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.

I played a game recently that a Demon Prince assaulted a squad of Grey Knight Terminiators.

Grey Knights have a special rule where Demons must make a leadership test, and then difficult terrain test when assaulting Grey Knights (I may be wrong about the details, but the point is this ability does affect demons).

By the Daemonhunter codex definition of what a Demon is, a "Demon Prince" doesn't fit. So the Demon Prince got to assualt without any problems, and whipped out my Grey Knight Terminators.

My Question is, "Is there an updated definition of what a daemon/demon is for Daemonhunters anywhere?"

That guy must have been a complete git not to let something that is obviously a Daemon by background and rules not count as a daemon

Well, if you want to go RAW, then you've already solved your problem. Haven't read the codex meself, but if Daemon Prince doesn't fit the exact definition, then yer DP doesn't have to jump through hoops when assaulting.

If you want to go RAI, then you might have a problem.

I can't actually find the list in my codex... A prince is surely a Daemon as he's listed as one that doesn't get Daemonic Infestation along with Greater Daemons and "other types of daemon".

But it's up to you to discuss it with your opponent if something is fishy.

edit: ah, pg 20. Chaos Lord w. Stature or over 50 pts of gifts... that used to be a Prince in the old CSM codex. ;-)

Can someone look at the Daemonhunter Codex, and compare it to the Demon Prince and see if it fits the definition of a daemon?

I may be reading it wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me.

'Daemons' Terminology
Throughout this codex, the term 'daemon' refers to the following units:

All daemonhosts, greater daemons and daemon packs, daemon beasts, nurglings, daemonicly possesed vehicles (such as defilers) or those with the parasitc possession, living hull or mutated hull upgrades, eldar avatars, possessed chaos space marines and chaos lords with the daemonic stature gift and/or over 50 points of daemonic gifts

IIRC, in fluff, a daemon prince has a daemonhood. I'm not old enough to know if chaos lords had an upgrade like that but daemonic stature sounds a bit like daemonhood. Thus you could argue that daemon princes do count as daemons. But unless it has the daemon special rule, there is no RAW argument that daemon princes are daemons.

But don't worry, GK's are expected to get a new codex soon, I was told I'd be excited by October by a blue shirt in Cambridge but I don't know whether to take that as gosple truth or it I should take it with a rock of salt.

RAW - no, DP and pretty much nothing from either the daemons or chaos codex count as daemons *as far as GK are concerned*

RAI - A DP in the current book is an MC, which is what daemonic stature gave you in the previous book, so it makes sense.

I understand that GK's may get an update soon, but I need to know how to handle this moving forward.

Isn't a Daemon Prince a Daemonhost by fluff? or a Possessed Chaos Space Marine that is HEAVILY mutated?

I know that this is a RAI argument, but at least it's something.

unfortunately, there is no daemon prince listed under what constitutes a daemon. per RAW, your opponent was correct. per RAI or any shred of common sense or sportmanship, he's wrong. anything with the word demon/daemon in it's title or from the daemons of chaos codex should be considered a daemon IMO but that's not what RAW says; i'd simply discuss it with any opponent ahead of time if you're going to use a grey knight army. if they say no, i'd rethink playing them.

unfortunately, GW did not update this with their release of the daemonhunter free PDF (did you download it from GW?) on their website even though it would be on of about 6 changes that could easily update the army to 5th edition in a few words or less.

mrfantastical wrote:I understand that GK's may get an update soon, but I need to know how to handle this moving forward.

Isn't a Daemon Prince a Daemonhost by fluff? or a Possessed Chaos Space Marine that is HEAVILY mutated?

I know that this is a RAI argument, but at least it's something.

Actually, my friend, the two are completely different. A Daemon Prince is a follower of Chaos that has pleased their master/masters so much, that they are basically transformed into a Greater Daemon...to a degree. Thier essence is still there, as they retain their personality. Also, their body is composed of physical material, rather than pure Warp energy. But, they are powerful and immortal. So, basically, it is the best that a Chaos follower can aspire to.

