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 am a huge stickler for one army's codex faq not applying to other armies.

However it is going to become an issue at any tournament in the near future with the new GK faq that has defined what are daemons. Case in point being a rune priest's runic weapon that wounds daemons on a 2+.

Due to the poor wording of what is defined as a daemon in the new FAQ, and if you take that it only applies to GK, you could have an incident where in one game versus GK, a daemon prince is a daemon but in the following game versus a rune priest with a runic weapon, the daemon prince is no longer a daemon.

Opinions or thoughts on how the new defined daemons in GK faq will or will not affect how daemons are defined for everyone?

Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

You know I never really though of this as an issue until the the GK debates started. I agree that codex FAQ should only apply to that army. And since GK are purposefully built for daemons, they needed to address this issue of the gap in fluff description and the stats. In many ways the GK FAQ can be viewed as what is a daemon the the GK. Hopefully they will update the SW FAQ, because there are a lot of new issues that got launched with the BRB FAQ. Who knows, maybe this is how they are fielding changes that will be in 6th Ed.

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Should they also get the Daemon special rule from Codex Daemons?

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Should they also get the Daemon special rule from Codex Daemons?

Being a Daemon has nothing whatsoever to do with having the Daemon special rule.

Personally, I'm summarized they put that faq in the GK pdf and not the BRB one or even in the the pdf for each army effected. It would have taken what, 20 minutes of work?. This will allow plenty of waac rules lawyers to come in and claim certain things are daemons when no such rule in the CD or SW codex says they are.

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Should they also get the Daemon special rule from Codex Daemons?

They aren't in the codex, why should they?


On a side note, this is why I'm angry that it's in the GK FAQ, rather than in the CSM (and DE) FAQs.

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Should they also get the Daemon special rule from Codex Daemons?

Is there any reason to assume this? The special rule never had anything to do with daemon classification.

Not this again. Play it safe and go with the definitions the FAQ gave, as the original rule was as vague as the one The Grey Knights had.

It is a sub-zero day in hell when I put my rune priest in close combat with anything much less anything daemonic.

As it stands, I will take my previous stance that one army's faq does not apply to another. As has been pointed out, maybe GK are so attuned that they can find the daemonic in creatures that others cannot.

Runic weapon works on those with the daemonic special rule.

GK works with whatever they already had as well as listed in the GK faq.

Runic weapon works against Daemons. What is a Daemon has now been defined. If this comes down to a ruling at a tourney, they will roll in favor of the GK codex defining Daemons, and then your personal opinion will mean nothing.

nobody wrote:

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Should they also get the Daemon special rule from Codex Daemons?

They aren't in the codex, why should they?

Just curious whether people think that this amounts to a change in the rules. If CSM princes are "daemons" according to GW, why wouldn't they get the "Daemon" special rule?

If GW came out and said that GK Dreadnoughts are psykers (in a DE FAQ), I would expect that they get the "Psyker" rule for all other purposes as well.

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Part of the problem is that it the game becomes erratic when you start applying one FAQ to another army. Combine the Eldar FAQ with the IG FAQ and all of a sudden you have Schrodinger's Astropath Phenomenon.

Why? Different model, different answer. No problem in that. Why should the exact same question result in a different answer, just because it is printed in a different codex?

It's only an issue when there's contradictions. There are none with this particular one.

Exactly, they might be inconsistent when ruling similar effects, but never contradict each other.

biccat wrote:

nobody wrote:

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Should they also get the Daemon special rule from Codex Daemons?

They aren't in the codex, why should they?

Just curious whether people think that this amounts to a change in the rules. If CSM princes are "daemons" according to GW, why wouldn't they get the "Daemon" special rule?

If GW came out and said that GK Dreadnoughts are psykers (in a DE FAQ), I would expect that they get the "Psyker" rule for all other purposes as well.

Psykers is a rule in the BRB though, you are asking that they apply a rule from an entirely separate codex to the CSM codex.

not that it matters much but I play both CSM and DE.

If GK faq says x,y,z,1,2,3 are daemons, and its open ended for other codexes still, its probably safe to guess that the open ended answer is the same. I would think its safer to guess they have the same answer rather then guess no the answer is different.

nobody wrote:

biccat wrote:

nobody wrote:

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Should they also get the Daemon special rule from Codex Daemons?

