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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot say "but a Daemon prince is a daemon, it has daemon in its name!" because Heavy Flamers are now Heavy according to that erroneous logic.

Also They would be "Flamers" for any rules that cared about that(without also specifically listing Heavy Flamers; Case in point: Vulcan and Eldar Avatar specifically effect both Flamers and Heavy Flamers).

If there was a unit(or army) with a "dragon" special rule and a Weapon that specifically effected "dragons" in some way; Eldar Fire Dragons would be effected because they have "Dragon" in their name right? No, of course not.

We cannot Go by Fluff, nor old incarnations of Rules because Fluff =/= rules, and If we can just roll back certain rules to allow the DP to be a Daemon for GK purposes, then why not give them back true grit or "the shrouding"?

All that said I expect 1 of 2 things to happen: an FAQ that says, yes Daemon princes, Greater and lesser Summoned daemons count. Or the Next CSM Codex to give the aforementioned units the Daemon special rule.

I am glad C:GK did not list what counts as a Daemon because that has already proven itself to be a bad Idea(the old list didn't last 3 years before it was fully invalidated and they lost almost all abilities that required "daemons")

Amazingly, no. A Demon Prince is not, in fact, a Demon. Just a particularly evil MC.

No, it doesn't make sense, but chances are the re-roll isn't going to make much difference anywho.

On a slightly related note, Avatars are explicitly daemons, but they don't gain any specific advantages (ie, Eternal Warrior) because of it, do they? I'm fairly certain they don't, but I've seen people trying to say that they're immune to Instant Death because they're Daemons.

Cheexsta wrote:Agreed with Nos et al. There is nothing in the rules to actually define anything in the CSM codex as being a "Daemon".

That said, as a Chaos player I would just play Daemon Princes and Summoned Daemons (lesser and greater) as Daemons for purposes of this rule. It's certainly not something I'd press on other players, though.

The trouble is precedent setting. You might acceed to this without seeing issue, but now the people you do this for will start demanding others do this too. If you are going to bend over for other players where you dont have to, well, they should do the same for you. There have been games where we didnt know how to proceed, and for the sake of just getting the game back on track, we ruled in the favor of the player who'se turn it was, and simply remediated for the other player on another matter, either on another turn, or in a different game. I think this is hard, and could lead to a snowcball of GW intending things exactly as they are now, but GK players throwing hissy-fits at every single chaos player who doesnt do the same as you might do. Not saying you shouldnt do it, but i have a core group of people I play with and nobody else because I am tired of people bending every single rule to their favor just so they can lord every win over you instead of focus on having fun playing the game.

Technically speaking, half the chaos codex would be vulnerable to grey knights. Any sort of mutation as a result of chaos would indicate favor of the chaos gods and a certain level of daemonhood/daemonpresence in the model. Thousand sons are for instance "all" sorcerers, plague marines would die if severed from their link to nurgles gift of undeath, posessed marines would suffer the same effects as the ones suffered by the daemon posessing them, obliterators.... etc. A case can be made for half the chaos army list. Thus...:

I think the real issue is just the base-line preferred enemy rule. Preffered enemy tends to target a codex (tyranid, ork, necron, tau, etc are clear-cut examples. Since chaos marines are still marines, its a less clear-cut one, but benefits of preferred enemy of blod angel would not translate when facing ultramarine army.....) Thus I choose to interpret prefered enemy daemon as a codex-specific prefered enemy of codex chaos daemons. Thus, I would rather wait for any necessary FAQ/Errata from GW, and until further notice, (i am broke now, so I can't afford it, ) my up and comign GK army will in fact not be getting bonuses when facing down CSM. I just think it goes against the spirit of the game when one army gets prefered enemy against several codices (GK would get prefered enemy bonuses against GK (daemonhosts etc) CSM (as discussed above), Eldar (as mentioned in earlier posts) chaos daemons (obvious why)

AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I just caught myself repeating myself a few times from different angles, so I am going to cut this off before it turns out to be a three thousand word esay complete with thesis.

it really isn't a huge deal with the CSM codex anyway, Deamon Princes are easy enough to kill without rerolling misses and Summoned deamons are just (psy)cannon fodder

This debate has raged since SW & the runic weapons. RaW No that are not. The name is meaningless without the rule or unit type "Daemon".

Just how I could name my son "King Of-England <My last name>" it does NOT make him the king of England. People can cry all they what about what they THINK it is but without the rule stating that it IS, it IS NOT.

