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.

IdentifyZero wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Daemon Hunters have the word 'Daemon' in their name, too
But agree, why should a daemon prince not be a daemon when fighting with CSM, when it is one when fighting with other daemons?

Are we trying to be difficult here? You're referencing the BOOK/CODEX name of the army, because they hunt Daemons.

Jidmah wrote:Doesn't make you definition any less silly. That's like saying a restaurant is tau.

I think you are the one with the silly definition, trying to de-rail topic with nonsense and spouting off lines like the above.

Please, try to contribute.

Nobody in this topic, has an IQ below 70 I imagine and none of you are illiterate and none of you, have never heard of Warhammer 40,000.

*For a fact, we know that Daemons, of all shapes and sizes = Daemons.

*We also know, that things with the word Daemon in their name, are associated with Daemons.

*We know Daemons are associated with the Warp (Chaos).

Grey Knights have Preferred Enemy: Daemons, which really is any unit that is by lore or rules, considered a Daemon.

By your Tau/Restraunt logic, Daemons are mon. Hey Mon! We got Preferred Enemy: Mon!

Uh, what deffrolla just crashed your favorite landraider?

Maybe try reading the post I responded to, before insulting random people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:No,

Restaurant is a single word.

Deamon is a single word.


I am no pulling a word out of another word, the word Deamon is one of the 2 words that make up the unit name, Deamon Prince.

that is a Reducto ad Absurdium argument you have there and as such is invalid.



we arn't told how to define what a deamon is, and as such we must count everything that is a deamon in any way, shape, or form. this includes things with the Deamon rule, things in Codex: Deamons, Deamon Princes(name), summoned Deamons(again, name) and the Avatar(its rules explicitly say its a deamon)

Sure, but a Demon Prince could as well be a mortal simply chosen as heir by the chaos gods, as well as a mortal turned into a demon, as well as a demon simply aiding mortal. Simply having "deamon" in your name does not make you a demon per definition, which is what I wanted to show by using the "Daemon Hunter" example. It could be someone hunting daemons or a daemon hunting other stuff, or even a daemon hunting daemons.

Ummm, no


A Deamon Prince is a mortal that has been turned into a Deamon as the ultimate reward.

He is a Deamon on all accounts.


it is the goal which all chaos followers ascribe to, to become immortal and serve their god for all eternity.

Jidmah wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Daemon Hunters have the word 'Daemon' in their name, too
But agree, why should a daemon prince not be a daemon when fighting with CSM, when it is one when fighting with other daemons?

Are we trying to be difficult here? You're referencing the BOOK/CODEX name of the army, because they hunt Daemons.

Jidmah wrote:Doesn't make you definition any less silly. That's like saying a restaurant is tau.

I think you are the one with the silly definition, trying to de-rail topic with nonsense and spouting off lines like the above.

Please, try to contribute.

Nobody in this topic, has an IQ below 70 I imagine and none of you are illiterate and none of you, have never heard of Warhammer 40,000.

*For a fact, we know that Daemons, of all shapes and sizes = Daemons.

*We also know, that things with the word Daemon in their name, are associated with Daemons.

*We know Daemons are associated with the Warp (Chaos).

Grey Knights have Preferred Enemy: Daemons, which really is any unit that is by lore or rules, considered a Daemon.

By your Tau/Restraunt logic, Daemons are mon. Hey Mon! We got Preferred Enemy: Mon!

Uh, what deffrolla just crashed your favorite landraider?

Maybe try reading the post I responded to, before insulting random people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:No,

Restaurant is a single word.

Deamon is a single word.


I am no pulling a word out of another word, the word Deamon is one of the 2 words that make up the unit name, Deamon Prince.

that is a Reducto ad Absurdium argument you have there and as such is invalid.



we arn't told how to define what a deamon is, and as such we must count everything that is a deamon in any way, shape, or form. this includes things with the Deamon rule, things in Codex: Deamons, Deamon Princes(name), summoned Deamons(again, name) and the Avatar(its rules explicitly say its a deamon)

Sure, but a Demon Prince could as well be a mortal simply chosen as heir by the chaos gods, as well as a mortal turned into a demon, as well as a demon simply aiding mortal. Simply having "deamon" in your name does not make you a demon per definition, which is what I wanted to show by using the "Daemon Hunter" example. It could be someone hunting daemons or a daemon hunting other stuff, or even a daemon hunting daemons.