They aren't in the codex, why should they?

Just curious whether people think that this amounts to a change in the rules. If CSM princes are "daemons" according to GW, why wouldn't they get the "Daemon" special rule?

If GW came out and said that GK Dreadnoughts are psykers (in a DE FAQ), I would expect that they get the "Psyker" rule for all other purposes as well.

Psykers is a rule in the BRB though, you are asking that they apply a rule from an entirely separate codex to the CSM codex.

Perhaps a poor example.

Suppose the GK got a special rule that was effective against "All fearless models." Then the GW FAQ came out and said "Fearless models includes...Chaos Space Marines." Would that make CSM fearless? Or a special rule that affected "walkers" and the FAQ included "Dreadknights" in the list.

I suspect the answer is that a FAQ doesn't operate as an errata, but GW tends to play fast and loose with language.

iproxtaco wrote:Runic weapon works against Daemons. What is a Daemon has now been defined. If this comes down to a ruling at a tourney, they will roll in favor of the GK codex defining Daemons, and then your personal opinion will mean nothing.

Runic weapons works against daemons, as defined by what has the daemons special rule because there exists no SW FAQ otherwise. GK have a FAQ that defines daemons. The problem is that is that a game wide definition or an army specific definition? GW did not make that clear. The safest approach would be to remain as before for any non-GK army until it is clarified to be a game wide definition or a specific army definition.

As has been said, both the rules are/were open ended in their criteria. Why would the answers be different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Runic weapon works against Daemons. What is a Daemon has now been defined. If this comes down to a ruling at a tourney, they will roll in favor of the GK codex defining Daemons, and then your personal opinion will mean nothing.

Runic weapons works against daemons, as defined by what has the daemons special rule because there exists no SW FAQ otherwise. GK have a FAQ that defines daemons. The problem is that is that a game wide definition or an army specific definition? GW did not make that clear. The safest approach would be to remain as before for any non-GK army until it is clarified to be a game wide definition or a specific army definition.

The Daemons special rule does not define what a Daemon is. I'll say again, the rules are/were open ended in their criteria, why would the answers be different. Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but I just think the answer is simple.

biccat wrote:

nobody wrote:

biccat wrote:

nobody wrote:

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Anyone arguing this will probably be laughed off by the TO. Why should anything be a daemon for GKs but not for SWs?

Should they also get the Daemon special rule from Codex Daemons?

They aren't in the codex, why should they?

Just curious whether people think that this amounts to a change in the rules. If CSM princes are "daemons" according to GW, why wouldn't they get the "Daemon" special rule?

If GW came out and said that GK Dreadnoughts are psykers (in a DE FAQ), I would expect that they get the "Psyker" rule for all other purposes as well.

Psykers is a rule in the BRB though, you are asking that they apply a rule from an entirely separate codex to the CSM codex.

Perhaps a poor example.

Suppose the GK got a special rule that was effective against "All fearless models." Then the GW FAQ came out and said "Fearless models includes...Chaos Space Marines." Would that make CSM fearless? Or a special rule that affected "walkers" and the FAQ included "Dreadknights" in the list.

I suspect the answer is that a FAQ doesn't operate as an errata, but GW tends to play fast and loose with language.

In order for the FAQ to do what you are saying, the FAQ answer would have had to say that the Daemon Rule from Codex: Chaos Daemons now applies to all the models on the list.

An example you could use is having a hypothetical unit where they have rule stating "these models count as Dark Eldar."

But without another line saying "these models also follow all rules for Dark Eldar in the respective codex" they would not gain access to Power Through Pain, Acute Senses, etc.

Brother Ramses wrote:Due to the poor wording of what is defined as a daemon in the new FAQ,...

What is wrong with the wording?

There's nothing you can complain about, it's a fething list of names.

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Due to the poor wording of what is defined as a daemon in the new FAQ,...

What is wrong with the wording?

Poor wording in that it defines daemons yet does so that you do not know if it applies game wide or army specific. It could just have easily been added to include,

"Grey Knights identify.................."

Or if it had not been included in the GK faq at all and was instead included in the BRB faq instead.

