is.
You also wrongly reported me. I didn't say you were stupid. I said you WOULD be. Are you saying you're stupid for having the same arguments I think are stupid?

daedalus-templarius wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes. Daemon Princes in the C: CSM codex are not daemons - they have daemonic powers, but are not themselves daemons.

/facepalm

Whatever you say guys. I mean, its fine if you want to say "since my old rules codex Daemon Prince is terrible, how about you let me get away with your guys not having preferred enemy against him?" That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Rather than, "no, my Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon, even though his body is clearly covered in daemonflesh, and in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is at the very height of Daemonhood, but he is not a Daemon. Nope. Definitely not a Daemon."

Circular argument is circular.

You really are not getting the crux of the issue.

iproxtaco wrote:

morgendonner wrote:Where are you getting that from? Rules are rules, fluff is fluff. They exist separately.

No, they don't. An army will have specific rules according to the armies background. Conversely, GW may wish to create an army with certain attributes and rules, so the fluff will be written to support it. They are connected. The Stats of a unit are changed from what the fluff says for game balance.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect, you could cut out every fluffy explanation and the game would operate the same (albeit more dull). Units have stat values that reflect a story, yes, but that story does not control them. Do you really think all the different armies in the story of 40k can be summarized into 6 different armor values?

iproxtaco wrote:They have an impact because they create rules, just as rules create fluff. If the fluff were never to have existed, there would be no game. The fluff created the the 40k world as it is. Any new army that's added is given rules to represent it's background. Tau? GW said "Lets make a new cheerful race, that's advancing and looking towards the future, to contrast the grimdark currently dominant". The rules came from the fluff created for the Tau.

Yes they serve as inspirations for each other, but the story doesn't control game mechanics. You're talking about a game where you can kill a squad easier by just shooting 2 plasma guns than by shooting 2 plasma guns and 5 bolters. The fluff states Eldrad is dead or at least MIA, but you can still put him in your army list and he won't be instantly dead turn 1.

iproxtaco wrote: And no, there are no descriptions of the Daemon Prince in the current codices which contradict what I mean.

There's also no rule that supports your argument. Would it make any impact on the game if a diabolical printer replaced the description of a Space Marine Captain to say "These heroic guys eat lots of bananas because they think they're absolutely great and they would never ever fight a Tyranid". No it would not make any impact on the game, it's pointless babble. Not everyone plays 40k for the story.

Bottom line is if you want to play the game Rules as Fluff Suggests, you are free to do that and I'm sure a lot of players love to interpret the game in different ways like that. But your logic that because descriptions say this then the game must play this way is a very skewed perspective for running a RAW game.

iproxtaco wrote: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.

So does that mean that my Tau Stealth Team have the Stealth USR and +1 to all cover saves? Awesome, cheers dude!

No, what it means is that:

Marines ALWAYS win. After al, in the fluff they always win!

But - ORks never lose! Meaning at worst they draw - but Marines vs Orks would be a problem.

Sorry, fluff /= Rules. An argument based on that automatically fails the logic test.

I really don't care anymore.


the GW FAQ will be out soon.


I am 100% certain they will clarify that CSM Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons are, in fact, Deamons for all purposes.


enjoy your couple of week of GKs not getting rerolls against your deamons untill GW hits you with the stick of reason(they should hit themselves too) and puts this argument in its proper place.

GT - you missed my posts, where as a Chaos player I would let them have the rerolls, and as a GK I wouldnt.

It's that ambiguous currently

Miraclefish wrote:

iproxtaco wrote: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.

So does that mean that my Tau Stealth Team have the Stealth USR and +1 to all cover saves? Awesome, cheers dude!

Why you would come to that conclusion I have no idea.

Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

No, other wise they get bonuses against 'daemon host' or 'daemon hunters' just cause they have daemon in the name. Fluff doesnt count for anything either, if it did then every codex would end up as movie marines.

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.

In RAW no, but in logical terms yes. As a CSM player, I wouldn't allow it, but that's because I am simply following the rules and am really competetive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

This.

iproxtaco wrote: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.

iproxtaco, if you're saying that anything with daemon in the name has the Daemon Special Rule, how can you say that anything with stealth in the name doesn't have the Stealth USR? I await your answer with baited breath!

Miraclefish wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

This. iproxtaco, if you're saying that anything with daemon in the name has the Daemon Special Rule, how can you say that anything with stealth in the name doesn't have the Stealth USR? I await your answer with baited breath!

