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.

We are having a bit of a disagreement at my local shop. Does the new GK gain preferred enemy on the CSM deamon prince and defiler. Ive searched and cant really find an answer to this. One side says that the name makes it a demon the other says it doesnt have the demon special rule. What say you all?

The demon prince is a demon, the avatar of khaine is a demon, gk get preferred enemy against them

CSM Daemon prince is not a Daemon.

Neither are the Summoned daemons.

Avatar Of Khaine, and any unit from C:CD.

The Name Demon Prince does not make him any more or less of a demon than the Name Fire Dragons make them Dragons.

Logic states that the demon prince, summoned demons and spawn and possessed are demons, yet they never have the actual rule stating they are, so they aren't. Just because the name states demon doesn't mean it's a demon by rules.

the GK codex will likely have a definition of Deamon just like the old Deamon Hunter codex did(which indeed did make Deamon princes Deamons)

Not that I've found, there is no definition of Daemon anywhere in the dex

Gonna have to agree with the majority here. Anything with the word 'daemon' in the description or special rules is a daemon. Not only by name.

Just like gretchin are part of the Ork army but not actually orks themselves.

Thats all fine and dandy, but as having learned from other rules issues, its not a function of logic, rather of the words on the page. Unless it says that a model is a daemon, it's not. Would obliterators be daemons? Would plague marines be daemons? Logic says they have enough daemon in them to make the weapon work, but Warhampster is a game that defies logic (bs 3 missing firing into a horde of 50 guardsmen.... riiiiiight)

Lets wait for the GK codex to hit the shelves and our hands, and THEN for the inevitable FAQ that may or may not deal with this. I know that some sources, like beasts of war, showed off the codex, and I read the rules I saw there. Lets look at this from the Necron perspective; are pariahs, tomb spiders and scarab swarms necrons? Yes, but theyre not subject to the necron special rule. Its for a different purpose, but it still boils down to what makes something an X, Y or Z. Just wait a few months, I'm sure GW will come up with something, or cackle maniacally as we bash eachother's brains out

I can see the arguement for DPs being classed as Daemons, but i would argue agaisnt Possessed and Defilers.

The latter two are not full on daemons. The Defiler is a warmachien, with a Daemonic essence within. Ditto for the possessed. Whereas a DP is a marine who is now a Daemon.

The key word is daemon essence within. And the daemon essence has come to the fore to assert its control over the subject, so to all intents and purposes, that model would and should be a daemon. Thats the issue here I think. GK would instantly get preferred enemy against multiple armies--including themselves as they employ daemon-hosts. Hence i think it specifically targets anything with the special rule of being a daemon, rather than anything with the name of daemon in it. Hence, why I would rather wait three months and see what updates GW has to issue to the codices. In the interim.... unless it says its a daemon, its not. The fact that GK field an inordinate number of force weapons is sufficient enough.

Just out of curiosity, what does Preferred Enemy actually do? is it a re-roll when in cc with them or soemthing? I've never had it ni any of my armies...

anyway, back OT......

So by that logic any Chaos tank with Daemonic Possession would also be subject to Preferred Enemy.

What about units or ICs with marks/icons of chaos? Does that count as daemonic as well?

Or a chaos lord with a Daemon Weapon?

From what I have read in my Chaos Daemons codex and my CSM codex, only the actual Daemons codex have the special rule for Daemons. The closest thing I know of in the CSM codex is the possessed that have the daemonkin special rule.

The DH codex had a definition of Deamon.

it was basically anything from Codex: CD, the Avatar of Khaine, Deamon Princes, and Summoned Deamons.

Yeah, surely Possessed are more of a hybrid than a true Daemon.

it also includes Posessed Vehicles like Defilers, Soulgrinders, and vehicles with Deamonic Posession.

I don't think Posessed were called deamons though.

Yet another item for the GK FAQ to deal with.

Really hoping my friends done make a Gk army now.

it will actually be the deamon or CSM player who would have to prove that a Deamon Prince is not a deamon.

Frankly, if you are arguing that a Deamon Prince is NOT a deamon then i think you need to step back and seriously reconsider playing 40k.


you can't argue that the Avatar isn't a deamon since it's rules say explicity that it is.


Posessed i would let slide, they arn't that great anyway

If you are using a special ability against daemons, you have to prove my stuff are daemons. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the onus is on you.

Also, your opinion seems to be in the minority. I agree in principal, it should be a daemon, but there needs to be a clear way to determine what kind of creature each thing is, or else people start pouring over flavor text and 40K novels looking for a word to give them an edge.

Of course if the FAQ states they are daemons, then GW has decided to change their mind.

Grey Templar wrote:it will actually be the deamon or CSM player who would have to prove that a Deamon Prince is not a deamon.

Frankly, if you are arguing that a Deamon Prince is NOT a deamon then i think you need to step back and seriously reconsider playing 40k.


you can't argue that the Avatar isn't a deamon since it's rules say explicity that it is.


Posessed i would let slide, they arn't that great anyway

This account has been locked, thank you.

