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 suggest reading comprehension. It's FTW.

sourclams wrote:I suggest reading comprehension. It's FTW.

Mr. Sourclams, as one of a select few whom I respect for their actual debating ability, what is your take on gaylord500's claim that one may take background material and present it as rules?

Blaspemy.
In all it's goriness.

G

With respect to Gaylord's opinion, I agree RAI Daemons are Daemons, regardless of their origin (by its very nature Chaos is mutable and multi-formed), but there's rules in there that just don't mix.

For example, Daemonic Summoning doesn't combine very well with the Daemonic Assault. If you try to blend the rules, it's impossible for a Daemons army to deploy since they need to deep strike off of a "host" unit, which a pure Daemons army does not contain. Although I think it's rather fluffy for me to tell my Daemons opponent that his ravening Hell-horde is trapped within the Immaterium while my Purgation squads give them the collective finger, I don't think it would go over very well.

So, in short, although we always clamor for greater specificity from GW, in the case of horribly outdated codices it can work against you when their definitions are all worthless.

This is a 'for fun because it's cool' army, not a competitive army. Play against your friends and discuss how Daemonhammers work against Bloodthirsters at the beginning of your game. I'd trade all the Daemonic stuff for frag grenades, anyhow.

Gwar! wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Where in the Daemons Codex does it say "All Models in this army are to be added to page 20 of the Daemonhunters codex?" I'm looking at the Daemon Special Rule and all it mentions are Fearless, Invulnerable, Daemonic Assault and Daemonic Rivalry.

I told you twice already. Page 24. And I quoted it as well.

It says, specifically, that Grey Knight equipment and wargear works against Daemon - capital D - not daemons in general. Which is what the Chaose Daemon codex is about.

Oh lol, You're quoting Fluff and trying to use it as rules?

It's your opinion that it's fluff instead of rules. Nothing in that text indicates fluff - no named fictional characters, no fictional dates, no planets mentioned, no invasions. It's not even congruent with the rest of the text in the page. It's a callout box whose purposes is to tell Chaos Daemons players that Daemons are affected by Daemonhunter special equipment.

So, while the Space Marines don't explicitly allow you to take Sisters of Battles as allies, we all agree that they can because of the Witch Hunter codex. You ought to notice that while the Daemonhunters codex doesn't specifically mention the Daemons in the Chaos Daemons codex, the Chaos Daemons codex says Daemons are specifically affected by the Grey Knights' wargear, special rules, etc. So, it works.

Eldar FAQ says the Avatar isn't invulnerable to incinerators, inferno cannons, and inferno pistols as they are melta or flame weapons under different names. How do you think GW would rule on this question? So, how do you think the original poster should play his games?

From what we have so far, the OP's answer should be clear: Chaos Daemons are affected by the DH anti-Daemon equipment. Thinking otherwise would be strange, especially by RAI but even by RAW. No, GW didn't handhold to tell you so in the exact font, page and way ultra-rules lawyers might need to agree. However, they did say enough so that it's pretty clear in any case.

Yes like a 5th edition codex needs help against some measly craptastic 3rd edition codex.

gaylord500 wrote:It's your opinion that it's fluff instead of rules.

I'll stop you right there.
It is not opinion, it is fact. The actual rules for Chaos Daemons are found on Pages 27-55 and 73-88. Everything else is Fluff and Hobby material.

If we are to use your logic, Calgar always wins in Close Combat against Avatars, because there is a bit in the codex where he wins against one. Clearly that's rules too isn't it!

Please, if you are going to post in a Rules forum, try to actually quote rules and not fluff.

An excellent example of fluff for rules was the ATSKNF in the 4th edition SM cod3x. One paragraph stated the rules as we know them then the last paragraph stated SM always regroup to access the situation. I saw some players interpret it both ways whichever was most beneficial to them at that particular point in time. ANother example was the 13th Company Rune Priest gating... The fluff said he was teleporting but in a team game people said he could not lock onto a teleport homer beacon. A lot of it just comes down to how the people you play as a group interpret the rules. You can come here and win an argument but the folks back home could care less. To mr it seems most dicsussions here tend to focus on exploitation of a loophole.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:An excellent example of fluff for rules was the ATSKNF in the 4th edition SM cod3x. One paragraph stated the rules as we know them then the last paragraph stated SM always regroup to access the situation. I saw some players interpret it both ways whichever was most beneficial to them at that particular point in time. ANother example was the 13th Company Rune Priest gating... The fluff said he was teleporting but in a team game people said he could not lock onto a teleport homer beacon. A lot of it just comes down to how the people you play as a group interpret the rules. You can come here and win an argument but the folks back home could care less. To mr it seems most dicsussions here tend to focus on exploitation of a loophole.

G

This isn't even a case of Fluff mixing with rules. He is taking a line a good 3 pages before the actual rules start and trying to pass them off as rules.

Not at all. Read the codices cited. The SM instance are two short paragraphs, one following the other.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not at all. Read the codices cited. The SM instance are two short paragraphs, one following the other.