Technically, there's no "Daemon" USR, while "Stealth" is an USR. One could therefore argue that the only units to have a special rule is the ones that has it, since daemon isn't an USR this would (in theory) have no effect on what's considered a daemon or not.


As for myself, I'm in the camp that a Daemon Prince is, in fact, a daemon, but as the rules do not yet reflect that fact there's no bonus to be had against CSM Daemon Princes.

Miraclefish wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

This. iproxtaco, if you're saying that anything with daemon in the name has the Daemon Special Rule, how can you say that anything with stealth in the name doesn't have the Stealth USR? I await your answer with baited breath!

Just because a peice of wargear or a unit has a word in it's name does not mean it would have a rule associated with that word. Take an 'Assault Cannon' or 'Heavy Flamer' for example, an 'Assault Cannon' may have assault in the name, but it's a heavy weapon. And a 'Heavy Flamer' may have 'heavy' in it's name, but it's an assault weapon.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Technically, there's no "Daemon" USR, while "Stealth" is an USR. One could therefore argue that the only units to have a special rule is the ones that has it, since daemon isn't an USR this would (in theory) have no effect on what's considered a daemon or not.

As for myself, I'm in the camp that a Daemon Prince is, in fact, a daemon, but as the rules do not yet reflect that fact there's no bonus to be had against CSM Daemon Princes.

There's no Daemon USR but there is a unit type/special rule called Daemon. It's not found in the Rulebook but instead in the appropriate Codex.

And I'm exactly the same as you, I think that a Daemon Prince is a a daemon and should be affected by rules that cover Daemons, but there is no rule to say so. I'd let my opponant count them as if I had a Daemon Prince, but that's 'cos I'm not an arse. Ha.

Yeah they should be daemons...but they're not...RAW

Miraclefish wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Technically, there's no "Daemon" USR, while "Stealth" is an USR. One could therefore argue that the only units to have a special rule is the ones that has it, since daemon isn't an USR this would (in theory) have no effect on what's considered a daemon or not.

As for myself, I'm in the camp that a Daemon Prince is, in fact, a daemon, but as the rules do not yet reflect that fact there's no bonus to be had against CSM Daemon Princes.

There's no Daemon USR but there is a unit type/special rule called Daemon. It's not found in the Rulebook but instead in the appropriate Codex.

And I'm exactly the same as you, I think that a Daemon Prince is a a daemon and should be affected by rules that cover Daemons, but there is no rule to say so. I'd let my opponant count them as if I had a Daemon Prince, but that's 'cos I'm not an arse. Ha.

As much as RAW is a pain, because GW somehow cannot specify this between what is a 'daemon model' or a 'model with the daemon special rule' but it pays to follow RAW because it stops the unesessary arguments and wasting 30-45 minutes deciding whether it is a Daemon or it isn't and by deciding on the roll of a dice. This ruins the game for everyone as you have wasted loads of time arguing about a rule and the person who lost the dice roll will obviously feel hard done by.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they have the word "Stealth" in their name, which is the name of a USR

It was to counter the rediculous "the name defines the thing" argument, which had already had many counters to it...

Despite saying myself saying numerous times that the name doesn't solely define the unit, we're still having this argument. You people must be blind.

Miraclefish wrote:

iproxtaco wrote: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.

iproxtaco, if you're saying that anything with daemon in the name has the Daemon Special Rule, how can you say that anything with stealth in the name doesn't have the Stealth USR? I await your answer with baited breath!

Eh, no, not at all. I'm simply stating that by the description of the unit, it is defined as a Daemon. That is what kind of entity it is. You then applied a ridiculous filter, that I then meant that everything has USR's because of the unit name, which is not in any way what I was talking about.

So... you're proposing that the name only defines the unit in some cases?

I never said then, and never have said that at all either. The name can give you hints of what a unit will be on it's own, however a description is needed to actually tell you what it is.

This is just getting stagnant. You don't need a description to play 40k.

If some prankster at GW last minute decided to change the Space Marine Captain's description to say "this guy will never fight a tyranid", that would have 0 impact on a game. Surely you can't be suggesting that if somebody slipped that into a Codex that from then on a player couldn't use a SM Captain against a tryanid?

It's important when certain contentious units have no obvious definition in the rules when they should.
If in the description of a unit, it says he will never fight Tyranids, then there should be a rule.