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.

So you are also saying that if the Vindicare shoots celestine with a shild breaker and it makes it so she cant take ehr wargear invul, she also cannot take her shield of faith invul because she had another one? those are two rules one with a fixed save, and ont that isint. READ AN ARGUMENT. Dont just dismiss somethign becasue you belive you are right. I have offered rules supporting me and dropped every exaply you could throw my way. Come up with som solid ground and stop rapid firing the same examples.

sO let me ask this real fast. Whats the problem here.

The brb rule for deamons adds fear and 5+ invuln.
the faq says add fear to deamons. plus keep the 4 rules tated in the codex. So wheres the conflict. Soul grinders still dont get a save of 5+ its not in there profile, and it is errated. so theres no other conflict i can read.

The daemon usr is 2 things and the faq gives 1 of the 2 things. Invulns are covered in the codex.
Is this to hard to understand...

: Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex (except for Chaos
Spawn), Daemon Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines,
Obliterators, summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion upgrade,
Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the Decapitator, the
Avatar. this covers what gets the brb daemon rule added to them specifically the 5 up invuln.
Its not rocket surgery people.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
So you are also saying that if the Vindicare shoots celestine with a shild breaker and it makes it so she cant take ehr wargear invul, she also cannot take her shield of faith invul because she had another one? those are two rules one with a fixed save, and ont that isint. READ AN ARGUMENT. Dont just dismiss somethign becasue you belive you are right. I have offered rules supporting me and dropped every exaply you could throw my way. Come up with som solid ground and stop rapid firing the same examples.

I have read it.
At no point did I say you can't have 2 invulnerable saves.
I said you can't combine rules.
The Codex rule and the BRB rule are two different rules, giving different benifits.
I've shown in the Errata how they're considered different.
I've not seen the rules support you've mentioned other that "doesn't say you can't"
Please show me where you can combine BRB and Codex rules. You havn't done it so far.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
No you are wrong.
Fear Causing and 5++
Fearless, Eternal Warrior, ECT.

None of those rules conflict at all in any way shape or form.

Invulnerable! as defined in the daemon codex says that the daemon's Armor Save is invulnerable.
The BRB Daemon rule says that the invulnerable save is 5+

That is a direct conflict. One is variable and the other is not.

So you are saying that St. Celestine cannot have her 6++ from shield of faith as well as a 4++ from the armor of saint cathrine? The rules disagree with you mightily. Check your sources before you use and example because that was a bad one..

@Grendel- That is wrong. Vindicare and Eldar Rangers both have sniper weapons. These weapons also have other rules. Deos that mean that they no longer follow normal sniper rules? No. Again you are mistaken.

Are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters? What does Celestine have to do with any of this?
We are not talking about a model with different invuls from two completely different rules with completely different names.

We are taking about two rules with the same name but different definitions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
So you are also saying that if the Vindicare shoots celestine with a shild breaker and it makes it so she cant take ehr wargear invul, she also cannot take her shield of faith invul because she had another one? those are two rules one with a fixed save, and ont that isint. READ AN ARGUMENT. Dont just dismiss somethign becasue you belive you are right. I have offered rules supporting me and dropped every exaply you could throw my way. Come up with som solid ground and stop rapid firing the same examples.

I have read it.
At no point did I say you can't have 2 invulnerable saves.
I said you can't combine rules.
The Codex rule and the BRB rule are two different rules, giving different benifits.
I've shown in the Errata how they're considered different.
I've not seen the rules support you've mentioned other that "doesn't say you can't"
Please show me where you can combine BRB and Codex rules. You havn't done it so far.

Exactly.

Why is it a problem that we have 2 different Daemon rules?

Can't they have both and be perfectly fine?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why is it a problem that we have 2 different Daemon rules?

Can't they have both and be perfectly fine?

If you can find a rule allowing both, or to combine the two then yes you can have both.
If not, no you can't.

I have the Daemon special rule, I also have the Daemon special rule.

I see no conflict between them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I have the Daemon special rule, I also have the Daemon special rule.

I see no conflict between them.

Are they the same?
Or do they... conflict?