I think your confusion is arising from the fact, that english is not your first language. That is not meant as an insult.

Yes, that might be the issue here.

I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

Grey Templar wrote:Ummm, no


A Deamon Prince is a mortal that has been turned into a Deamon as the ultimate reward.

He is a Deamon on all accounts.


it is the goal which all chaos followers ascribe to, to become immortal and serve their god for all eternity.

Which is actually what I said in the first place. Doesn't have a thing to do with its name though.

Zero: You shouldn't be judging peoples lingual skills by the flag next to their name. It does come across as insult.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah, and I just realized I mistyped daemon like five times in one post...

Grey Templar wrote:

and there never was a UNIT with the word Deamon in its name in the Deamonhunter codex.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Daemonhost
Bam sucka!

Clauss wrote:I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

Curiously Clauss, I am wondering if you took the time to read what you just typed?

Anyways, take into account, one codex is newer than the other for starters and they haven't had the same updates and special rules applied.

Also, look at your own fallacies of logic, as posted:

You claim a Daemon Prince is not a Daemon.
You then say in the Daemons Codex, he has a rule 'Daemon'.
IN the Chaos Codex which is (OLDER) he is stated as a MC, but for all intents and purposes, is really no different then the unit in Codex Chaos Daemons. They are both Daemon princes, they are both more daemon than man.

Also, you do realize, everything in this game is based on lore (Fluff) and in cases like this, with the Grey Knights, there preferred enemy does not go into definining what a Daemon is; relying upon the average Warhammer 40,000 player to acknowledge what one is without being ridiculous or illogical in order to play devil's advocate.

Clauss wrote:I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

However, names do have rules applications.


we arn't told in the Main Rule Book how to apply Preferred enemy. it doesn't say by Codex, it doesn't say by special rule, it doesn't say by name.


the GK codex simply says they have preferred enemy against Daemons. it doesn't say you determine what a daemon is by Codex, name, or Special rule. it just says Daemons.



so, we have to do a blanket application. if it has Deamon anywhere in its name or special rules, its a Daemon for Preferred Enemy purposes.

Che-Vito wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

and there never was a UNIT with the word Deamon in its name in the Deamonhunter codex.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Daemonhost
Bam sucka!

Awesome, you quoted someone based on the 3rd edition Codex with something that has no real relevancy to the topic, except to prove, that things with the word Daemon in their name are almost always Daemons.

Let me guess, you would argue a Daemonhost isn't a Daemon because it's in Codex: Daemonhunters and is also a human.

Plain and simple, anyone who is trying to pretend certain things are not Daemons are using willful ignorance. That is far worse than, well, any kind of unwilling stupidity.

Ok, i forgot about the deamonhost.


I'll include it in my list of deamons too, even though it absolutly sucks and no one will ever use one in a competitive enviroment.

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, i forgot about the deamonhost.


I'll include it in my list of deamons too, even though it absolutly sucks and no one will ever use one in a competitive enviroment.

Also to note, the Daemonhost in the GK Codex does not have Daemon special rule, but is still for all purposes a Daemon. There's a precedent within their own codex. No special daemon rule, but a Daemon.

Once more, check & mate; to those arguing against this. You're pounding your heads against brick walls.

Grey Templar wrote:

Clauss wrote:I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

However, names do have rules applications.


we arn't told in the Main Rule Book how to apply Preferred enemy. it doesn't say by Codex, it doesn't say by special rule, it doesn't say by name.


the GK codex simply says they have preferred enemy against Daemons. it doesn't say you determine what a daemon is by Codex, name, or Special rule. it just says Daemons.



so, we have to do a blanket application. if it has Deamon anywhere in its name or special rules, its a Daemon for Preferred Enemy purposes.

Why not simply check that half page of fluff for the unit you're attacking whether it's a daemon? Why create an artificial rule which can easily fail when that rumored SoB codex is printed and they get a "Daemon Slayer" rule a "Daemon Hunter" unit or similar?

What about GK characters wielding daemon swords?

First they came for the Codex: Chaos Daemons models because those had the daemon rule.
Then they came for the Codex: Chaos Space Marines models because those had the word daemon in their name.
Then they came for the Possessed, the daemon hosts, the Defilers, and all of those models with daemon weapons because they were touched by daemons.
Then they came for the Legion of the Damned, the Warp Beasts, Sanguinor and Draigo because those were associated with the Warp and anything associated with the Warp must be a daemon.

