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.

Dick argument: No, mentioned units are demons for GK ONLY. Because 40k isn't for people looking for fun, its for layer wannabes.

Common sense argument: Yeah, those are demons now.

somewhat OTT comments removed. was a wee bit over the line here I'm afraid, especially with regards to the language involved.

Reds8n

So yeah.

What the new GK FAQ did was show everyone that GW feels that description = rules as much as statline = rules and rules = rules. Specifically, if you read a unit's entry and see in the description that the unit is daemonic in origin, but the statline does not specifically note the unit as being a daemon, GW still considers the unit a daemon and so should you. Its a good precedent, and should be applied to all instances were the question of "is this unit a daemon?" comes up.

SJ

terranarc wrote:And don't even get me started on possessed CSM

Possessed counted as Daemons in the last codex as well. So that at least shouldn't have come as a surprise...

jeffersonian000 wrote:What the new GK FAQ did was show everyone that GW feels that description = rules as much as statline = rules and rules = rules.

Or rather, What the new GK FAQ did was show everyone that GW still feels that description = rules as much as statline = rules and rules = rules.
It's most certainly not the first time they've made this sort of call. They've been doing it since at least second edition.

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Poor wording in that it defines daemons yet does so that you do not know if it applies game wide or army specific.

Is there really any good reason to not assume that it applies game-wide?

It would hardly be the first time that GW have included a game-wide ruling in a single army's FAQ. That's a tradition going back at least to 3rd edition, with the ruling on using multiple close combat weapons while on a bike being included in the Dark Eldar FAQ, but being applied to everybody.

You may not like having rules for you army included in another army's FAQ, but it is situation normal for GW.


More to the point, if you have a grey area in your army's rules that has not been specifically addressed in your army's FAQ, but GW has addressed a similar (in this case identical) issue in another army's FAQ, what practical purpose is served by sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'You're not my army!'

You have an answer to your rules issue. The fact that it's not been printed where you would like it to be should really be secondary to just getting on with the game, surely?

This. Important game-wide rulings have been in codex-specific FAQs for as long as I've been playing. Rulings about two CCWs on bikes in the DE FAQ, rulings about Skimmers in the Eldar FAQ... Even now, the Space Wolf FAQ is what tells us how Counter-Attack and Furious Charge interact, which is important in every IG army fielding Straken.

I have had some new insight regard this topic and it does not fare well for the Wolves.

My first point of contention is that this is from a GK faq, not a BRB faq. That is partially a pet peeve of mine, but does hold some validity when backed up by my second point.

The FAQ entry for this specifically mentions a page IN the GK codex, page 21 that is in reference to the GK having Preferred Enemy (Daemons) which leads to y final point.

Rune Priests have a runic weapon that wounds Daemon models on a 2+. Rune Priests do not have Preferred Enemy (Daemons) which the GK faq specifically is referencing.

That leads me to conclude that the list of defined Daemons in the GK faq is exclusive to GK only as a clarification of Preferred. Enemy (Damons) not what constitutes all Daemons in Warhammer 40k.

Brother Ramses wrote:I have had some new insight regard this topic and it does not fare well for the Wolves.

My first point of contention is that this is from a GK faq, not a BRB faq. That is partially a pet peeve of mine, but does hold some validity when backed up by my second point.

The FAQ entry for this specifically mentions a page IN the GK codex, page 21 that is in reference to the GK having Preferred Enemy (Daemons) which leads to y final point.

Rune Priests have a runic weapon that wounds Daemon models on a 2+. Rune Priests do not have Preferred Enemy (Daemons) which the GK faq specifically is referencing.

That leads me to conclude that the list of defined Daemons in the GK faq is exclusive to GK only as a clarification of Preferred. Enemy (Damons) not what constitutes all Daemons in Warhammer 40k.

Well I can certainly see one of my friends pulling this in which my Preist will not harm his Prince but in a situation where it really matters I think Space Wolves will wound on a 2+ and that also If he is going for RAW just start doing the stupidest crap possible like sticking njal in a rhino while upgraded with runic terminatour armour.
Yay 200 posts.

