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 I was flipping through the chaos codex and came across a few prospects and was wondering if I am wrong on any.

A daemon prince is not technically a daemon & is not wounded on a 2+ (daemon special rule not found, it is a daemon in name only)

Summoned lesser/greater daemons also do not have this rule and so are technically daemons only in name.

Due to not having the daemon rule OR eternal warrior you can cause ID versus a summoned greater daemon.

I also went through the CSM & SW FaQ but could find nothing to the contrary. So am I wrong on any of these points RaW? (No the INAT FaQ doesn't count to me or the people I play with, The only official rules are GW rules)

I have read it that way too.

Just wait for GK.

It's not RAW, but where I play, anything in the Daemons codex and any unit with "daemon" in the title, such as Daemon Princes, Summoned Daemons, Daemonhosts, etc are treated as "affected by things that say they affect 'daemons.'"

That doesn't mean we give them all the "Daemon Special Rule" (C:CD), however.

Playing this way makes the most sense to us. RAW, however, "Daemons" are not actually a defined type in 40k (except in the Daemonhunter book, of which the only daemon that still exists is the ubiquitous nurgling), so it's anybody's guess what the term "Daemon" refers to in any non-C:CD and non-Codex: DH codex.

kirsanth wrote:I have read it that way too.

Just wait for GK.

If they do it right they'll never mention daemons ... only invulnerable saves

I want to see this 'grater daemon'! It sounds like it makes a hell of a mess...

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I want to see this 'grater daemon'! It sounds like it makes a hell of a mess...

It's good for combatting cheese...

Shas'O Dorian wrote:So I was flipping through the chaos codex and came across a few prospects and was wondering if I am wrong on any.

A daemon prince is not technically a daemon & is not wounded on a 2+ (daemon special rule not found, it is a daemon in name only)

Summoned lesser/greater daemons also do not have this rule and so are technically daemons only in name.

Due to not having the daemon rule OR eternal warrior you can cause ID versus a summoned greater daemon.

I also went through the CSM & SW FaQ but could find nothing to the contrary. So am I wrong on any of these points RaW? (No the INAT FaQ doesn't count to me or the people I play with, The only official rules are GW rules)

1) Of course Daemons in the CSM codex aren't immune to instant death. Why would you think they are? Just because the Daemons in the Chaos Daemons codex are? They are two entirely different codexes with their own special rules. So in short, absolutely you can cause instant death against summoned daemons from the CSM codex because there is no rule saying you can't.

2) I don't quite understand how the lack of the 'daemon' rule has anything to do with this particular argument. But just FYI, having something named 'Daemon' is good enough for any ability that would affect a daemon. The only time a rule wouldn't affect such a unit is if the rule actually specified that it only affected models with the 'daemon' special rule...but I digress, this isn't relevant to this conversation at all (which is why I don't understand why you brought it up).

3) What does the INAT have to do with this conversation? We certainly never ruled that summoned Daemons from the CSM codex get the Instant Death immunity from the CD codex (and of course the INAT isn't official, its a fan-made FAQ)!

If there is something that effects something with the Daemon special rule (all Daemon codex entries, and Avatar?), thats what it effects.
If CSM codex Daemon prince, doesn't have Daemon in its rules, then its not effected (although it should be)
And if summoned Daemons do not have eternal warrior, they can be ID.

Don't really see how any confusion can really come from this?

Thanks for the responses guys.

@yak I'm sorry but my group likes to play RaW and if it doesn't have the daemon rule it isn't a daemon. As a note, the eldar codex does specifically state that the Avatar is a daemon in a special rule called "Daemon".
As for thy I bring up the INAT. I do it in every rules question because a few times I have had people point me to it and it holds no ground where I play.

@rodgers, see yaks post. It pretty much sums up how the confusion can come from it in his 2nd point.

I'm a bit confused since you seem to be arguing from a made up requirement.

There's a reason why people argue about what is and isn't a daemon for the Daemonhunter's codex--the codex contains an outdated list of units, and other poorly maintained rules. The argument goes round and round because there is a RaW definition which exists and works contrary to common expectation.

There is no definition what so ever given for the term 'daemon' as used in the Space Wolves codex. Therefore, there are NO rules as written arguments which can possibly apply, aside from asking the simple question "Does that unit's description say that it is a daemon?" In the case of the summoned lesser daemons and summoned greater daemons in the CSM codex, the answer is "Yes, repeatedly."

Honestly, the only sustainable absolutist RaW argument is that the runic weapon has no effect at all because the type "daemon" isn't defined in the codex. To wit: Why would you ever assume that a term used in one codex and not defined in the main rulebook was supposed to mean the same thing as a term used in another codex? Everything else is "Well, this says 'daemon' and that says 'daemon', so I guess they must mean the same thing..." and you don't need a special rule of a specific name to specify what a unit is.

The Avatar has a special rule stating that it's a daemon precisely because it is unusual, and it would otherwise be ambiguous or doubtful whether it was sufficiently daemonic for such rules to apply. There are rules which apply to Eldar Aspect warriors, such as the Eldar Exarch powers, which function quite nicely without the Eldar models needing a special rule indicating that the models are aspect warriors.

yakface said: 1) Of course Daemons in the CSM codex aren't immune to instant death. Why would you think they are? Just because the Daemons in the Chaos Daemons codex are? They are two entirely different codexes with their own special rules. So in short, absolutely you can cause instant death against summoned daemons from the CSM codex because there is no rule saying you can't.

2) I don't quite understand how the lack of the 'daemon' rule has anything to do with this particular argument. But just FYI, having something named 'Daemon' is good enough for any ability that would affect a daemon. The only time a rule wouldn't affect such a unit is if the rule actually specified that it only affected models with the 'daemon' special rule...but I digress, this isn't relevant to this conversation at all (which is why I don't understand why you brought it up).

3) What does the INAT have to do with this conversation? We certainly never ruled that summoned Daemons from the CSM codex get the Instant Death immunity from the CD codex (and of course the INAT isn't official, its a fan-made FAQ)!

+1 I agree totally with yakface and I think this just ended the argument.

I really beg people not to start this argument up again. GW does NOT need to be that specific when dealing with unit types. As of now 5th Edition Warhammer 40K there is no designated "Creature Type" in the game and therefore anything that affects Daemons was obviously meant to affect Daemons, but not just the ones with the special rule Daemon, ALL Daemons including Daemon Princes etc. However, this does not mean that those without the Daemon rule become Daemons. Much like the Eldar Avatar it may be a Daemon for all intents and purposes but it is not EW. Until GW comes out with an official ruling or we see Creature Types in 6th edition this argument will go on but I think yakface made it pretty clear and summed it up really well. Lets not get into it again!

Thank you have a nice day!