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.

Yea, some people may remember posting this but the post kinda' died, so I deiced to make it it's own post.
Anyway, so all the rules (for daemonhunters) effecting daemons went out of date when they made the daemon army? Such as:

Destroy Daemon (pg. 12, second power) (allows for hit and wound re-rolls, on daemons)

Daemonhammer (pg. 16, one handed weapons 5th one down) (rules are page 17, first row,4 down) (it strikes first when fighting daemons)

This is just what I was told so please tell me if I'm wrong.

could you list a few more details... like why it's out of date? is it because of the spelling of daemons vs demons? in general, half of DH and WH doesn't work at all if you're a strict RAWist. you unfortunately have to apply some common sense and RAI to bring them up to date as GW apparently doesn't have the time to do so.

No, I think the issue is that in Codex: Daemons, none of the Daemons are actually defined as "daemons", except nurglings.

Most people play that DH anti-daemon stuff still works, but some don't. You should discuss it with your usual group, store, or TO if its a Tourny.

warboss wrote:could you list a few more details... like why it's out of date? is it because of the spelling of daemons vs demons? in general, half of DH and WH doesn't work at all if you're a strict RAWist. you unfortunately have to apply some common sense and RAI to bring them up to date as GW apparently doesn't have the time to do so.

I'm not sure of the reasons, I was just told they would not work. Me being the new player I am I just said OK and went on. "RAWist" Not really sure what you mean by that, and RAI I sorta get but not fully (again with the new player thing). Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, I promise.

RadioActiveIt wrote:

warboss wrote:could you list a few more details... like why it's out of date? is it because of the spelling of daemons vs demons? in general, half of DH and WH doesn't work at all if you're a strict RAWist. you unfortunately have to apply some common sense and RAI to bring them up to date as GW apparently doesn't have the time to do so.

I'm not sure of the reasons, I was just told they would not work. Me being the new player I am I just said OK and went on. "RAWist" Not really sure what you mean by that, and RAI I sorta get but not fully (again with the new player thing). Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, I promise.

RAW stands for rules as written, the letter of the law (synonymous with the dakka username "GWAR", lol)
RAI is rules as intended, the spirit of the law in other words


a sample scenario would be if a new codex came out and GW poorly worded a rule that a unit has to give it no actual benefit. a strict RAW interpretation would be that it simply does nothing. a RAI interpretation would look at previous versions of the same unit rule and attempt to discern the intended benefit. the DH stuff doesn't work generally because the rules refer to old codices and old 40k rulebooks. for instance, the teleport homer references the 3rd edition rules for deepstriking in that you used to have to place a 5" blast marker, then deviate, and then fit all your models completely on the marker; the DH teleport homer says you have to center the marker on the model with the homer. by strict RAW in 5th edition, the homer doesn't work as you're centering the deepstriking model directly on the model with the homer resulting in an automatic mishap. RAI would say that the teleport homer (which costs the same as current working 5th edition homers) works just like the current ones do since the same wargear exists in another codex for same/similar price and the purpose is the same (to deepstrike/teleport without deviation).

So to rap it all up, I need to ask if my group is strait RAW?

Um, doesn't the "Daemon" special rule in the Daemon's codex define them as "Daemons" therefore rules affecting "Daemons" should affect them?

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

Xca|iber wrote:Um, doesn't the "Daemon" special rule in the Daemon's codex define them as "Daemons" therefore rules affecting "Daemons" should affect them?

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

sigh... there's no other way to put this so here it goes... this is a forum devoted to debating the rules. it's recommended that you either know the rules or go through the effort of looking them up. the daemon special rule does include a bunch of units, roughly 1/3 of which don't exist anymore. in addition, a whole daemon codex has come out years after the DH book with lots of new daemons that didn't exist yet, which (according to strict RAW) are NOT affected by the rule despite being demons/daemons in every other sense. therein is the issue.

Bugger it, not even the Daemon psychic attacks are psychic attacks anymore. Just leave it out of my 40K games, thanks.

Xca|iber wrote:Um, doesn't the "Daemon" special rule in the Daemon's codex define them as "Daemons" therefore rules affecting "Daemons" should affect them?