I've had many games with a guy who plays both CSM and Chaos Demons. I (a SW player) have used a Rune Priest to wound on 2+ against his Daemon Prince regardless of which army he was playing as it's the same model in both cases etc. Never really thought it would matter.

I guess I'll let him know now that his daemon stops being a daemon when it's with daemon worshipers, even if it's the same model.

Yep. Just goes to show how good GW's writing staff are.

lucasbuffalo wrote:I guess I'll let him know now that his daemon stops being a daemon when it's with daemon worshipers, even if it's the same model.

There's no problem in using common sense, regardless of the RAW, if both players agree. I don't think anyone here would be surprised if DPs were included after a FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The point is:

1) Only models with the "DAemon" special rule are a daemon
2) Chaos lesser, greater and princes do not have the Daemon rule

C) They are not Daemons as far as GK are concerned.

You cannot say "but a Daemon prince is a daemon, it has daemon in its name!" because Heavy Flamers are now Heavy according to that erroneous logic.

after looking at the codex on this point 1 is wrong

It just up and says daemon

but does not state what is or what isn't a daemon

E.g. they expect you to use common sense
Meaning = trollolololol intil a faq comes out

Point 1) is not wrong. The GK codex does not define "daemon", same as SW doesnt.

THus the only indicator you can use is the "DAemon" rule, which tells you exactly what is and isnt a daemon.

I dount tnis will be FAQ'd, as its pretty clear.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Just how I could name my son "King Of-England <My last name>" it does NOT make him the king of England.

That said if you raised a big enough army and killed enough people he could be. There's a fine and long standing tradition of getting crowns that way.

[/hijack]

Grey Templar wrote:Posessed i would let slide, they arn't that great anyway

But if they were great, would you rethink that?

It seems this is a RAI vs a RAW scenario so far. I'm sure GW will clarify this at some point.

Aengus wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Posessed i would let slide, they arn't that great anyway

But if they were great, would you rethink that?

It seems this is a RAI vs a RAW scenario so far. I'm sure GW will clarify this at some point.

I would still let them slide.

They arn't exactly deamons.


of course, the FAQ will probably make them deamons too.

agreed, we've been playtesting our store copy a lot lately and as far as demon princes being counted as demons, they are not. however if they take a mark other than Khorne they are considered a psyker and are thus just as easily damaged by the GK as actual codex demons.

If you read the codex you'll see there's a lot of emphasis on demons AND psykers, i believe this was an attempt at balancing and spreading the effectiveness outisde of just Chaos Demons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Point 1) is not wrong. The GK codex does not define "daemon", same as SW doesnt.

THus the only indicator you can use is the "DAemon" rule, which tells you exactly what is and isnt a daemon.

I dount tnis will be FAQ'd, as its pretty clear.

point 1 is wrong it does not state any special rule it states daemon.

e.g. a Daemon Prince IS a Deamon
Summoned Deamons ARE Deamons

this is what matt ward is trying to get at.

like i said trololol till faq

And in other news, just because you're a terminator, that does not mean you're wearing terminator armour.

Oaka wrote:And in other news, just because you're a terminator, that does not mean you're wearing terminator armour.

In this case I think it does its the first rule to work that way.

ThatMG - so, you';re just going to ignore SW then?

A Daemon Prince is NOT A DAEMON. The same way as a Heavy Flamer is NOT HEAVY, an Assault Cannon is NOT ASSAULT, and so on

Understand yet?

Compare a CSM daemon prince to a Chaos Daemons daemon prince. Given that they are exactly the same I would rule the daemon prince a daemon hands down. I am even a CSM player and I wouldn't argue something that stupid.

As for possessed I could see me letting them have that as well as they are daemon kin. I would also allow summoned daemons and Lesser daemons to be counted as daemons. Just because they are exactly that. DAEMONS!

Ide say no on possessed vehicles though as that is a little of a stretch.

Just because it doesn't have the daemon special rule doesn't mean it isn't daemon. Its like saying their is nothing in the rule book that says I cant do something but everything points that you cant. Just because it isn't listed explicitly doesn't mean you can bend the obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ThatMG - so, you';re just going to ignore SW then?

A Daemon Prince is NOT A DAEMON. The same way as a Heavy Flamer is NOT HEAVY, an Assault Cannon is NOT ASSAULT, and so on

Understand yet?

That is because they actually say what they are.