G

Firstly, it is in the rules section of the book. The page title "Space marine Special Rules" might have given that away. Secondly, the rules are not even present in the codex at all, the rules tell you to look at the Rulebook. The extra two paragraphs are Fluff Justification for how the rule interacts with other rules. That is fine. What is not fine is to take fluff from 3 pages before in the fluff section that and pass it off as rules.

gaylord500 is just 100% plain wrong yet refuses to admit it, which will result in this thread being locked as he carrys on in his attempts to coax out a inflammatory response from myself and others.

Well. To put it another way, this is the inverse of the Chimera/Fire Points issue; the rule is quite specific, then presents some "restrictive" fluff. Based on the fluff, some people say that special weapons etc. cannot be shot out of the fire points, because they're supposed to be using the integrated lasguns. That's bogus, however, because the rule is quite clear.

In this circumstance, the rule is quite specific, however the fluff is unrestrictive. We still can't apply the fluff, for the same reasons that meltaguns can be shot out of Chimeras.

Grey Knights never learned how to use Frag Grenades, their Grand Masters are less skilled than Space Marine Captains, and they only know how to hunt some Daemons, in the same way that Fudd hunts Wabbits.

I console my 2.5k pts Daemonhunters army with tender promises of becoming WTFOVRPWR when GW does finally update the Inquisition.

sourclams wrote:Well. To put it another way, this is the inverse of the Chimera/Fire Points issue; the rule is quite specific, then presents some "restrictive" fluff. Based on the fluff, some people say that special weapons etc. cannot be shot out of the fire points, because they're supposed to be using the integrated lasguns. That's bogus, however, because the rule is quite clear.

In this circumstance, the rule is quite specific, however the fluff is unrestrictive. We still can't apply the fluff because the rules are quite clear.

Grey Knights never learned how to use Frag Grenades, their Grand Masters are less skilled than Space Marine Captains, and they only know how to hunt some Daemons, in the same way that Fudd hunts Wabbits.

I console my 2.5k pts Daemonhunters army with tender promises of becoming WTFOVRPWR when GW does finally update the Inquisition.

QFT. I know we have our disagreements Sourclams, but I am glad to see someone with a modicum of intelligence and rationality on this Forum

Although from a pure RAW standpoint I understand the ruling, I wouldn't expect any tournament organizer to go by the logic present here for why Chaos Daemons don't count as daemons for the purpose of the Daemonhunter book.

While thinking of the rules arguments in an abstract sense is nice, keep in mind whats likely to be the ruling at the event you're attending

targetawg wrote:Although from a pure RAW standpoint I understand the ruling, I wouldn't expect any tournament organizer to go by the logic present here for why Chaos Daemons don't count as daemons for the purpose of the Daemonhunter book.

While thinking of the rules arguments in an abstract sense is nice, keep in mind whats likely to be the ruling at the event you're attending

The event you are attending might give all marines Toughness 9, or Ban Pink Models. Or Ban Tau. It is implicit in any rules debate that "It all depends on your TO" and "RaW says if both players want you can make up ". The forum is here to debate what the actual RaW says, nothing else. If you want to debate RaI or propose rules, there is a separate forum for that.

Gwar! wrote:

targetawg wrote:Although from a pure RAW standpoint I understand the ruling, I wouldn't expect any tournament organizer to go by the logic present here for why Chaos Daemons don't count as daemons for the purpose of the Daemonhunter book.

While thinking of the rules arguments in an abstract sense is nice, keep in mind whats likely to be the ruling at the event you're attending

The event you are attending might give all marines Toughness 9, or Ban Pink Models. Or Ban Tau. It is implicit in any rules debate that "It all depends on your TO" and "RaW says if both players want you can make up ". The forum is here to debate what the actual RaW says, nothing else. If you want to debate RaI or propose rules, there is a separate forum for that.

You are just canned troll. Your posts intentionally flame bait, and yet you wonder why people respond negatively.

Read: I'm not saying you're wrong about the rules argument. But when debating rules, its important to realize that the abstract discussions we have on these boards translate very poorly into real world events, so relying on them and then saying "but on dakkadakka we decided.." is a good way to get surprised, and not in a good way, at a tournament.

I know the OP, and was posting it for his benefit, not to somehow incite you into a ranting lecture about how I should use the YMDC forums, how you assume the tournaments I attend to be rediculous, or any other point.

I know you like your post count, but you don't have to respond to absolutely every post that takes place.

targetawg wrote:You are just canned troll.

Personal Attack

targetawg wrote:Your posts intentionally flame bait

More personal attacks

targetawg wrote: and yet you wonder why people respond negatively.

I do because I do not do anything to illicit such a negative response. It is not my fault GW write the rules they do.

targetawg wrote:Read: I'm not saying you're wrong about the rules argument. But when debating rules, its important to realize that the abstract discussions we have on these boards translate very poorly into real world events, so relying on them and then saying "but on dakkadakka we decided.." is a good way to get surprised, and not in a good way, at a tournament.

I don't care how "you play it", I play it by the rules. If you don't, you are a cheater.

targetawg wrote:I know you like your post count, but you don't have to respond to absolutely every post that takes place.