A Daemonhost, on the other hand, is a Daemon that has been bound into a physical body, either alive or dead. However, the dead bodies do not sustain the daemon for long. The individual's personal is lost as the daemon moves into their flesh.

So, I'm sorry, but the two are so different that it doesn't really help your argument.

Now, mind you, that guy was a git. He cheated you.

He got away with it, because you were both playing with different eddition books. In the 4th Ed. Chaos Space Marines book, ANY model with over 50 pts. in Daemonic Gifts was CONSIDERED a Deamon Prince. That was never a category, however. Now, with 5th Ed CSM and Daemons, a Daemon Prince is a specific unit entry.

That's why you are getting screwed. The guy that tried this one needs to sit out a few games...until he/she/it realizes that we play for fun. If you have to cheat to have fun, then you are a very sad person indeed...

Very well said Captain! I agree that you have to draw a line in these types of situations. Avatars should be included to this list as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:RAW - no, DP and pretty much nothing from either the daemons or chaos codex count as daemons *as far as GK are concerned*

RAI - A DP in the current book is an MC, which is what daemonic stature gave you in the previous book, so it makes sense.

That is only for Daemonic infestation; the Daemon hunters codex does not list what Classifies anything as a Daemon.

everything from Codex Chaos Daemons(this includes their Daemon Prince) has the Daemons Special rule and as such are clearly Daemons for Rites of exorcism(of course instability test no longer matter since they do not exist).

The Eldar Avatar has a Rule stating that it is a Daemon, so it must test for Difficult terrain to assault grey knights.

Chas Space marines is where it all gets wierd; their Daemon Prince may or may not be a Daemon for Rite purposes, and the Same can be said of summoned Daemons.

Summoned Daemons are Daemon in name only; they have no rules nor anything but fluff that decrees them to be daemons.

As far as Daemonic infestation goes the only thing on it's list of what gets sustained attack(a Rule that also does not even exist anymore) that even still exists is nurglings. So when Grey knights hit the field their biggest written in drawback is nullified as only 1 unit in the game, from one codex can benefit from a rule that does not exist.

As Kommissar Kel mentioned, the big drawback for Daemonhunters (Daemonic Infestation). If you're going to sit down and figure out what benefits that DHs gets against Daemons, then you'd also have to sit down and work out how the old Daemonic Infestation rule would work for his units.

You can't claim all the good and ignore all the bad. The Designer's Note even mentions that the Daemonic Infestation rule is a way of balancing the fight without raising the point cost even more. So the "I paid points for it" argument theoretically doesn't apply.

Under the Heading Special Daemonhunter Notes and sub-heading 'Daemons' Terminology we have:

Codex: Daemonhunters ca. 2003 p20 wrote:Throughout the Codex, the term 'Daemon' refers to the following units:

All Daemonhosts, Greater Daemons and Daemon Packs, Daemon Beasts, Nurglings, Daemonically Possessed Vehicles (such as Defliers) or those with the Parasitic Possession, Living Vehicle, or Mutated Hull upgrades, Eldar Avaters, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, and Chaos Lords with the Daemonic Stature gift and/or over 50 points of daemonic gifts

The page the above quote comes from is not in the downloadable "codex". If the quote is deleted (due to reproducing too much copyright text) then let me say that everything from the 1999 and 2002 Codex: CSM that fluff-wise most people would tend to think was a Daemon and/or infected by a Daemon is mentioned in that list. As a Daemon Prince is the name for a Chaos Lord with 50+ points of daemonic gifts (Codex: CSM 2002 Unit Chaos Lord p22.)