Where does it all end?

solkan wrote:First they came for the Codex: Chaos Daemons models because those had the daemon rule.
Then they came for the Codex: Chaos Space Marines models because those had the word daemon in their name.
Then they came for the Possessed, the daemon hosts, the Defilers, and all of those models with daemon weapons because they were touched by daemons.
Then they came for the Legion of the Damned, the Warp Beasts, Sanguinor and Draigo because those were associated with the Warp and anything associated with the Warp must be a daemon.

Where does it all end?

I know this was a joke but it isn't preferred enemy: Warp or preferred enemy: warp taint.

Preferred enemy: daemons

We could say that if a codex has come into contact with Gav Thorpe during its production most of the things in it are a little daemonic...

Jidmah wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

Clauss wrote:I can see both arguments here, but I would say I side with the idea that "daemon princes" are not special rule daemons.
The units in the daemons codex have special rule daemons, the chaos daemon prince has nowhere in its description of its unit. Besides its title, which if you want to argue that, he is a prince of daemons, not a lesser, or greater daemon. Thus by his name he is a leader of daemons, not necessarily a daemon.
In the daemons codex, the daemon prince in there has special rule "daemon"
In the chaos codex, all it says is monstrous creature. it seems obvious to me that he is not a daemon, thus no preferred enemy for a chaos daemon prince.

Grey templar, I wouldn't use fluff descriptions as an argument for rules. Just not a great idea. Fluff has no consolation when applying rules. At all

However, names do have rules applications.


we arn't told in the Main Rule Book how to apply Preferred enemy. it doesn't say by Codex, it doesn't say by special rule, it doesn't say by name.


the GK codex simply says they have preferred enemy against Daemons. it doesn't say you determine what a daemon is by Codex, name, or Special rule. it just says Daemons.



so, we have to do a blanket application. if it has Deamon anywhere in its name or special rules, its a Daemon for Preferred Enemy purposes.

Why not simply check that half page of fluff for the unit you're attacking whether it's a daemon? Why create an artificial rule which can easily fail when that rumored SoB codex is printed and they get a "Daemon Slayer" rule a "Daemon Hunter" unit or similar?

What about GK characters wielding daemon swords?

in that case, you arn't actually fighting a deamon, but a dude wielding a sword with a bound deamon inside.


When the sword itself becomes a model on its own then it will be a deamon.



I have no doubt the Eratta willl clear this issue up, but its a good blanket rule.


and SoB are witch hunters, not deamon hunters.



Ultimatly, we need to use a little bit of common sense here.

if you can't see that a Deamon prince and Summoned Deamons are, in fact, Deamons then i really don't know what to say. maybe this isn't the game for you.

Grey Templar wrote:if you can't see that a Deamon prince and Summoned Deamons are, in fact, Deamons then i really don't know what to say. maybe this isn't the game for you.

=

Signed.

"Prefered enemy: heretics" would probably melt everybody's brain.

Indeed,


for that I would have to say everything that isn't an Alien.

Grey Templar wrote:if you can't see that a Deamon prince and Summoned Deamons are, in fact, Deamons then i really don't know what to say. maybe this isn't the game for you.

Oh well, whatever. You don't want to get my point, so I'm not going to force it onto you.

Of course daemon princes and summoned daemons are daemons.

You don't really have a point though.

Everything is Heresy! YOU are Heresy!

iproxtaco wrote:Everything is Heresy! YOU are Heresy!

IN THE EMPEROR'S NAME! DIE HERETIC! PURGE!

1d4chan wrote:What IS heresy?

The Imperium realizes that Heresy is a serious matter that must be explained with great detail from the lowliest servant to the highest Commander. And so with the aid of the most wise Inquisition and holy Ecclasiarchy, they have defined what is heresy in the eyes of our immortal God-Emperor:
EVERYTHING IS HERESY
EVERYTHING

IdentifyZero wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

and there never was a UNIT with the word Deamon in its name in the Deamonhunter codex.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Daemonhost
Bam sucka!

Awesome, you quoted someone based on the 3rd edition Codex with something that has no real relevancy to the topic, except to prove, that things with the word Daemon in their name are almost always Daemons.

Let me guess, you would argue a Daemonhost isn't a Daemon because it's in Codex: Daemonhunters and is also a human.

Plain and simple, anyone who is trying to pretend certain things are not Daemons are using willful ignorance. That is far worse than, well, any kind of unwilling stupidity.

