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.

I was wondering if daemon powers are considered psyker powers, like say if I have a rune priest who is within 24" from a daemon using their lash equivalent. Does the rune priests runic power negate it on a 4+ or no?

Daemonic Gifts are not psychic powers.

It does not state they ARE psychic powers, therefore they are not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not state they ARE psychic powers, therefore they are not.

Quite the opposite, it actually (very explicitly) states they ARE NOT Psychic Powers. Page 73, Codex: Chaos Dæmons.

I was just trying a different tack, to explain the reasoning rather than just the rule.

Such as "does X scatter?" when the question should be "X is blast and so is there a rule saying it *deosnt* scatter" - it is easier to show the latter by applying the general rule (we know all blasts scatter) and then the specific (is there something saying this doesnt?) as this then shows how the rules are constructed - no list of psecific events but (generally) general rules modified in specific ways.

In this case it was "you know psychic powers are different to the normal rules, so is there anything saying they *are* psychic, rather than something saying there isn't" - in this case the "isnt" is actually there, however it is technically redundant.

I was going for more of a general way to resolve rules queries than the specific one, as the codex, for once, is actually quite clear (if redundant) on this topic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was just trying a different tack, to explain the reasoning rather than just the rule.

Such as "does X scatter?" when the question should be "X is blast and so is there a rule saying it *deosnt* scatter" - it is easier to show the latter by applying the general rule (we know all blasts scatter) and then the specific (is there something saying this doesnt?) as this then shows how the rules are constructed - no list of psecific events but (generally) general rules modified in specific ways.

In this case it was "you know psychic powers are different to the normal rules, so is there anything saying they *are* psychic, rather than something saying there isn't" - in this case the "isnt" is actually there, however it is technically redundant.

I was going for more of a general way to resolve rules queries than the specific one, as the codex, for once, is actually quite clear (if redundant) on this topic.

Ah. I see. My Apologies good sir!