Flash forward 4 and 5 year to the 2007/8 releases of Codex: CSM and Codex: Chaos Daemons and we have one Codex with some Daemons/Deamon-infected and one Codex of nothing but Daemons in which most the units manage to dodge this list. People that like to argue RaI instead of RaW or intertwine RaI with RaW can have a field day here, and I think rightly so, despite my normal apathy toward arguing via RaI because in Codex: CSM Chaos Lords with so many points spent on Daemonic Gifts are still on that Codex: Daemonhunter list, but Daemon Princes are not merely Chaos Lords with 50+ points spent on them, they are now a distinct unit, and since CSM 2007 succeeds Codexes: CSM 2002 and CSM 1999 . . .

The definition of Daemon in 40K is just plain bad at this point in time with respect to both by RaI vs. RaW.

Correct, as we are basically between two Codex books that are 5 years apart, and written for different edditions. That's why the rules don't make sense. It would be like playing Final Fantasy 7 with a Final Fantasy 10 Guidebook. The two just don't work that well together. Sure, there are some terms and concepts that are similar, but it still causes problems.

Now, as soon as the 5th Ed Codex comes out for Daemonhunters, there will no longer be an issue. Of course, if the rumors are to be trusted, the Grey Knights will be very different indeed.

We'll just have to wait and see.

In the mean time, play games with people that like to play, instead of players that use rules loopholes to win.

This was my first game playing Grey Knights, and I really like their idea. It's a shame that in their current form Daemonhunters can't do the one thing that's their claim to fame....

Hunt Daemons.

mrfantastical wrote:This was my first game playing Grey Knights, and I really like their idea. It's a shame that in their current form Daemonhunters can't do the one thing that's their claim to fame....

Hunt Daemons.

Can't really say I find the idea that one army in a game is utterly designed to destroy another specific army while is remains "balanced" against others is particularly appealing. But, maybe that's just me, an exclusive Codex: Chaos Daemons player.

Leez wrote:Can't really say I find the idea that one army in a game is utterly designed to destroy another specific army while is remains "balanced" against others is particularly appealing. But, maybe that's just me, an exclusive Codex: Chaos Daemons player.

It was supposed to be balanced vs daemons through giving the daemons some perks too, such as troops recycling to the field and HQs getting a free psychic power. And quite frankly, the poor GK were pretty screwed even in 3rd edition - they cost lots, die as easily as the next marine and have next to no real anti-tank capability.

Spetulhu wrote:

Leez wrote:Can't really say I find the idea that one army in a game is utterly designed to destroy another specific army while is remains "balanced" against others is particularly appealing. But, maybe that's just me, an exclusive Codex: Chaos Daemons player.

It was supposed to be balanced vs daemons through giving the daemons some perks too, such as troops recycling to the field and HQs getting a free psychic power. And quite frankly, the poor GK were pretty screwed even in 3rd edition - they cost lots, die as easily as the next marine and have next to no real anti-tank capability.

Codex: Chaos Daemons came 5 years after Codex: Daemonhunters, which I imagine was written with Codex: CSM 2002 in development/live. So, it was balanced was versus an army that used Daemons but wasn't completely composed of Daemons. In any event the Codex specifically refers to "Daemonic Infestation" as being The thing to balance all the other advantages they had against Daemons. But, "Sustained Assault" was dropped from 4th to 5th ed and even if it were in game still it only effects 3 unit types of which 2 of are not in Codex: Chaos Daemons. The rest of the things opponents of Daemonhunters got where in a fluff section after the rules section and cost points, i.e. one needed to know you were playing Daemonhunters when generating the list and have access to the book. There's no real point in talking about how much or little they succeeded in balancing only the context in which they tried and at least they did try.

