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.

iproxtaco wrote:I gave you an answer, also, the rules make the fluff as well. Get it right jeez.

Where is this answer? Please restate what happens when the rules say one thing and the fluff says another.

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

+2

Maybe look back through the thread jbunny?

It'd be easier if that's what it actually said.

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

Can either of you cite where in the Preferred Enemy rule it states this is the way it works?

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar which is in the Eldar codex.

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar aswell.

YES ROGER! I LOVE YOU <3 LOL

we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar which is in the Eldar codex.

White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

Yeah but this is roger. He doesnt make mistakes !!!

cheapbuster wrote:Yeah but this is roger. He doesnt make mistakes !!!

Roger is the bomb! He has proved even the best gamer at our FLGS wrong!

frgsinwntr wrote:White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

I always deep strike my units out of Landraiders.....

frgsinwntr wrote:

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar which is in the Eldar codex.

White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

The Eldar Codex is though.

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

iproxtaco wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:I thought perfered enemy effects an army not just specific models (has perfered enemy against gretchin, assult marines, wraith gaurd) it just gets slily other wise

+ 1 to this

Deamons meaning Codex Deamons....

No it doesn't just affect units in the Daemon codex it even says in the newest white dwarf on p61 that it affects the Avatar which is in the Eldar codex.

White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

The Eldar Codex is though.

And why does the Avatar count accoding to your logic?

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

I always deep strike my units out of Landraiders.....

Same, because I can do that with Chaos and Tau...

rogersss wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:White dwarf gets sooooo many rules wrong.... like deep striking OUT of land raiders... I'm not so sure they are a good source

I always deep strike my units out of Landraiders.....

gate of infinity that is...

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

EDIT: You don't need a fluff = rules arguement for the Avatar. You should probably read their rules entry in the Eldar codex and it explains really well why they are considered Daemons.

There's a list a few pages back which gives what was in that codex.


The Avatar counts because it's stated as being a Daemon in it's rules, when perhaps it wouldn't have been considered one without it.

iproxtaco wrote:The Eldar Codex is though.

Of corse. "see page..." OMG THIS STUPID PAGE ISNT HERE!!!

iproxtaco wrote:
It'd be easier if that's what it actually said.

What do you mean by this comment? I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:The Eldar Codex is though.

Of corse. "see page..." OMG THIS STUPID PAGE ISNT HERE!!!

Maugan Ra has a built in executioner (see page 21...)

Page 21: Nope....

Pages 22-30: Nope...

Page 31: OHHHHHHHHHH HERE IT IS!!!

cheapbuster wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:The Eldar Codex is though.

Of corse. "see page..." OMG THIS STUPID PAGE ISNT HERE!!!

Try page 24, the first rule under the Avatar's entry.

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

+1

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

+1

+3

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work. As long as the model/unit has a rule that refers to them as such a unit, then they are treated as one. Pg 61 of the CSM codex explains why I am arguing that the Lesser and Greater Daemons are affected.

jbunny wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
It'd be easier if that's what it actually said.

What do you mean by this comment? I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

What? In what context? I don't recall exactly where or why I said that, and I was likely in response to something, and part of a larger post, so please specify.

cheapbuster wrote:

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

+1

+3

Sorry, I should have said +10, because that's how many more pages the entry was after the one stated!

this argument is stupid, we shold be arguing that a vindicare gets 4d6 shots against a monolith even though it says "weapons only ever roll a singel d6 for armour penatration"

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

nobody wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:we need a big long list of all the units effected, even then gw would mess it up by missing off a GUO or somthing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woah, calm down buzzsaw

They did that... last deamon hunters codex (page 13).... it didn't affect most of Codex deamons before...

It only worked on Nurglings, and I think Daemon Princes (don't have my old DH codex with me).

Which is kind of why I'm glad they didn't do such a list in the GK codex, because that list was treated as being written in stone. It should be based on the codex the (alleged) daemon appears in.

Right... it should be based on which units have the special rule "deamon" Which makes for a much more fluid game and better design. So if a unit didn't have this rule, they would be unaffected

Nope, because the Preferred Enemy rule does not require that. If it did, then Preferred Enemy Orks/Eldar/Dark Eldar wouldn't work. As long as the model/unit has a rule that refers to them as such a unit, then they are treated as one. Pg 61 of the CSM codex explains why I am arguing that the Lesser and Greater Daemons are affected.

Please quote the preferred enemy rule for me. I am at work and do not have a codex

cheapbuster wrote:this argument is stupid, we shold be arguing that a vindicare gets 4d6 shots against a monolith even though it says "weapons only ever roll a singel d6 for armour penatration"

It doesn't roll anything, there is no point arguing, it can't penetrate a monolith