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.

So let me get this right.

I have a vehicle (any kind).

I have a Demonhunter inquisitor within it.

I cast 'Sanctuary'.

I can shoot the vehicle (but not the inquisitor) at your army, and Demons can't do a thing.

I've always wondered what people thought of "true line of sight" and how it fails utterly at the magic cylinder sanctuary creates.

Ah well. Been thinking about this but figured 4 mystic retinues was enough of a to not bring it, was chatting with thehod and figured might as well just laugh at the epic fail this is with everyone.

I swear someone just told me DH don't autowin versus demons.

Ok, how about now? lol

Well, he could argue that the only things defined as Daemons are the things mentioned in the DH codex:

Daemonhosts, Greater Daemons, Daemon Packs, Daemon Beasts, Nurglings, Daemonically Possessed Vehicles, Eldar Avatars, Possessed Chaos Space marines and Chaos Lords with the the Daemonic Stature or over 50 points of daemonic gifts.

So if he wants to get RAW, Daemon princes and all the current crop of troops wouldn't be counted as Daemons. (And maybe soul grinders too, i forget if they count as being daemonically possessed vehicles or not)

Why they couldn't have updated that f'ing list with the release of fifth is beyond me.

How does the daemonic gift that used to be called collar of Khorne (can't remember the new name, but grants a 2+ save against psychic powers) read?

If the daemonic gift reads, like the DH null rod, that powers "do not affect" the unit that makes its save, could that unit then ignore the effects of Sanctuary?

And comes in more of the wonkiness of a 3rd edition codex being utelized in 5th edition.

He could argue that point, ferrous.

Then everyone laughs at him, and his all Demon army is SOL anyway.

Flavius Infernus wrote:How does the daemonic gift that used to be called collar of Khorne (can't remember the new name, but grants a 2+ save against psychic powers) read?

If the daemonic gift reads, like the DH null rod, that powers "do not affect" the unit that makes its save, could that unit then ignore the effects of Sanctuary?

It only applies to wounds.

If the Daemonhunter player won't agree to a reasonable version of Sustained Attack for what's going to be the majority of the Daemon player's army, then there's no reason to not be completely literal about the definition of daemon.

how does sustained attack work now?

solkan wrote:If the Daemonhunter player won't agree to a reasonable version of Sustained Attack for what's going to be the majority of the Daemon player's army, then there's no reason to not be completely literal about the definition of daemon.

This made me laugh.

You seem intent on placing the onus for the Demon rules not working in the Demonhunters book in the Demon players favor on the person running Demonhunters.

If only GW wasn't actually to blame.

A few points you might ponder, solkan.

1) Daemons are indeed Daemons. Probably the name of the Codex and all the entries should clue one in to this, but page 27 seems pretty clear.

2) What Sustained Attack rules? Show me. (See, rules from 4th edition that have been dropped from the game are everywhere, including this one.)

3) Even if you were to allow Sustained Attack, how does that work? You can never actually walk on from your board edge (that's called 'deploying' now, by the way) because your army rules prohibit it. In short, I will gladly let you beat me over the head with how a 3rd edition Codex should work using a 4th edition ruleset in the 5th edition rules...and then I'll claim every single one of your units in reserve as destroyed at the end of the game because you cannot enter to satisfy those rules. Should make for interesting VP calculations.

4) By definition, Nurglings are the only 'Demons' left that qualify, but per my point above...they cannot enter the table, so who cares?

All I'm trying to tell you is, before you get up in a snizzy and start making 'well if they don't play my way...' statements; you should maybe realize the most important point:

5) If you can get into combat with Grey Knights, you will still kick their . How many times do you need to be shot off the board before you realize DH completely own Demons?

I could table most if not every single one of the Demon armies at the GT, barring the Soulgrinders (they ARE a pain to kill). All because I have one unit in my army that lets me push this:



It isn't fair, it is broken...and for an army that is already squarely in the "fun" category, it's just sad how badly you can lose and never do a thing.

I've played a whopping half-dozen games against Demon armies with my DH army.

All ended the same way.

I pushed my...



Button, and the Demon player told me where to take my army and what to do with it when I got there.

Sometimes, 40k just isn't fair.

This is one of those times.

Someone mentioned that this is really fun in Apoc games where you put the Inquisitor and his bunch next to a Baneblade and just laugh at all the free shots the Baneblade gets to make. Sick really.

lol! That's funny. lol

Daemons don't do well in apoc, as Disruptor beacons + mystics and they are at a massive disadvantage.
Half of them drop someplace useless, the other half drop next to mystics and get shot up royally by baneblades or titans or some such.

Well, Daemons are pretty screwed against mech armies to begin with. Soulgrinders and lots of Bolts of Change are about the only things that could take out the vehicle you mention. IIRC Sanctuary only keeps daemons from approaching the vehicle, not shooting at it. And lets face it, it's still just one vehicle and one set of mystics. Not exactly the be-all and end-all of gaming.