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

Because the DH codex *defines* what is a daemon *according to their codex* - meaning ONLY those units listed as Daemons in the DH codex count as daemons. Which are nurglings if memory serves.

warboss wrote:RAW stands for rules as written, the letter of the law (synonymous with the dakka username "GWAR", lol)

But yes, DH rules that work on "Daemons" only affect the very Specific list in the DH codex, no-one else. This is because GW are complete pillocks and have not bothered to issue an errata, because they think that everyone loves making up 9001 house rules before every game.

Gwar! wrote:

warboss wrote:RAW stands for rules as written, the letter of the law (synonymous with the dakka username "GWAR", lol)

But yes, DH rules that work on "Daemons" only affect the very Specific list in the DH codex, no-one else. This is because GW are complete pillocks and have not bothered to issue an errata, because they think that everyone loves making up 9001 house rules before every game.

You had the same idea as me.
New house rule: all daemons are given the deamon rule, and gain all bonuses and disadvantages of being daemonic (first house rule, let the god emperor not let it screw up)

It's really quite simple. Those who expect Daemonic Infestation to be used as written get to use the definition of Daemon in the Daemonhunters codex as written.

Cruentus wrote:No, I think the issue is that in Codex: Daemons, none of the Daemons are actually defined as "daemons", except nurglings.

Most people play that DH anti-daemon stuff still works, but some don't. You should discuss it with your usual group, store, or TO if its a Tourny.

Every single unit in the Daemons book has Special Rules: Daemon assigned to it. So I don't see any issues whatsoever. Unless your player is a complete D'yii, in which case it's Dreadsock time.

But then I like playing fun, fair games with my friends, so...

i'm totally fine with people using daemonic infestation as it allows people to use a rule that doesn't exist in the 40k rulebook anymore. yet another DHism... they get a cool sounding rule without any actual ingame effect!

warboss wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:Um, doesn't the "Daemon" special rule in the Daemon's codex define them as "Daemons" therefore rules affecting "Daemons" should affect them?

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

sigh... there's no other way to put this so here it goes... this is a forum devoted to debating the rules. it's recommended that you either know the rules or go through the effort of looking them up. the daemon special rule does include a bunch of units, roughly 1/3 of which don't exist anymore. in addition, a whole daemon codex has come out years after the DH book with lots of new daemons that didn't exist yet, which (according to strict RAW) are NOT affected by the rule despite being demons/daemons in every other sense. therein is the issue.

As a matter of fact, Mr. GoLookItUpIdiot, I DID go to the effort of looking up the rules. Now, as it happens, I missed the section of the DH codex that defines THEIR daemons, I admit that, and now see why this is an issue. However, I protest the assumptions made in your post that:

a) I am unaware of the purpose of the subforum, YMDC.
b) I do not know any of the rules.
c) I do not and have not ever bothered to look up rules.
d) I should not be posting in this forum.

Frankly I do not believe my question warranted such a response. A simple "there is a list of daemons in the DH codex, which is what they refer to as "daemons" for the purposes of their wargear/rules, etc" would have sufficed. If the tone of my post was misunderstood, I apologize, I was simply trying to understand the specific problem being addressed in the thread.

Xca|iber wrote:As a matter of fact, Mr. GoLookItUpIdiot, I DID go to the effort of looking up the rules. Now, as it happens, I missed the section of the DH codex that defines THEIR daemons, I admit that, and now see why this is an issue. However, I protest the assumptions made in your post that:

a) I am unaware of the purpose of the subforum, YMDC.
b) I do not know any of the rules.
c) I do not and have not ever bothered to look up rules.
d) I should not be posting in this forum.

Frankly I do not believe my question warranted such a response. A simple "there is a list of daemons in the DH codex, which is what they refer to as "daemons" for the purposes of their wargear/rules, etc" would have sufficed. If the tone of my post was misunderstood, I apologize, I was simply trying to understand the specific problem being addressed in the thread.

i didn't say you don't know "any" of the rules or that you have "not ever" looked them up. i said you should know the rule being discussed (which you obviously didn't) or simply that you should look it up before posting (you said you did but missed the key part). perhaps my tone should have been lighter than it was.

