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.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Does a daemon prince have the option to take a Mark?
No.
Can a daemon prince be dedicated to a god? Yes
Is being dedicated to a god the same as taking a mark? No

Can a khorne daemon prince take an Axe of blind fury? No.

If you'd like some fluff for that, maybe since the daemon has no soul anymore he cannot empower the axe.
This is RAW, RAI and what we would like to see is a different story.

This is not RAW...
RAI is clear as per the last 4 editions.

RAW is not in the book at all.

It is not written that Daemon of != Daemon with Mark of (LIKE EVER OTHER CODEX)

By your logic I claim that Ahriman causes fear because well it's not written but it's RAW!~!!

Ub3rb3n wrote:

bagtagger wrote:
I admit that by stict raw you have me, but I bet TOs might rule it differently

I don't see how they would rule it differently, if they did they are making up their own rules

Can you not see the logic that a demon of khorne would be able to use items that require the mark of khorne? Sometimes strict raw doesn't work, like assaulting a rhino in the front and not being able to attack it because technically the base of the model does not touch the rhino but the torso does, we as humans have to assume that the model can still attack the rhino despite not being in base contact in the strictest form.

It's an issue that needs a FAQ, since nowhere in the codex does it state that a Daemon of x gets a mark. It just simply says you buy a Daemon of x.

Is it RAI? Probably not, but right now it's RAW. Honestly I'd discuss this with your opponent before the game, or the TO before a tournament. I personally have no issues with a Daemon of x having their respective marks and buying wargear, but another might.

Just play it safe and discuss until we get a FAQ ruling, it's that simple.

bagtagger wrote:

Ub3rb3n wrote:

bagtagger wrote:
I admit that by stict raw you have me, but I bet TOs might rule it differently

I don't see how they would rule it differently, if they did they are making up their own rules

Can you not see the logic that a demon of khorne would be able to use items that require the mark of khorne? Sometimes strict raw doesn't work, like assaulting a rhino in the front and not being able to attack it because technically the base of the model does not touch the rhino but the torso does, we as humans have to assume that the model can still attack the rhino despite not being in base contact in the strictest form.

Some people in YMDC like to assume that following the RAW to an absurd degree is correct and anyone who disagrees is house-ruling. Let them play how you want, and you can play how you want to.

 Testify wrote:

Some people in YMDC like to assume that following the RAW to an absurd degree is correct and anyone who disagrees is house-ruling. Let them play how you want, and you can play how you want to.

Well since we cannot talk about what TO's will go with, what GW wanted to do or what the next FAQ will hold we can only discuss the RAW or HIWPI options. YMDC is a RAW discussion forum. An absurd degree is how you feel about other people's opinions. If we don't go by the letter of the rules how do we figure out what they saw when there is some ambiguity?

bagtagger wrote:

Ub3rb3n wrote:

bagtagger wrote:
I admit that by stict raw you have me, but I bet TOs might rule it differently

I don't see how they would rule it differently, if they did they are making up their own rules

Can you not see the logic that a demon of khorne would be able to use items that require the mark of khorne? Sometimes strict raw doesn't work, like assaulting a rhino in the front and not being able to attack it because technically the base of the model does not touch the rhino but the torso does, we as humans have to assume that the model can still attack the rhino despite not being in base contact in the strictest form.

Those two things aren't even remotely similar. One you're taking something that worked one way in past editions and you want to work this way in this edition but have absolutely no rules support for it, and claiming it must be this way, and the other is a situation that literally doesn't work in the rules.

Daemons not having a Mark might not be something you agree with, but it is indisputably how the rules are actually written. Feel free to house rule whatever you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

Some people in YMDC like to assume that following the RAW to an absurd degree is correct and anyone who disagrees is house-ruling. Let them play how you want, and you can play how you want to.

How is that definition incorrect? House rules are by definition not RAW.
And, despite what you assert, most if not all of the people who argue the rules do not always play 100% literal by the rules.

Under the old rules a Khorne Lord with Bloodfeeder got 2D6 attacks, which was 12 attacks + other attacks.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Testify wrote:

Some people in YMDC like to assume that following the RAW to an absurd degree is correct and anyone who disagrees is house-ruling. Let them play how you want, and you can play how you want to.

Well since we cannot talk about what TO's will go with, what GW wanted to do or what the next FAQ will hold we can only discuss the RAW or HIWPI options. YMDC is a RAW discussion forum. An absurd degree is how you feel about other people's opinions. If we don't go by the letter of the rules how do we figure out what they saw when there is some ambiguity?

Nowhere in the tenets of YMDC does it state that it is only for RAW arguments. As long as you make it clear what you're saying, it's gravy baby.

If you as a person feel that you are only capable of discussing an absurd RAW interpretation then great for you, no need to flame. Enjoy bringing in reserves during your opponent's turn, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

How is that definition incorrect? House rules are by definition not RAW.
And, despite what you assert, most if not all of the people who argue the rules do not always play 100% literal by the rules.

Two people read the same rule.

Person a interprits it one way, person b interprits it a different way. Still both RAW, but for some reason on YMDC, the more absurd your position is, the more you're allowed to claim that only your interpritation is correct.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/481993.page

There's already a two page discussion on whether or not a Daemon Prince has a Mark of Chaos or not.

 Testify wrote:


If you as a person feel that you are only capable of discussing an absurd RAW interpretation then great for you, no need to flame. Enjoy bringing in reserves during your opponent's turn, etc.

No that wasn't flaming, if you want to talk about my flaming ask nos or rigeld about that.

How does discussing the words on the pages of the codices that gw publish constitute me as TFG? You have never played me so keep your theories about my style of play to yourself, please.

 Testify wrote:
Two people read the same rule.

Person a interprits it one way, person b interprits it a different way. Still both RAW, but for some reason on YMDC, the more absurd your position is, the more you're allowed to claim that only your interpritation is correct.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. There's no "interpreting". Find me any rules support for a Daemon having a Mark (from this edition) and I'll support an FAQ from now until it happens, in every thread.