I can reply to whatever Thread I feel like until an Administrator or Moderator tells me otherwise. I have done nothing wrong in this thread (apart from point out the actual rules, which is a Very bad Thing™ Apparently), so I do not see that happening soon.

Now, as I do not intend to drag this thread any more off topic as it has been by myself and others, I bid you adieu.

Simply amazing.

As for the issue of if DH wargear works or not, I will refer to the main rule book under TMIR. Thats as RAW as it gets.

I will gladly concede Nemesis force weapon to work like a normal force weapon to work out DH wargear working on deamons. Its a freaking game of toy soldiers.

thehod wrote:As for the issue of if DH wargear works or not, I will refer to the main rule book under TMIR. Thats as RAW as it gets.

Ah yes, the last refuge of the beaten: "THE RULEBOOK SAYS I CAN IGNORE RAW I WIN WAAA WAAA!!"

Gwar! wrote:

thehod wrote:As for the issue of if DH wargear works or not, I will refer to the main rule book under TMIR. Thats as RAW as it gets.

Ah yes, the last refuge of the beaten: "THE RULEBOOK SAYS I CAN IGNORE RAW I WIN WAAA WAAA!!"

or that their following the RAW and using the rules for that weapon as its updated.

i'd have to say as per the original poster. all deamons are deamons, especially from the deamon codex where the deamons are chosen from and you play deamons, and deamon's deepstrike and you get assaulted by deamons and fight deamons because its a deamons army.

rules are updated as new codex's come out. all of these weapons effect deamons as listed on PG. 20 of the GK codex. however it doesn't say you can't include all deamons in the game.


and how does a deamon hunter nemesis weapon not work?

A note to the main protagonists, whose posts have been removed. Please do not flame each other. Reasoned arguements are welcome in YMDC, trolling and personal attacks are not

Very well, let's call that callout box fluff, then.

As has been pointed out in other threads (on other sites) on the topic, in addition to the above, Chaos Daemons, page 78, defines named HQs as Greater Daemons.

Nowadays, 'Daemon' is a listed characteristic for a unit. Prior to the Chaos Daemon's codex, daemon was an adjective for wargear, unit names, etc. As to the DH Codex definition, 'Daemon' Termonology refers to Daemons without need for further clarification. It's self-evident that A is A even if A is also B, C, and D. QED. So, a Daemon may be a Nurgling. This does not keep a Daemon from being a Daemon.

Daemonhunters having anti-Daemon gear and tactics is not a controversial or particularly strange position to stand by. If you come across it, it's the opposite that needs justification and is not obvious.

No, what you are trying to do is use fluff as rules because you don't like how the actual rules play out.

Just admit it and everyone will be happy.

storm sheilds in the new marine codex are different than storm shields on an older dex because they are defined in their dex. Just saying

frgsinwntr, I believe its up to you on if you want to or not. If it was a game between you and me, I would ask if you wanted to play with DH affecting or just roll off the dice and let it be the judge.

thehod wrote:frgsinwntr, I believe its up to you on if you want to or not. If it was a game between you and me, I would ask if you wanted to play with DH affecting or just roll off the dice and let it be the judge.

I would tell you to play by the rules or not play at all. If I was at a tournament then whatever the TO says goes I have no control over it. Bear in Mind To's 99% of the time go for what the actual rules say.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not at all. Read the codices cited. The SM instance are two short paragraphs, one following the other.

G

Firstly, it is in the rules section of the book. The page title "Space marine Special Rules" might have given that away. Secondly, the rules are not even present in the codex at all, the rules tell you to look at the Rulebook. The extra two paragraphs are Fluff Justification for how the rule interacts with other rules. That is fine. What is not fine is to take fluff from 3 pages before in the fluff section that and pass it off as rules.

gaylord500 is just 100% plain wrong yet refuses to admit it, which will result in this thread being locked as he carrys on in his attempts to coax out a inflammatory response from myself and others.

The two paragraphs run consecutively. The rune priest bit of fluff about teleporting appears on the same page as the rule for gating.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am citing the 4th edition SM codex.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not at all. Read the codices cited. The SM instance are two short paragraphs, one following the other.

G

Firstly, it is in the rules section of the book. The page title "Space marine Special Rules" might have given that away. Secondly, the rules are not even present in the codex at all, the rules tell you to look at the Rulebook. The extra two paragraphs are Fluff Justification for how the rule interacts with other rules. That is fine. What is not fine is to take fluff from 3 pages before in the fluff section that and pass it off as rules.

gaylord500 is just 100% plain wrong yet refuses to admit it, which will result in this thread being locked as he carrys on in his attempts to coax out a inflammatory response from myself and others.

The two paragraphs run consecutively. The rune priest bit of fluff about teleporting appears on the same page as the rule for gating.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am citing the 4th edition SM codex.

Yes I know you are, 13th company isn't in the 4th edition SM Codex. Also, I have already said, that is where fluff is mixed in with rules. That is fine. You cannot however just take fluff and use it as rules like gaylord500 is.

Its obvious that if you were to replace the word Daemons in the Codex: Chaos Demons, with another word such as X then it would become obvious that Daemons from the Codex do not count as Daemons as defined in the DH codex.