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.

 pretre wrote:
This is an excellent thread, btw.

Thank you, I'm glad you like it. The craze over daemon Factory seems to have abated, it wasn't nearly as broken as people thought. But, it's good information to know.

Also, NOVA FAQ has reinforced that Eummoned a Daemons do not belong to a detachment and do not benefit from Objective Secured. The FAQ may not force ICs attached to a BoP unit to be Sacrificed as well.

It's good it's just basically wait and see at this point as to what turns up in tournaments. Also, it's prohibitively expensive to play. I kind of disagree with NOVA on that one, but agree with the possession rule.

Basically waiting for an actual faq.

Hollismason wrote:
It's good it's just basically wait and see at this point as to what turns up in tournaments. Also, it's prohibitively expensive to play. I kind of disagree with NOVA on that one, but agree with the possession rule.

Basically waiting for an actual faq.

No, Summoned Daemons definitely are not part of a Detachment and certainly don't benefit from objective Secured. I argued that one out all over the place.

An actual FAQ, well if NOVA and BAO say it's one way, it'll probably be that way despite anything GW says, lol. At least Stateside.

Yeah, I just vehemently disagree in the concept of "aether", and undefined states in 40k. I'd be willing to bet GW does outright state in a FAQ they are objective secured because they are in fact a troop choice. This is a FAQED because I don't want it to be that way ruling. I don't personally play them objective secured though as I hate arguing with someone during a game.


Anyway back to the army, yeah we've covered most of the stuff people should know but there's some other stuff you should know as well.


1. You can go back and forth between psykers when casting Psychic Powers, people don't know this. Be aware it's very easy to "whoops my bad" use a Psyker twice. Just pay attention at what your opponent casts and from who.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah, I just vehemently disagree in the concept of "aether", and undefined states in 40k. I'd be willing to bet GW does outright state in a FAQ they are objective secured because they are in fact a troop choice. This is a FAQED because I don't want it to be that way ruling. I don't personally play them objective secured though as I hate arguing with someone during a game.


Anyway back to the army, yeah we've covered most of the stuff people should know but there's some other stuff you should know as well.


1. You can go back and forth between psykers when casting Psychic Powers, people don't know this. Be aware it's very easy to "whoops my bad" use a Psyker twice. Just pay attention at what your opponent casts and from who.

No, if you try and add them into a Detachment the game breaks especially when summoned by a Psyker in a non CD Detachment. The rules work perfectly well as I've described it here. The big TOs are agreeing with that. It's not that they simply don't want them to be, it's the RAW and it doesn't break the game..

 Zagman wrote:
No, Summoned Daemons definitely are not part of a Detachment and certainly don't benefit from objective Secured.

In your interpretation of the rules.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
No, Summoned Daemons definitely are not part of a Detachment and certainly don't benefit from objective Secured.

In your interpretation of the rules.

No, as no rules exist to add them to a Detachment nor to handle them if they were. There is no possible way to do so without violating existing rules, and they cannot possibly work when say summoned by a CTA army. No, they can't be added to a Detachment without creating rules. As is, this is the RAW and only way they can operate without breaking the game. They are Slotless Scoring Units that do not belong to any Detachment. That's the RAW of it, any other interpretation requires creating new rules or using existing rules grossly out of context.

As far as I'm concerned, its the way NOVA and BAO are ruling it, so its the way it'll be played anywhere I go. So, unless GW decides to write new rules via FAQ to make it so, it won't be so this argument is a moot point.

I like how you roll Zagman. Just putting the rules out there to crush the uninformed!

Cheering for you at NOVA. I'll be wandering over from the Narrative from time to time to gauge your progress. Enclaves will be fighting uphill in this meta.

Come the apocalypse allies can't be deployed within 12" of each other, would then elder not be able to summon daemons?
Does deep strike count as deployment?

The Shrike wrote:I like how you roll Zagman. Just putting the rules out there to crush the uninformed!

Cheering for you at NOVA. I'll be wandering over from the Narrative from time to time to gauge your progress. Enclaves will be fighting uphill in this meta.

Thanks, I'll be the big guy rocking Superman Shirts and the unmistakable White Tau. I look forward to meeting you.

Actually, my list is designed to handle MSU ObSec lists, so I'm optimistic after BAO and how well the ObSec Marine lists faired.

ninjafiredragon wrote:Come the apocalypse allies can't be deployed within 12" of each other, would then elder not be able to summon daemons?
Does deep strike count as deployment?

I believe when I examined this before it entirely had to do with the context of deployment and Summoning didn't constitute being deployed for CTA. Even so, Summoning is a more Specific Rule which would overrule the more general CTA rule in this instance. One Eye Open, on the other hand does come into effect.

Good thread, Zag, and good luck!

 gwarsh41 wrote:
So remember with all this, that portal glyph summons and Tyranid spawns will follow the same rules as for if they are scoring/troops *snip*

I only have the Nid codex in front of me atm, but as a newer player I have an honest question regarding the ruling on the Tervigon spawning gants. The rule in the Dex states
"A unit spawned by a Tervigon is identical in every way to a Termagant unit chosen from the Troops section of the army list, and is treated as such for all mission special rules"

Does that last bold bit have any bearing on the ruling or are they still not objective secured? Just want to play it right whenever i finally get a game in with these guys

I agree with a vast majority of the OP post, but I want to point out the point concerning Daemons and OS is ambiguous, and the statement you have made is valid but not true (yet) pending FAQ.

The RAW goes two ways, because of the way battleforged is worded concerning the way units work in an army.

Way too lazy to type it out, but many judges are ruling it atm to where summoned Daemons are OS.


A few of my friends, and some GT judges, have contacted GW on the matter and they said summoned Daemons if the army is battleforged are OS, and unbound are not.


However it is not uncommon for GW to tell different people different answers, so right now its a toss-up.

Cambonimachine wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
So remember with all this, that portal glyph summons and Tyranid spawns will follow the same rules as for if they are scoring/troops *snip*

I only have the Nid codex in front of me atm, but as a newer player I have an honest question regarding the ruling on the Tervigon spawning gants. The rule in the Dex states
"A unit spawned by a Tervigon is identical in every way to a Termagant unit chosen from the Troops section of the army list, and is treated as such for all mission special rules"

Does that last bold bit have any bearing on the ruling or are they still not objective secured? Just want to play it right whenever i finally get a game in with these guys

The issue isn't whether they are a troop, its whether they are in a detachment that gives Objective Secured. Right now your troops get Objective Secured by being in a Combined Arms or Allied detachment (not simply for being in a battle forged army). As such there is nothing placing summoned units in one of those detachments.

The ambiguous part though is that there is nothing saying summoned units aren't in a detachment either. Its just one of the many vague aspects of 40K rules.

Fair enough, I'll just play em as not OS until i see FAQ stating otherwise... thanks!

 Zagman wrote:
The LoC generates 3 WC and gives you access to more psychic powers, and despite his casty nature is still a solid beast in CC.

Important to note that a summoned LOC only generates 2 WC. You have to buy ML3 when normally fielding a LOC, as his stats only come with ML2.

Otherwise, still a better choice than a BT due to the flight restriction. I am actually glad they are like this as it give a KOS a purpose outside of theme Slaanesh lists. I own 1 of each Greater Daemon, but can never think of a reason to field a KOS over the other 3

Keeper's of Secrects have become my go to Greater Daemon for summoning. The extra movement while running and being able to assault next turn make them the most useful, of the summoned Greater Daemons, a majority of the time.