They only conflict if they tell you to do contradictory things.

In this case they don't say contradictory things so there is no conflict.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They only conflict if they tell you to do contradictory things.

In this case they don't say contradictory things so there is no conflict.

That's contradiction, not conflict.
They don't say the same thing, the two rules give differnent benifits.
Rule One says "A", Rule Two says "B". A =\= B
It would be nice to combine them, but there's nothing to allow you to do this.

Yeah, I still don't see the problem

Rule A says X, Rule B says Y.

They are 2 different Daemon rules.

Lets call the Daemon rule thats found in the BRB the Daemon rule subscript 1, and the rule found in the Daemon codex Daemon rule subscript 2 so we know what we are talking about.

Why are people talking about TDA and storm shields? 0_o
Both are pieces of wargear that provide a save, not a rule.
They are also very different topics.

Because a model has 2 different saves does not open the floodgates for a rules change.
The C:CD book states that the saves are ++ saves.
The BRB Daemon rule states they get a 5+

Thats not 2 fixed saves like the TDA/shield argument.
Its a fixed save and a variable save.
Also, just because it has the same name on the rule does not mean both apply.

DA storm shields, not quite the same as normal ones are they?
There are plenty of things which go against the rules of a same named item.
It does not however mean your stormshield gives you a 3++/4++ because they have the same name.




Also, a fixed 5++ vs a variable ++ is a direct contradiction in the rules.
Not because they cant have both as such, but more because 1 is saying all daemons have a 5++ save.
The next on say a horror, is giving it a 4++ save. (variable)
BRB says all daemons have a 5++ save.
If a daemon for some reason has a 4++ then its not sticking to the rules in the BRB as it has an improved save to what has been given to it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, I still don't see the problem

Rule A says X, Rule B says Y.

They are 2 different Daemon rules.

Lets call the Daemon rule thats found in the BRB the Daemon rule subscript 1, and the rule found in the Daemon codex Daemon rule subscript 2 so we know what we are talking about.

Exactly, 2 different rules. They have the same name, but tell you different things.

You're using Codex Daemons, so you use rule subset 2. Nothing in the Codex or FAQ says to use subset 1. And there's defiantly nothing to merge them into subset 3.

On a similar note, there is the rule "And They Shall Know No Fear" defined in both the Codex and the BRB. As these rules differ you would normally use the Codex definition (as the two rules give conflicting information). However the FAQ tells us to refer to the BRB. There is no such change for the Daemon rule, so the Codex rule should be used. Combining the two totally unsupported.

Codex > BRB right?

In which case, if both have a variation of the same rule, wouldnt that alone show that C:CD take the version printed in the codex, rather than also taking the one in the BRB?

Special rules: Daemon, Daemon - this does not look right to me.
You cannot deviate between the 2 since they have the same name.
Thats like just calling all plasma weapons "Plasma" from now on.
There is more than 1 type.

Ok so all daemons get fear correct? IIRC the faq says so.

All codex daemons that get a save has a save thats invulnerable as per the codex correct.?

So unless therer is a rule that says soulgrinder gets the 5+ invuln thers really no argument since its a vehicle without a saving throw. The odd daemons mentioned in the FAQ that prior to the update didnt have invuln or fear now get that but dont get the wacky rules in the daemon codex.

Its real simple people why cant we all just get along and stop trying to bend the rules till they break.

Everyhting in the daemon codex has a save thats invuln EXCEPT the soul grinder. IT does not get a save its not a living legend like Bjorn. But it does have fear.

done

You take the version printed in the codex. the rule "Daemon" has its own codex rule, so you take the rule. Nothing allows you to pick and choose which parts of the rule you want

The problem is the wording of the faq. Only models with the Daemon special rule have the benefits listed in the rulebook. Except for the Avatar and CSM Summoned Daemons is there anything that has the Daemon special rule from the rulebook?

Decimator, forgeworld - it is not a chaos daemon codex entry

I still do not see anywhere where it says you cannot combine 2 rules with the same name. It makes more sense to be able to do sao because they have the same name. There is no reason why the Daemon USR should not apply to all models with the Daemon rule. Just because some models have additional rules for being Codex: Chaos Daemons does not mean that they are not also generic Daemons as defined in the BRB.