Brother Ramses wrote:I have had some new insight regard this topic and it does not fare well for the Wolves.

My first point of contention is that this is from a GK faq, not a BRB faq. That is partially a pet peeve of mine, but does hold some validity when backed up by my second point.

The FAQ entry for this specifically mentions a page IN the GK codex, page 21 that is in reference to the GK having Preferred Enemy (Daemons) which leads to y final point.

Rune Priests have a runic weapon that wounds Daemon models on a 2+. Rune Priests do not have Preferred Enemy (Daemons) which the GK faq specifically is referencing.

That leads me to conclude that the list of defined Daemons in the GK faq is exclusive to GK only as a clarification of Preferred. Enemy (Damons) not what constitutes all Daemons in Warhammer 40k.

So this was still bothering me a bit so I figured I would test it against what some people have used as an example of an army specific FAQ having game wide ramifications: Baal Predators popping smoke during their scout move.

The Blood Angels FAQ references page 36, which is the Baal entry page. Smoke launchers is listed under the wargear. Referencing the wargear entry for smoke launchers it tells me to see the BRB.

So that is why as an army specific faq, it had game wide ramifications.

So it is pretty conclusive to me with what I have found that so far that the GK faq that defines daemons is exclusive to GK only since it specifically references a page in the GK codex for Preferred. Enemy (Daemons). This would only have gamewide ramifications to any other army that has Preferred. Enemy (Daemons).

It references the page to clarify why it is asking for a definition of 'Daemon' in a codex that doesn't contain any Daemons.

Your point about it only applying to Preferred Enemy would only be valid if it actually asked 'What counts as a Daemon for the purposes of the Preferred Enemy rule?'

Without that qualifier, all the question asks is 'What is a Daemon?' There is nothing in that FAQ response that ties the answer specifically to the Preferred Enemy rule.

Anything that interacts with models based on classification as 'daemon' get to use the new list.

Anything that interacts based on the special rule 'daemons' only cares about the special rule and stat line.

Simple.

The FAQ didn't change wargear or anything codex specific. Wargear can change from codex to codex Just because everybody has a gun called bolter doesn't mean they all have the same effectiveness. You have to follow the codex's specific statline for it unless they specifically say that all bolters fo all armies are now (new stats here).

If somebody is going to rule lawyer that badly, they have to find somebody else to play with. I am in this for the fun and TFG clearly has some other reason for being here.

-cgmckenzie

Brother Ramses wrote:

So this was still bothering me a bit so I figured I would test it against what some people have used as an example of an army specific FAQ having game wide ramifications: Baal Predators popping smoke during their scout move.

The Blood Angels FAQ references page 36, which is the Baal entry page. Smoke launchers is listed under the wargear. Referencing the wargear entry for smoke launchers it tells me to see the BRB.

So that is why as an army specific faq, it had game wide ramifications.

So it is pretty conclusive to me with what I have found that so far that the GK faq that defines daemons is exclusive to GK only since it specifically references a page in the GK codex for Preferred. Enemy (Daemons). This would only have gamewide ramifications to any other army that has Preferred. Enemy (Daemons).

What you seem to keep ignoring, is that there is NO definition outside of the Grey Knight FAQ about what is or isn't a Daemon. So you can keep saying: The Grey Knight FAQ applies only to Grey Knights, but this ruling is not a change of the rules. It is a clarification of what is considered a Daemon.

The problem is, lots of people have been assuming that ONLY models with the 'Daemon' special rule are considered to be a Daemon, when this is a logical fallacy. If your Space Wolf rule said that it affects models with the 'Daemon special rule' then the Grey Knight FAQ ruling would have absolutely zero impact on your codex...only models with the Daemon special rule would be affected.

But your codex doesn't say that. It says that your models get a bonus against 'Daemons' with absolutely no further clarification. So you literally have no idea about what is or isn't a Daemon.

So there literally is no other way for you to play that is condoned by the designers except to use the Grey Knight ruling in this case...because there are no clear rules to follow in your own codex.