Stelek when you press your auto win button do you actually feel satisfied by your win?

Because frankly what's the point in even playing the game then? Yes there are broken combo's and at a tournament your there to win so fair play, but for a pick up game?

Personally winning without trying isn't fun in the slightest to me, winning is enjoyable, but I'd rather play the game and not just sit there and say well due to unit X it means I win now.

As far as sustained assault (and not having the DH codex near me nor my 5th ed rule book) well i guess you need some common sense between friends to work these things out, maybe have a chat before hand with your opponent about how you cover parts of the rules GW don't cover well.

I guess it's do you want to win or ensure you both enjoy the game

Don't worry about Demonhunters. I'm sure that GW will fix their codex in the next release. What is the over/under? 3 years?

Reaver83 wrote:Because frankly what's the point in even playing the game then?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.

Stelek wrote:
1) Daemons are indeed Daemons. Probably the name of the Codex and all the entries should clue one in to this, but page 27 seems pretty clear.

In the absence of a FAQ from GW saying otherwise, or a ruling from a tournament operator, page 20 of the Demonhunter's codex stands:

Throughout this Codex [Daemonhunters], the term 'Daemon' refers to the following units:
All Daemonhosts, Greater Daemons and Daemon Packs, Daemon Beasts, Nurglings, Daemonically Possessed Vehicles, ...

The Daemon codex did not exist when the Daemonhunter book was written, so it would be reasonable to compromise with the Daemonhunter player.
But, it would reasonably follow that the daemonic incursion rules be modified to apply a ressurected version of sustained assault to the Chaos Daemon army. It's a fair and reasonable way of resolving the mess that Games Workshop created by not updating that codex.

I'd be happy to run endess swarms of Flamers with Bolt of Tzeentch against bubbled transports.

Otherwise, let's hear it for rules as written: A Chaos Daemons player can field an entire army with nothing in it that the Daemonhunter book says is a daemon and all of the grey knight psychic powers become useless as written.

So Soulgrinders and Greater Demons don't fit the mold or something? I'm confused.

The most reasonable thing would be for GW to errata the DH Codex, really.

Soulgrinders are only Vehicles which happen to have the Chaos Daemon 'Daemon' ability, and aren't strictly speaking possessed. That just leaves Nurglings, Daemon Princes and Greater Daemons as things which are explicitly listed, as far as I can tell. Daemon Packs and Daemon Beasts are both groupings of units which no longer exist in a current codex.

Every morning I wake up with the hope that GW has updated their FAQ's or fixed the DH Codex and every morning I weep in disappointment.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.

/hands Abadabadoobaddon a cookie

How I'd play it for now:

Everything from Daemons Codex is...surprise..a Daemon.
Sustained Assault no longer exists, and so i'd just throw that rule out. If a Daemon Player has a problem with this, just point him to all the outdated psychic powers (instability checks--lol) and psychic protections that the GK can no longer use vs the Daemons.
In return, don't take Sanctuary =)


And all this gak should've been cleared up with a FAQ right on the Daemons Release. How long has it been now, and it still hasn't been cleared up?

There is a thing called self-respect,or honor.

If a deamon player opened his mouth to pursuade the opponent player to believe that his whole army are not "DEAMON"...he is a loser.

No matter how the actual result of the game is.

And usually it is a lose...deamonhuter hunt deamon,can be more suitable?

BTW,whether it is the time to discuss something like "Tactics against mystics" now,for the deep-strike army?4D6 seems not enough at everytime.

tokugawa wrote:There is a thing called self-respect,or honor.

If a deamon player opened his mouth to pursuade the opponent player to believe that his whole army are not "DEAMON"...he is a loser.

No matter how the actual result of the game is.

And usually it is a lose...deamonhuter hunt deamon,can be more suitable?

As the Demonhunter codex is written, most Chaos Daemons units are not Daemonhunter 'Daemons'. And as the rules are written, the mechanism for balancing all of the Daemonhunter anti-Daemon special abilities, Daemonic Infestation, is broken.

You may note the Designer's note in Daemonhunters which explains the intent of the Daemonic Infestation rule as balancing out all of the benefits and special abilities of Grey Knights. It's a package deal: Either they're Daemons and they get a useful version of Daemonic Infestation, or they aren't and they don't.

Solkan, you seem to be forgetting the number 1 thing (everything you say IS true, bud).

Chaos always pwned Demonhunters.

Always.

Infestation was a damn gift, and didn't balance anything...it just made an already uber army even more powerful against loser marines who were somehow worse yet more expensive than Chaos...and Chaos got to recycle their Bloodletters? Gee, can I?

Stelek, I'd like to thank you for the inspiration for my signature.

Ancient Chinese paradox: A white horse is not a horse.
Modern Games Workshop Daemonhunter paradox: A Chaos Daemons Daemon is not a Daemon.

To which I can only respond:

A horse is a horse.

Of course....

Of course.




Someone kill me.