You have 2 rules, and nothing gives you PERMISSION to use both. You use the rule in your book as this conflicts (because it has the same name but different rules, by definition a conflict) with the BRB

I do not agree that they are in conflict. Nothing about the two rules conflicts with each other. Just because they have the same name does not mean they conflict. I would say you need a rule saying you cannot use both because there is cause to use both as both are under the same name.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have 2 rules, and nothing gives you PERMISSION to use both. You use the rule in your book as this conflicts (because it has the same name but different rules, by definition a conflict) with the BRB

So you would say Flamers and Screamers have no save at all? Just from an RAI standpoint, I think the way this should be played is pretty clear. Taking one Daemon rule or the other leads to bizarre outcomes.

I don't see why two special rules cannot both apply, or why some special permission would be required to do this. Should the rulebook say, "If your unit is subject to multiple special rules, apply them all" or shouldn't that go without saying?

Actually I can see both applying (at least for the Codex models). The codex specifically spells out what all models (in the Codex) with the Daemon rule benefit from. Furthermore, per the GK FAQ, any model that have the Daemon special rule in their bestiary/armyy list entry follow the rules for Daemons given in the rulebook.

This means that all codex units that have the Daemon special rule benefits from both.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I do not agree that they are in conflict. Nothing about the two rules conflicts with each other. Just because they have the same name does not mean they conflict. I would say you need a rule saying you cannot use both because there is cause to use both as both are under the same name.

It's not a conflict because their names are the same, it's a conflict because the rules they give are different.
One rule tells you one thing, the other something else. That's pretty much the very definition of a conflict.
And no there isn't anything saying you can't combine the two rules, but more importantly there's nothing saying you can. Permissive ruleset and all that.

So then what does the GK FAQ do?

Does (for example) a Bloodletter of Khorne have the Daemon special rule? If so, then according to the GK FAQ they have then benefits listed in the BRB.

What about the Avatar of Khaine? Again it has the Daemon special rule from the BRB, with the exception of having a 4+ instead of 5+ Invulnerable save.

Mess things up, big time?

It is clear they have messed up entries for screamers et al in the supplment by not giving them a save, or making it clear they follow the BRB daemon rule. Issue 1. the GK FAQ complicates things further.

Not all daemons are from Codex: Daemons.
The Grey Knight FAQ still makes sense, you should use the BRB definition. Unless you have a Codex definition to override it.
The Eldar Codex points to the BRB definition, with the noted change. No conflict there.

This is a perfect example of GW's awesome rule-writing skill. It's almost like they made this intentionally confusing so they could read this thread and laugh at us arguing.

For example, if they wanted this to be clear they could have either given the two rules different names (ie...Demon in the BRB and something like "Denizens of the warp" for the rule in the codex.) or they could have explicitly said, "Replace the Deamon USR in the BRB with the following rule...). Are they so fecking cheap that they can't pay to ink a single frickin' sentence?

Seriously. Why do I even pay $50 for such an incompetently written codex? Can I have my money back?

As above

you have a conflict because BRB Daemon rule does X, and Daemon Daemon rule does Y. By definition that is a conflict because you have the same named rule doing two different things. As per the rulebook, codex wins out here

Nothing in the BRB definition allows you to say "well because X does not impinge on Y we can just add them together" - they still are in conflict. There is no rule allowance to conflate the two rules, otherwise people would have been able to point to the page and para by now.

You guys keep saying "Permissive Ruleset" but if a rule that belongs to Daemons, cant belong to Daemons, then I have no clue what a permissive ruleset is. I have clear permission to apply the Daemon rule to anything that has the Daemon special rule. Though they have the same name, the rules do not conflict at all. They all list a variety of effects that some units have exceptions to (Just like the Avatar of Khaine). If having an exception built into a rule makes you not a Daemon, then the Avatar wouldnt be able to follow the Daemon rule either. Obvoiusly he can per the FAQ so there is no reason to say that other Daemons cannot.