Heavy flamer is assault 1
Assault cannon heavy 4
Daemon prince gains eternal warrior because it is a daemon! Where Kharne and crew dont get it because they are not daemons!

TK - it isnt stupid, it simply follows the rules

Please show me a rule stating that possesed are daemons. I can point to a rule showing what units in codex Daemons are daemons, so surely you can do the same? Any rules, anywhere? Please?

RAW they aren't demons.

RAI, they probably are. I mean it is a Demon Prince after all.

If you are playing in a tournament, sadly you have to play by the rules.

I know its no fun, but the rules are the rules, and in this case nos has it right. DPs in the chaos codex aren't demons for the purposes of the GK codex. It may be a technicality, it probably will be fixed with the FAQ. But the current state of affairs is clear.

Also people, Brother Heinrich raises a very good point, any demon prince people ever will take in the chaos dex are also psychers, so they'll still get special rules against them. Just from warptime. I mean, seriously, who uses Khorne Princes unelss playing a Khorne themed army? So even then its not a huge deal!

If you want to play with Daemon Princes as Daemons, thats totally reasonable! I'm sure thats what Ward intended anyway, but Ward is such an aweful fluff / rules writer half of what he "intends" (if you can call it that) is utterly rediculous.

If I get my Chaos army going, I'd give GKs the preferred enemy against my Demon Prince in casual games, just to avoid argument. In a competitive tourney environment I'd throw my towel in with the actual rules.

We'll have to wait for a FAQ but I'll tell my point of view.

Lets say... Preferred Enemy: Orks. Does this mean that the miniature has to have the special rule called "Ork"? No, you just know it's a ork and apply the rule.
Epidemius counts the models killed by Nurgle followers. Does any unit have the rule "Followers of Nurgle"? No, but you know Great Unclean One or Nurglings are Nurgle followers.

Yet neither "Orks" or "followers of nurgle" ARE a special rule. "DAemon" is.

There is a smidge of a different there.

Also: I play 2 DP with MoK and Wings. Cheap and cheerful....

ThatMG wrote:From what I have seen the new codex does not state what is and what isn't common sense is to be used. this becomes a major problem for some people.
Reason: why no stating cause codexs change and rules that state can become invalidated, e.g. looks at old codex.

I say (my views) FOR CSM
YES on the daemon prince (HURP DERP, its a daemon using common sense)
YES Possessed CSM (Daemonkin SP rule/Who uses them anyway)
YES on the defiler (it has a WS stat and Daemonic Possession)
YES on Summoned Daemons/Greater Daemons (BIG HURP DERP)
MAYBE with Obliterators (I say they count as daemons if I was a chaos player)
YES to everything in Chaos Daemon Codex
YES to anything that has a WS stat and Daemonic Possession (Preferred enemy requires a ws stat so :p)

Avatar is a daemon so yes on that 1

This is a very biased opinion. You're not looking through the eyes of a CSM player. Yes, the Daemon Princes of Caemons are obviously Daemons. But the ones from CSM? Merely Chaos lords with lots and lots of Daemonic gifts. If they were real Daemons, they couldn't be riding around space in their ship, acting like being apart from the warp doesn't phase them at all. It's not "common sense" and to say something like that is like calling everyone on the other argument's side stupid, which doesn't hold you up as a very good debater. REAL logic would state that as these units do not have the Daemon special rule, then, RAW, they are NOT daemons, until otherwise FAQ'd. Period. If I were to play a GK player at this point in time, I might show some sympathy to him for playing a codex written by an idiot, and I'd allow his preferred enemy to affect my Greater Daemons, Summoned Daemons, and MAYBE my Daemon Prince. But nothing else, at all. And the fact that you think Obliterators should count as daemons makes me want to puke on you. Seriously. From what you're saying, outside of Terminators, cult troops, regular CSM, bikers and raptors, everything else should be daemons? Really? REALLY?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tomb King wrote:Compare a CSM daemon prince to a Chaos Daemons daemon prince. Given that they are exactly the same I would rule the daemon prince a daemon hands down. I am even a CSM player and I wouldn't argue something that stupid.

As for possessed I could see me letting them have that as well as they are daemon kin. I would also allow summoned daemons and Lesser daemons to be counted as daemons. Just because they are exactly that. DAEMONS!

Ide say no on possessed vehicles though as that is a little of a stretch.

Just because it doesn't have the daemon special rule doesn't mean it isn't daemon. Its like saying their is nothing in the rule book that says I cant do something but everything points that you cant. Just because it isn't listed explicitly doesn't mean you can bend the obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ThatMG - so, you';re just going to ignore SW then?

