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.

This was brought up yesterday in a game against a IG player using grey knight terminators, I was wondering if CSM daemon princes actually count as daemons because they don't seem to have the Daemon special rule like similar units such as the Eldar Avatar, just wondering

I haven't read the rules but it doesn't make sense for daemon prices to count as daemons.

They're just mutated human chaos space marines after all.

According to Codex Daemonhunters, a Chaos Lord from the previous Codex Chaos Space Marines that had over 50 point of daemonic gifts and/or Daemonic Stature did indeed count as a 'daemon'. The Daemon Prince in the current codex is essentially the same unit according to the fluff.

RAW the daemon prince is not counted as a daemon but that is because the Chaos Marine Codex is newer than the Daemonhunters Codex. I think it is fairly clear that RAI they should be treated as daemons since they did replace daemonic stature from the previous codex.

Didn't RAW say that Lesser daemons don't get the without number thing from the grey knights, as they aren't "Daemon Packs" or "Daemon Cavalry"?

If I'm going to get penalized, I want to get the benefit. Nothing in the chaos codex says "Daemon" in unit type or special rules.

If you look at Codex: Chaos Daemons, you find there is the "Daemon" special rule that gives certain abilities. There's your daemons for you.

by RAW daemon princes are considered daemons as far as the DH are concerned. "Daemon Princes" are considered a daemon by their codex as they are listed as a daemon by their rules on the same page (forgot page # sorry) they list all the special rules that apply to Grey Knights.

Page 20 of the Daemonhunter codex list everything that is considered a daemon. Daemon prince isn't on that list and neither are lesser daemons. Therefore by RAW we have Defilers and possessed marines counting as daemons but not princes or lesser daemons. Doesn't really make sense but that is the rule. Comparing the new Chaos Codex to the old one you can see what the writers intended because both those units replaced something that was on the list in the old codex. It is up to you and your opponent how you want to play it since we know GW is unlikely to put out a FAQ.

page 8 (I think) does mention daemon prince as a daemon affected by one of their powers (last paragraph)

EDIT: But to put things in a greater perspective, lesser daemons (by name) are not mentioned as a daemon either. It would be just silly to consider them 'not' daemons, the daemon prince is at least mentioned in some of their rules.

Ok, but my lesser daemons still get "sustained attack", right?

......what's that? That rule doesn't exist anymore. Grey Knights have that drawback so that rather than pay extra points for their anti-daemon abilities [which would put them at a severe disadvantage versus other armies that didn't use daemons], they'd just give a buff to the people they had the advantage against.

Remove that, and now grey knights are too easily able to crush anything daemonic into the ground.

Also, a Grey Knight Grand Master or Inquisitor used to be able to tool themselves out enough to completely obliterate things like the mega-princes of old and Bloodthirsters. Now, kitted the same way, a lowly daemon prince like in C:CSM would NEVER, I repeat NEVER stand a CHANCE against one. It's ridiculous.

If you want my daemons to continue coming on the board, hey that's fine, but if you don't, then you're not getting any benefit against them, sorry.

And funny someone should mention the defiler. So GK get bonuses against Defilers, but NOT against Soulgrinders, as Soulgrinders aren't in that list? Interesting.

It is any demon possessed vehicle which I believe the Soulgrinder is(I don't have the Chaos Daemon Codex). I believe in playing it based on what was intended which treats the lesser daemons as daemons and let's them come back. I already stated what the RAW interpretation is. This is something that needs to be worked out with your opponent prior to the game and the two of you should play it how you want.

Totally agree with Heimdall, I think it goes without saying though, RAW is one thing, but common sense in another. If it has the word "daemon" in its title its a daemon, it it comes from codex "daemons" then its a daemon, basically it if it looks like, smells like, and quacks like a duck...its a duck.

Seriously, this is something to work out to the max advantage of both fun and fairness with your opponent

NOT OFFICIAL

Ok there is my disclaimer that what I am going to recomend is in no way official, but merly a guide.

The INAT addressed this question. Should you and your opponent like it and aree to use it, then the following should cover all the bases.

Q: Exactly what models are currently considered a “daemon”?

A: Ignore the rule in the codex and instead consult the following guidelines [rules change]:
• All models from the Chaos Daemons codex (excluding Spawn created by ‘Boon of Mutation’).
• Chaos Space Marine Daemon Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, vehicles with the Daemonic Possession upgrade, Summoned Greater and Lesser Daemons.
• The Eldar Avatar.
• Imperial Armor Daemon Lords and Spined Chaos Beasts.

The big problem is there's no sustained attack rules anymore.

Centurian99 wrote:The big problem is there's no sustained attack rules anymore.

And there was no ATSKNF until the 2007 08 Space Marine FAQ, which by my memory means that Marines were without an ATSKNF rule for about two weeks. Did anyone actually play without?

Centurian99 wrote:The big problem is there's no sustained attack rules anymore.

and no instability rule either. seems fair enough that if one negative for the daemons goes away then a negative for the DHs should as well.

Don't have the demonhunter codex in front of me, but from what I recall, per RAW most of the daemon codex does not count as demons according to the demonhunter codex. The demonhunter codex mentions individual demon types, nurglings being on the list, but none of the other troop types making it there if I recall correctly. Since RAW in the demonhunter codex refers to rules that are no longer available, and are therefor discounted, I see no problem sticking to the raw as to what counts as a demon, to balance it out. Being good at a particular thing doesn't mean you don't have difficulty doing it, just that you're better than others who are not as proficient. Give me the advantages that the codex refers to back, and then we can talk about discarding RAW in this case.

dancingcricket wrote:Don't have the demonhunter codex in front of me, but from what I recall, per RAW most of the daemon codex does not count as demons according to the demonhunter codex. The demonhunter codex mentions individual demon types, nurglings being on the list, but none of the other troop types making it there if I recall correctly. Since RAW in the demonhunter codex refers to rules that are no longer available, and are therefor discounted, I see no problem sticking to the raw as to what counts as a demon, to balance it out. Being good at a particular thing doesn't mean you don't have difficulty doing it, just that you're better than others who are not as proficient. Give me the advantages that the codex refers to back, and then we can talk about discarding RAW in this case.

Thats kinda what the point of this thread is. No one is debating the RAW of the current codex. I think individuals are just trying to come up with something that actually functions for the DH now that the codex it was desgined to effect is no longer valid. Obviously, as also mentioned, these are only house rules but workable and in no way broken.