Well I guess we just had a miscommunication. No harm done in the end really.

However, this might be one of those rare times when even the RaW crowd can figure out what the intent behind the rule should allow...

Alpharius wrote:However, this might be one of those rare times when even the RaW crowd can figure out what the intent behind the rule should allow...

Nope. Rules are Rules. The "Intent" was for only the models on the list to be affected. If they didn't intend to do that, they wouldn't have done it at all.

Alpharius wrote:However, this might be one of those rare times when even the RaW crowd (MOST of them) can figure out what the intent behind the rule should allow...

There - I fixed it!

Alpharius wrote:

Alpharius wrote:However, this might be one of those rare times when even the RaW crowd (MOST of them) can figure out what the intent behind the rule should allow...

There - I fixed it!

Yay! But can you at least see my viewpoint? If they had intended for it to cover anything with a "Dæmon" special rule, it would have said so. As it is, they intended for the rule to only affect the models Listed. Yes, it wasn't very future proof, but I suspect that Chambers, Kelly and McNeil did not foresee the massive change in how GW operated in such a short time after the Dæmonhunters codex Release and probably assumed that the Inquisition would have been Updated already or at least been granted an Errata to bring the rule in line with new codexes.

I'm up for a strict RAW interpretation. Partly because the special rules that the DH have that would allow a daemon player to compensate for the penalties they have fighting DH can no longer apply. And in some cases, I'm not sure I'd want them to if they were still valid. Sustained attack could be a severe disadvantage in a KP game...

warboss wrote:
RAW stands for rules as written, the letter of the law (synonymous with the dakka username "GWAR", lol)
RAI is rules as intended, the spirit of the law in other words

Alpharius wrote:However, this might be one of those rare times when even the RaW crowd can figure out what the intent behind the rule should allow...

Gwar! wrote:

Alpharius wrote:However, this might be one of those rare times when even the RaW crowd can figure out what the intent behind the rule should allow...

Nope. Rules are Rules. The "Intent" was for only the models on the list to be affected. If they didn't intend to do that, they wouldn't have done it at all.

called it!

I love that everyone if fighting over it all, that makes good answers. And me being the new player I am, I don't know right from left anymore. Can I get a strait up Yes or No.

RadioActiveIt wrote:I love that everyone if fighting over it all, that makes good answers. And me being the new player I am, I don't know right from left anymore. Can I get a strait up Yes or No.

Maybe.

(As has been said, the strict written rules = No. More accepting groups would probably expand the list to include more recently added units that are daemonic in nature, but it depends on where and who you play with. Discuss it with those people, as it all comes down to them.)

Well, technically speaking, the only unit that can be affected by those rules (as has been pointed out) is nurglings*.

That being said, if you talk it over with your opponents before the game, they should agree that it will affect any daemons. They are not required to though, because the daemon rules in your codex specify which daemons it affects.

EDIT: Gorkamorka, the ork ninja!

EDIT 2: *and daemonhosts of course! (Thanks Gwar!)

zatchmo wrote:Well, technically speaking, the only unit that can be affected by those rules (as has been pointed out) is nurglings.

That being said, if you talk it over with your opponents before the game, they should agree that it will affect any daemons. They are not required to though, because the daemon rules in your codex specify which daemons it affects.

EDIT: Gorkamorka, the ork ninja!

Dæmonhosts are affected as well

Gwar! wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

Alpharius wrote:However, this might be one of those rare times when even the RaW crowd (MOST of them) can figure out what the intent behind the rule should allow...

There - I fixed it!

Yay! But can you at least see my viewpoint? If they had intended for it to cover anything with a "Dæmon" special rule, it would have said so. As it is, they intended for the rule to only affect the models Listed. Yes, it wasn't very future proof, but I suspect that Chambers, Kelly and McNeil did not foresee the massive change in how GW operated in such a short time after the Dæmonhunters codex Release and probably assumed that the Inquisition would have been Updated already or at least been granted an Errata to bring the rule in line with new codexes.

It's funny how the Emperor forgets to update only the men he depends on to crack down on heresy.