Ok I just have to say this I play Daemonhunters, I have a small army from back in 4th edition when they were...ya know...good. Anyway GW in all its wisdom did not write in the Daemonhunters codex what constitutes a Daemon in 5th edition and did not put it in the FAQ as well. The reason they didn't I can assume and I guess the rest of us can assume to is because its pretty obvious that anything from the Daemons Codex as well as a Daemon Prince is for all intents and purposes a Daemon. GW does not pay its employees enough nor would I imagine any amount of money would make them have to sit there when they are writing the FAQ's to go, "Ya know we now have to put in the FAQ that everything in the Daemon Codex is a Daemon so lets start, Bloodletters, Daemonettes, (two hours, 3 pages, and several shots of coffee later) Ok that should just about cover everything." Warhammer has a certain amount of common sense to it and GW has let us know by using true line of sight. I love when people put Grots in front of Battlewagons and go, "I get a 4+ cover save HAHA." No again common sense.

Oh and if anyone tried to argue with me that Daemons from the Codex or a Daemon Prince is not a Daemon I would smack them with the little red GW ruler. (Yes that ruler is like 1/8th of an inch less than 6 inches. Again my favorite words...COMMON SENSE!)

Sanguinis wrote:Ok I just have to say this I play Daemonhunters, I have a small army from back in 4th edition when they were...ya know...good. Anyway GW in all its wisdom did not write in the Daemonhunters codex what constitutes a Daemon in 5th edition and did not put it in the FAQ as well. The reason they didn't I can assume and I guess the rest of us can assume to is because its pretty obvious that anything from the Daemons Codex as well as a Daemon Prince is for all intents and purposes a Daemon. GW does not pay its employees enough nor would I imagine any amount of money would make them have to sit there when they are writing the FAQ's to go, "Ya know we now have to put in the FAQ that everything in the Daemon Codex is a Daemon so lets start, Bloodletters, Daemonettes, (two hours, 3 pages, and several shots of coffee later) Ok that should just about cover everything." Warhammer has a certain amount of common sense to it and GW has let us know by using true line of sight. I love when people put Grots in front of Battlewagons and go, "I get a 4+ cover save HAHA." No again common sense.

Oh and if anyone tried to argue with me that Daemons from the Codex or a Daemon Prince is not a Daemon I would smack them with the little red GW ruler. (Yes that ruler is like 1/8th of an inch less than 6 inches. Again my favorite words...COMMON SENSE!)

Oh, I agree. Going in and having each and every unit that is a daemon listed is pointless busy work, it was a bad method when they wrote the Daemonhunter codex and it's a bad ideal now. The "common sense" solution is to just call every model with the special rule Daemon a daemon and perhaps have a Daemon Possessed rule for vehicles, it would suit any and every Daemon that came after the Daemonhunter codex. They could have done that or something else in the CD and CSM codexes but choose not to.

If there was any common sense involved, people wouldn't be trying to have serious games using a codex that hasn't been updates in seven years and references non-existent units.

Leez wrote:

Sanguinis wrote:Ok I just have to say this I play Daemonhunters, I have a small army from back in 4th edition when they were...ya know...good. Anyway GW in all its wisdom did not write in the Daemonhunters codex what constitutes a Daemon in 5th edition and did not put it in the FAQ as well. The reason they didn't I can assume and I guess the rest of us can assume to is because its pretty obvious that anything from the Daemons Codex as well as a Daemon Prince is for all intents and purposes a Daemon. GW does not pay its employees enough nor would I imagine any amount of money would make them have to sit there when they are writing the FAQ's to go, "Ya know we now have to put in the FAQ that everything in the Daemon Codex is a Daemon so lets start, Bloodletters, Daemonettes, (two hours, 3 pages, and several shots of coffee later) Ok that should just about cover everything." Warhammer has a certain amount of common sense to it and GW has let us know by using true line of sight. I love when people put Grots in front of Battlewagons and go, "I get a 4+ cover save HAHA." No again common sense.

Oh and if anyone tried to argue with me that Daemons from the Codex or a Daemon Prince is not a Daemon I would smack them with the little red GW ruler. (Yes that ruler is like 1/8th of an inch less than 6 inches. Again my favorite words...COMMON SENSE!)