A Daemon Prince is NOT A DAEMON. The same way as a Heavy Flamer is NOT HEAVY, an Assault Cannon is NOT ASSAULT, and so on

Understand yet?

That is because they actually say what they are.

Heavy flamer is assault 1
Assault cannon heavy 4
Daemon prince gains eternal warrior because it is a daemon! Where Kharne and crew dont get it because they are not daemons!

So everything with EW is a Daemon now? Better tell someone about Marneus, and all the other great heroes of the Imperium....

What's sad is that Kharn SHOULD have EW, because he already died once before, but that didn't stop him.

I'd also like to point out once again that the Eldar codex predates the CSM codex. If they included Daemon as a rule for the Avatar in the older book, I find it hard to believe they just forgot to include it in CSM.

Pure RAW I think it is a very clear case that the units in the CSM codex are not 'daemons'.

Like someone stated earlier, it's meant to be a thing used against Codex Daemons. Nothing else. It wouldn't surprise me if in the next Eldar codex, the Avatar lost the daemon special rule. It was a dumb idea anyways. GK are already massive overpowered as it is...do you really think they should just automatically win against two of the only armies not tied to the imperium? Honestly, if I was playing Codex Daemons at a tourny, and I saw a GK player setting his army up, I would just leave, and spent my entrance fee at CiCi's pizza or something. Matt Ward needs to die.

"Hey guys! Let's rape the fluff of chaos so hardcore by taking all their daemons and giving it their own codex, and then in a few months, we can make GK, who will automatically win against said codex daemons, and then piss off every CSM player even more, by making people think that they get preferred enemy against an army that already lost all of its daemons."

Seriously, somebody kill him, before he makes the game worse...

If someone really tried to pull this preferred enemy garbage on me, I would start calling playing as if my Greater Daemon was a bloodthirster, and my summoned daemons as bloodletters, use the same kind of half-wit argument in doing so.

"It's chaos! Are you really telling me I can't take Bloodthirsters in my CSM when it says I can take summoned greater daemons as an HQ choice?"
"In the fluff, CSM armies would have Bloodthirsters..."
"I read a 40k novel, and Khorne hates magic users. Therefore your psychic powers don't work on anything in my army, because they all worship Khorne."

Honestly, RAI can be as stupid as the people who believe in it want it to be. That's why there's RAW, and that's why it's how you play it at tournaments.

Fire Dragons aren't dragons, nor are they fire, nor do they breath fire. Striking Scorpions are also not on strike.

Incidentally, the Avatar isn't a daemon, but for all intents and purposes is treated like one. What's the difference? It's a case of a gorilla not being an orangutan, but since they're both apes they are similar enough.

Additionally, I was under the impression that the Daemon Prince (C:CSM) is an exalted chaos space marine, and not in fact an actual daemon. Mutant is a better word than daemon.

Oh, and by the misguided logic Nosferatu is trying to combat - are Daemon Hunters daemons now?

P.S. UberhAxTHC, the Avatar is an incarnation of an Eldar God, summoned into mortal form through blood sacrifice. The God in question is also an entity largely from the same place as the actual daemons. It's not such a dumb idea, but it does demean an otherwise iconic figure and cast an odd shade on a race that's about as adamantly anti-chaos as you can get.

I know the story behind the Avatar, and the whispers of it being Khorne, but as far as I can tell, that's just games GW is playing with our heads. There's no way Khaine and Khorne can be the same guy....because Khaine lost to Slaanesh. Khorne wouldn't do that. And Khorne is still around, while Khaine is in 1000 pieces. It's probably true though, that all the Eldar gods are from the warp...it's how they made Slaanesh, after all. But as far as the rules goes, it was dumb to make the Avatar count as a daemon. It also killed some of the mystery about it.

And I thought for sure that the Avatars were the scattered pieces of Khaine, from when Slaanesh killed him....I've never heard anything about a blood sacrifice...is that what it says in their codex?

Yea,

As an Eldar player, the entry for Avatar of Khaine describes the ceremony in great detail.

briefly you have a statute of the avatar. They paint war runes on a chosen aspect warrior who dons the identity of the "young king".

They send this poor tool into the chamber with the Avatar Statute, his soul gets obliterated and the Avatar walks out of the room looking to crump some heads.

It goes on to say that the Farseers won't speak of what happens to the bloke's soul, so we can assume its bad.