1) I was responding to what I quoted. Period. End of story. That's it. I was making no broader point.
2) I wouldn't argue that. Try getting off your horse for a minute, and reading what I wrote earlier in this thread. There is something calling posting etiquette. You're lacking it.
3) I have been arguing the same point as you. Think about it.

IdentifyZero wrote:Nobody in this topic, has an IQ below 70 I imagine and none of you are illiterate and none of you, have never heard of Warhammer 40,000.

This kind of stuff really makes your argument look worse than it is. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop posting this kind of thing. It adds nothing to the discussion except a sense of hostility and implied insult, toeing the line of moderation and trying to be unpleasant without directly attacking any one person. It really wouldn't hurt you to display a more friendly attitude.

IdentifyZero wrote:Grey Knights have Preferred Enemy: Daemons, which really is any unit that is by lore or rules, considered a Daemon.

Where are you getting that definition? It's not coming from the rules. It's coming from your personal interpretation. To the best of my knowledge, every other example of "Preferred Enemy: xxxxx", "xxxxx" indicates a race/codex. Preferred Enemy: Tyranids means everything in the Tyranid Codex. Preferred Enemy: Orks means everything which has a WS stat in the Ork codex.

By your argument, wouldn't we have to say that Gretchin, Dredds and Killa Kans wouldn't be affected by Preferred Enemy: Orks? If the rule keys off the unit's name or fluff, rather than by codex?

Now, personally, I suspect that the INTENT is for Daemon Princes and Summoned Lesser Daemons to count. However, they are both very different units than the closest equivalent units in Codex: Daemons, so I could easily understand it if GW did NOT mean for them to be included. It's hard to say.

It's even trickier to say in the case of Defilers and Possessed. Both of those are possessed by Daemons in the fluff. Both were on the list of units which counted as Daemons in the old Daemonhunters codex. But neither has the word "Daemon" in its name. So what do we say about these? Do we use the old Daemonhunters definition? Do we say they're not affected because they're not part of Codex: Daemons? Or do we make a personal call based on fluff/names, and say they DON'T count, but Princes and SLD do? No matter which tack we choose we're having to make up a ruling because GW had a major editorial failure and were too dumb to actually tell us, like they did in the old codex.

Hopefully it'll be covered in the Grey Knights FAQ when we eventually get one. It's an embarassment that GW didn't think to spell it out in the book. In the meanwhile, we have to come to agreement with our opponents about what seems reasonable to BOTH of us. And I guarantee you that this discussion will be a lot more pleasant and enjoyable and smooth if we leave out comments about "IQs under 70" or "attempts to abuse the rules", or even just coming in to the discussion with the attitude that there is only one reasonable interpretation and that anyone who thinks differently is a jerk or a cheater. Keep it polite and respectful, and I'm sure reasonable people will have a reasonable and easy discussion. Be unreasonable, and you're going to set an unpleasant tone for the whole game.

It's a sad state of affairs that this wasn't defined after all the controversy with CH and the new C:CD codex....

The Grey Knight codex states under Preferred Enemy (Daemons), that it applies to all things daemonic and warspawn. Note sure why people miss that, other than perhaps by not having actually read it.

Those that argue the point of Codex Daemons giving units there in the special rule "Daemon" as the definition of what is or isn't a daemon, if you bother to read it, the special rule "Daemon" covers a lot of different rules that apply to specific units in the codex, but not all of them. As such, only the units in the codex that have that specific rule benefits from all of the rules noted under "Daemon". This allows the writers of the codex to not have to put several named rules into a stat line when the word "Daemon" will cover everything of note.

The same is true for the Grey Knights codex where the terms "Grey Knight" and "Nemesis Force Weapon" are defined, as not all units in the Grey Knights codex are "Grey Knights", nor is every force weapon in their codex a "Nemesis Force Weapon".

So for those of you that claim a Daemon Prince is not a Daemon because it lacks a special rule, cool that you are being obstinate, but you are still wrong as your codex considers them daemons, evern if you do not.

SJ

It’s called codex creep deal with it GK's if it does not have the special rule of Daemon you don’t get the bonuses, quit whining about your over powered codex. (I knew space marines where babies but sheesh)

Dr_Chin wrote:It’s called codex creep deal with it GK's if it does not have the special rule of Daemon you don’t get the bonuses, quit whining about your over powered codex. (I knew space marines where babies but sheesh)

Except that's not what the preferred enemy rule says either.

Obvious Troll, is obvious.