From what I have seen the new codex does not state what is and what isn't common sense is to be used. this becomes a major problem for some people.
Reason: why no stating cause codexs change and rules that state can become invalidated, e.g. looks at old codex.

I say (my views) FOR CSM
YES on the daemon prince (HURP DERP, its a daemon using common sense)
YES Possessed CSM (Daemonkin SP rule/Who uses them anyway)
YES on the defiler (it has a WS stat and Daemonic Possession)
YES on Summoned Daemons/Greater Daemons (BIG HURP DERP)
MAYBE with Obliterators (I say they count as daemons if I was a chaos player)
YES to everything in Chaos Daemon Codex
YES to anything that has a WS stat and Daemonic Possession (Preferred enemy requires a ws stat so :p)

Avatar is a daemon so yes on that 1

If you dont have the Daemon rule, you are not a daemon.

A rat prince can be a prince of rats, it doesnt have to BE a rat. Same as a Heavy flamer isnt.

Praxiss wrote:Just out of curiosity, what does Preferred Enemy actually do? is it a re-roll when in cc with them or soemthing? I've never had it ni any of my armies...

anyway, back OT......

So by that logic any Chaos tank with Daemonic Possession would also be subject to Preferred Enemy.

What about units or ICs with marks/icons of chaos? Does that count as daemonic as well?

Or a chaos lord with a Daemon Weapon?

re-roll failed to hits in cc vs anything with a WS SO NO on vehicles without a ws stat.
Marks no
Chaos Lords no

Nos posting old stuff is not helping, GK have changed people should use common sense instead of GW holding their hands like babies.
I have posted what should be and what isn't and WHY it has been changed.

Grey Templar wrote:it will actually be the deamon or CSM player who would have to prove that a Deamon Prince is not a deamon.

GW should clearly cover it in their rules. As noted, the old DH codex actually told us. The new one should as well. CSM daemons don't get the same abilities as codex: daemons Daemons do. Fluff does not always equal rules.

Grey Templar wrote:...you can't argue that the Avatar isn't a deamon since it's rules say explicity that it is.

Which is actually an argument against a DP counting. Since the Avatar has a rule explicitly saying he is one, and the DP doesn't.

I expect that DPs, GDs, and LDs will count. But let's keep it friendly.

Mannahnin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:it will actually be the deamon or CSM player who would have to prove that a Deamon Prince is not a deamon.

GW should clearly cover it in their rules. As noted, the old DH codex actually told us. The new one should as well. CSM daemons don't get the same abilities as codex: daemons Daemons do. Fluff does not always equal rules.

No they should not cover it in their rules because codexs change and rules become invalidated, e.g. looks at old codex.

ThatMG - sorry, what "old stuff" did I post?

Especially ironic given your "reasoning" is based *entirely* on the old codex!

Are you a daemon? Well, you find that out by looking for the "Daemon" rule. Daemon Princes are not Daemons, and any attempt to claim otherwise results in Heavy Flamers being Heavy weapons.

(or, in other words, just because your name says "daemon" does not make you a daemon. End of, as far as actual rules go)

nosferatu1001 wrote:ThatMG - sorry, what "old stuff" did I post?

Especially ironic given your "reasoning" is based *entirely* on the old codex!

Are you a daemon? Well, you find that out by looking for the "Daemon" rule. Daemon Princes are not Daemons, and any attempt to claim otherwise results in Heavy Flamers being Heavy weapons.

(or, in other words, just because your name says "daemon" does not make you a daemon. End of, as far as actual rules go)

Old stuff as in you whole point that cause its not a daemon by a rule its not a daemon, they have used a blanket term, cause warhams is serrious business people refuse to use common sense
unless fed a rule that states what is an what isn't. The reason why they used a blanket term is to prevent rules stoping from working when new codexs come out.

This most likely will be in the GK FAQ so thats all I have to say.

I agree with you on the point that their is no RULE to state they are daemons but that is because it WAS MADE BEFORE. What im saying badly is that they expect you to use common sense
however that does not work very well.

The Daemon rule is in Codex:Eldar and Codex: Daemons.

No idea what you mean about "made before"? The NEW GK codex does not define what "daemon" is, despite the "Daemon" rule being around since around 2007

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Daemon rule is in Codex:Eldar and Codex: Daemons.

No idea what you mean about "made before"? The NEW GK codex does not define what "daemon" is, despite the "Daemon" rule being around since around 2007

cause if it stated The Deamon special rule CSM deamons etc would NOT be effected thus we would not be posting now.

The point is:

1) Only models with the "DAemon" special rule are a daemon
2) Chaos lesser, greater and princes do not have the Daemon rule

C) They are not Daemons as far as GK are concerned.

You cannot say "but a Daemon prince is a daemon, it has daemon in its name!" because Heavy Flamers are now Heavy according to that erroneous logic.

Agreed with Nos et al. There is nothing in the rules to actually define anything in the CSM codex as being a "Daemon".

That said, as a Chaos player I would just play Daemon Princes and Summoned Daemons (lesser and greater) as Daemons for purposes of this rule. It's certainly not something I'd press on other players, though.