Oh, I agree. Going in and having each and every unit that is a daemon listed is pointless busy work, it was a bad method when they wrote the Daemonhunter codex and it's a bad ideal now. The "common sense" solution is to just call every model with the special rule Daemon a daemon and perhaps have a Daemon Possessed rule for vehicles, it would suit any and every Daemon that came after the Daemonhunter codex. They could have done that or something else in the CD and CSM codexes but choose not to.

@ Sanguinis, you have a point that in some cases it's pretty obvious that some things are definitely Daemons. What I consider to be more important is figuring out how to apply the Demonic Infestation rule. Since that would be a lot of work balancing, especially considering a new DH coxed has probably been on the drawing board for a bit. It's easy to argue that the most balanced way to play it would be to ignore and DH special rules concerning daemons, since the balance rule is too complicated at this point. Of course, that's a little disappointing, missing one of the fluffiest bits of the DH army.

@ Leez, listing each unit was kind of the only way they could do it, at that point. Since there was no framework for what would basically be a USR tagging things as Daemons, they had to list them separately. What I'd really like to see if a much more structured and clear expression of the rules. I used to play Magic: the Gathering, and while it was never perfect, they basically had two expressions of the rules. There was the basic(ish) expression in the small rulebooks, and then there was a huge document that was the Comprehensive Rules for the people who were more of the mind to know the nuts and bolts of how everything worked (which I read multiple times). Sadly, GW doesn't seem to be at that point yet, but I'm hopeful, since I'm a nuts and bolts kinda guy.

All this talk about common sense and RaI...

RaW, the rule is so amazingly clear it boggles the mind that it was GW who wrote it.

If it's not on the list, it isn't a Dæmon. Simple.

Where it gets unclear is in rules like a Rune Priests Staff which never define what a Dæmon is at all.

I could be getting my wires crossed (that and I don't have my codex to hand), but i'm fairly(kinda) sure that at the start of Codex:Chaos Daemons, it goes out of its way to specify that every unit in the list is "Daemonic"? Maybe i'm wrong but I don't have my book to hand.

Even if it did, it wouldn't matter. They could call them Pudding for all the Dæmonhunter codex cares.

The Dæmonhunter Codex has a EXTREMLY EXACT list of what a Dæmon is. Anything that isn't there isn't a Dæmon for the purposes of any Dæmonhunter rules referencing Dæmons.

ElCheezus wrote:
@ Leez, listing each unit was kind of the only way they could do it, at that point. Since there was no framework for what would basically be a USR tagging things as Daemons, they had to list them separately. What I'd really like to see if a much more structured and clear expression of the rules. I used to play Magic: the Gathering, and while it was never perfect, they basically had two expressions of the rules. There was the basic(ish) expression in the small rulebooks, and then there was a huge document that was the Comprehensive Rules for the people who were more of the mind to know the nuts and bolts of how everything worked (which I read multiple times). Sadly, GW doesn't seem to be at that point yet, but I'm hopeful, since I'm a nuts and bolts kinda guy.

Meh, alternatively that list could have be cut/pasted into the faq of the 2002 CSM and Eldar codexes of the time and from there after that each daemon unit defined as such in the codex they come from is just another way to have dealt with it. What is/is't a daemon is a result of poor implementation and equal follow through instead of "loose writing".

As for having a second more refined set of rules á la MtG, I wouldn't hold our breath.

Kind of a rough deal for those guys :(

I have not looked at it, but that would only cover Caemons. What about the Daemon Prince in C:Chaos Space Marines? According to the rules, this unit entry is not considered a Daemon, even though it is a DAEMON Prince.

Again, I think it comes down to the player, as much as the rules. If you want to be a , you can use the RAW approach, and basically take advantage of an older codex to get an advantage.

I would have taken this little move in one of two ways:

1. Try to kill the model with the rest of my army...
2. Not play the

Hopefully, this will not be an issue in a few months...