Fair enough, GW looks over something again, at least for the people who need everything RAW to apply.

Brother Ramses wrote:Poor wording in that it defines daemons yet does so that you do not know if it applies game wide or army specific.

Is there really any good reason to not assume that it applies game-wide?

It would hardly be the first time that GW have included a game-wide ruling in a single army's FAQ. That's a tradition going back at least to 3rd edition, with the ruling on using multiple close combat weapons while on a bike being included in the Dark Eldar FAQ, but being applied to everybody.

You may not like having rules for you army included in another army's FAQ, but it is situation normal for GW.


More to the point, if you have a grey area in your army's rules that has not been specifically addressed in your army's FAQ, but GW has addressed a similar (in this case identical) issue in another army's FAQ, what practical purpose is served by sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'You're not my army!'

You have an answer to your rules issue. The fact that it's not been printed where you would like it to be should really be secondary to just getting on with the game, surely?

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Poor wording in that it defines daemons yet does so that you do not know if it applies game wide or army specific.

Is there really any good reason to not assume that it applies game-wide?

It would hardly be the first time that GW have included a game-wide ruling in a single army's FAQ. That's a tradition going back at least to 3rd edition, with the ruling on using multiple close combat weapons while on a bike being included in the Dark Eldar FAQ, but being applied to everybody.

You may not like having rules for you army included in another army's FAQ, but it is situation normal for GW.


More to the point, if you have a grey area in your army's rules that has not been specifically addressed in your army's FAQ, but GW has addressed a similar (in this case identical) issue in another army's FAQ, what practical purpose is served by sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'You're not my army!'

You have an answer to your rules issue. The fact that it's not been printed where you would like it to be should really be secondary to just getting on with the game, surely?

Sure, but where do you draw the line?

Codex SM FAQ: Bolters are now AP1. Do my Space Wolves now have AP1 bolters?

When other SM chapters got 3+ storm shields, did Dark Angels had 3+ storm shields? Took a codex errata update to make that legal.

So while I have seen game wide rules go live in specific army faq releases (smoke after scout in BA faq comes to mind too) just crap that they are not more careful with this stuff.

Brother Ramses wrote:Codex SM FAQ: Bolters are now AP1.

They are? Why? Not the sort of thing that would be changed in an FAQ... but for the sake of argument...

Do my Space Wolves now have AP1 bolters?

No, since they have their own clear rules that state what a bolter is and does. So your hypothetical SM change would only apply to them if it specifically says so.

When other SM chapters got 3+ storm shields, did Dark Angels had 3+ storm shields? Took a codex errata update to make that legal.

That's because, again, DA already had rules of their own that said what storm shields were and did.

By contrast, there is no rule in Codex: Space Wolves that defines what is and is not a Daemon. There is a rule in the GK FAQ that defines what is and is not a Daemon. In the absence of a Space Wolf specific rule, it seems rather counter-productive to try to ignore the next best thing...

Brother Ramses wrote:Sure, but where do you draw the line?

Codex SM FAQ: Bolters are now AP1. Do my Space Wolves now have AP1 bolters?

When other SM chapters got 3+ storm shields, did Dark Angels had 3+ storm shields? Took a codex errata update to make that legal.

So while I have seen game wide rules go live in specific army faq releases (smoke after scout in BA faq comes to mind too) just crap that they are not more careful with this stuff.

In all those examples, the codex explicitly contradicts the rule, and thus wins out due to the often misquoted rule of specific > general. If vanilla marines tell us all bolters are AP1, but the DA codex lists them as AP 5, then Dark Angel Bolters are AP 4. I'd also like to point out the difference of Errata(fixing error), Amendments(explicit changes) and FAQ(explanations of common problems).

As long as Space Wolves do not define demons themselves, they are bound by the GK FAQ, unless you choose to ignore all FAQs as rules. "What counts as daemon?" is the same Question for Space Wolves as for Grey Knights.

Discuss it with your opponent.

in a competitive enviroment, ask the TO.



I think the GK FAQ is a good way of defining a deamon for all purposes and I am sure this is how TOs will use it, but its not a concrete thing.

GW seems to be going down the path of using Common Sense definitions. which is sad as people will deliberatly dump common sense in a competitive enviroment.