And finally, just to be clear about something else: There is absolutely no indication in ANY FAQ that says the rulings from a particular FAQ can only ever be applied to that codex. FAQs about a particular codex by their nature cover QUESTIONS about a particular codex, but the rulings given can and do have game-wide implications depending on what the question is and how the answer is worded, and this is especially true when another codex has a similar situation of unclear rules and there is literally no way to know the 'RAW' except to follow the precedent set by a ruling given in another codex's FAQ.

Jidmah wrote:Exactly, they might be inconsistent when ruling similar effects, but never contradict each other.

Check the result of multiple Lashes being cast on a unit in the CSM and main BRB FAQ's. They contradict.

axeman1n wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Exactly, they might be inconsistent when ruling similar effects, but never contradict each other.

Check the result of multiple Lashes being cast on a unit in the CSM and main BRB FAQ's. They contradict.

You realize you could have multiple HQs with lashes? No contradiction here.

axeman1n wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Exactly, they might be inconsistent when ruling similar effects, but never contradict each other.

Check the result of multiple Lashes being cast on a unit in the CSM and main BRB FAQ's. They contradict.

1) Multiple Slaanesh HQs, each with Lash - so, no contradiction
2) Noone with access to Lash can cast more than one power - so, no contradiction.

There is a contradiction, in regards to models with NFH losing their +2I bonus if they are effected by an ability that lowers amodels Initiative. The Tyranid FAQ rules in the opposite direction, allowing Initiative bonus to be retained after the model's base Initiative stat is reduced.

I guess Halberds aren't as good as Furious Charge. Or is it that special rules trump wargear?

SJ

Noone knows. Probably not even GW - I doubt theyre aware of the contradiction even existing.

Noone knows. Probably not even GW - I doubt theyre aware of the contradiction even existing.

I got 10 USD that they do. It's just that GW hates you.

GW hates many things, basically everything except my money lol, but yeah, im willing to bet that they are unaware of this contradiciton

jeffersonian000 wrote:I guess Halberds aren't as good as Furious Charge. Or is it that special rules trump wargear?

Option #3: One of those FAQs was the Tyranid FAQ, so no reasoning is needed.

Although, I would like to know what would happen if a Halberd came up against a Lash Whip. You can't follow both FAQs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:This. Important game-wide rulings have been in codex-specific FAQs for as long as I've been playing. Rulings about two CCWs on bikes in the DE FAQ, rulings about Skimmers in the Eldar FAQ... Even now, the Space Wolf FAQ is what tells us how Counter-Attack and Furious Charge interact, which is important in every IG army fielding Straken.

And isn't the BA FAQ the only one that specifically addresses Furious Charge bubbles? That has an impact on at least Tyranids.

FAQ's cannot be treated as "army only", as many people seem to think. Each FAQ shows how GW would houserule a particular rules question, which in most instances sets a precedent for how they might treat similar rules question in other armies. Of course, the two different rulings over the same issue in the 'Nid and GK FAQ's does bring into question what it is they are smoking ... I mean, thinking.

SJ

In the end "halberds vs lashwips" is more specific than "halberd vs something that reduces I", so halberds would still work still work vs lashwips, but not against anything else.

Jidmah wrote:In the end "halberds vs lashwips" is more specific than "halberd vs something that reduces I", so halberds would still work still work vs lashwips, but not against anything else.

Lol that is just silly.

fortunantly I can't think of much that reduces your inititive other then the GK codex and lash whips.

nobody wrote:On a side note, this is why I'm angry that it's in the GK FAQ, rather than in the CSM (and DE) FAQs.

True, it would make much more sense to define in the C:CSM and C:CD codexes what counts as a "Daemon".

they will probably have a blurb in their new codex that says "yeah, they are deamons"

Grey Templar wrote:fortunantly I can't think of much that reduces your inititive other then the GK codex and lash whips.

Thunder hammers? Charging though terrain?

true, but no GK is going to be wounded by a TH and survive.


and charging through terrain is also irrelevent as GKs have frag grenades.

Draigo - but he doesnt have a halberd....

Draigo has Eternal Warrior.

SJ

I know - he is also T5 true so wouldnt be killed by an average TH anyway.

However its irrelevant to THIS point as he doesnt have a halberd

From memory, can't inquisitors take TH at S3?