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.

Hey all, hopefully this is the appropriate forum for this question. Without asking for the entire content of the new white dwarf mini-codex, I was just wondering if it makes any substatial changes to the existing rules in the codex. For instance:

-are there any changes to the army-wide special rules?
-did any of the troops loose their special rules/gifts or have them changed? (I'm guessing not, but just to make sure).
-are there any new rules/gifts that existing units can take?

I'm guessing that it's mostly for the new units they rolled out, but I don't think I can get either the original magazine article or the digital version if it ever comes out, so just wanted to check.

Not really the appropriate forum, but basically they added the various type of Slaanesh chariot, while changing Screamers and Flamers of Tzeench in both rules and pointcost.

ZOMGOSH, mah flemerz got beest! They gained a wound, and got cheaper XD SO BAMF!! (they cannot use bolt of tzeench now :( ) and there is some kind of squad sarge now

Look at Screamers too.

They are beastly. Str 5 AP 2 in melee with armourbane. They can pretty much eat anything now.

Flamers got more ridiculous than usual. Also, don't quote me since my friend plays demons not me, I think eternal warrior rules changed army-wide and the invulnerable save changed for most units. Or maybe just flamers

I have been trying to get my hands on a copy of the White Dwarf for weeks to no avail, but here is a quick rundown of the changes...

Added rules for Chariot, Exalted Chariot of Slaanesh and Fleshshredder in the Fast Attack slot.

Changed the points, save, wounds and upgrades for Flamers

Changed the attack, save and upgrades for Screamers

I think that hits all the items -what is more interesting to me is it looks like these new chariots get 5+ invulnerable saves for being the type Daemon!

calypso2ts wrote:I think that hits all the items -what is more interesting to me is it looks like these new chariots get 5+ invulnerable saves for being the type Daemon!

Not quite, since this is an update to Codex Chaos Daemons you follow the daemon rule they have laid out in their codex rather than the rulebook one. That means since the Hellflayer is a vehicle it gets to ignore crew shaken and stunned. This is one of those times that the BBB references where the Codex contradicts with the rulebook, so follow the codex.

I need to go home and check my codex, but I thought the Daemon special rule about ignoring shaken/stunned was specifically in the Soul Grinder entry and said essentially "for a soul grinder this rule means...deepstrike, ignore shaken/stunned"

Further, if you do not apply the Daemon rule from the BRB - then the Flamers have no save at all (I think they are listed as "-" for their save while being a daemon according to the BRB gives them the 5++)

calypso2ts wrote:Further, if you do not apply the Daemon rule from the BRB - then the Flamers have no save at all (I think they are listed as "-" for their save while being a daemon according to the BRB gives them the 5++)

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that the rules from the codex and the BRB must both apply. Picking one or the other leads to some bizarre outcomes. If the WD units are codex-Daemons only, then Flamers and Screamers have no save at all. If they are rulebook-Daemons only, then Flamers/Screamers/Slaaneshi lawnmowers cannot deploy through Daemonic Assault and lose Eternal Warrior.

whigwam wrote:Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that the rules from the codex and the BRB must both apply. Picking one or the other leads to some bizarre outcomes. If the WD units are codex-Daemons only, then Flamers and Screamers have no save at all. If they are rulebook-Daemons only, then Flamers/Screamers/Slaaneshi lawnmowers cannot deploy through Daemonic Assault and lose Eternal Warrior.

This may even be the reason they were moved up to two wounds. The problem is, if you're going to apply the Daemon rule, you have to pick one daemon rule to apply to everything. You can't for the flamers claim you're using the main book's daemon rule, then claim they're eternal warrior which is part of the codex rule, same with the hellflayer (which I can't find my daemon codex, so you may be right on your first point, but going with the assumption it ignores stunned/shaken) you can't claim a 5+ invulnerable instead of ignoring stunned/shaken.

I think it's more reasonable to assume that going from a 4++ to a 5++ is why they've been bumped up to two wounds. Army-wide invulnerable saves are a fundamental characteristic of the Daemon codex...I have a really hard time believing they'd start phasing them out with Tzeentch units of all things.

By RAW, I don't know if it's clear that you can apply two different Daemon rules simultaneously. Of course GW felt no need to clarify this issue, it's just: "here's a rules update, cram it together with your other rules and see what happens." So I can see why people object to taking both Daemon rules, but I think GW's intent is clear enough.

whigwam wrote:By RAW, I don't know if it's clear that you can apply two different Daemon rules simultaneously.

By RAW it's very clear that you cannot use the two of them simultaneously. There is a conflict where one says they have a 5+ invulnerable, and another where it says treat their armor saves listed as invulnerable. When in conflict between a main book rule and a codex rule, follow the codex. Page 7 of the rulebook tells us codex overrides rulebook when two rules are in conflict, and this is a situation where two rules are in conflict.

How is there a conflict between the rule says 'treat the armor saved listed as an inbuln' and 'they all have a 5+ invuln'?

I can make both those statements without any contradiction.

Do they have an armor save? No, if they did it would be treated as an invuln. Do they have an invuln? Yes, it is a 5++ from the BRB. Since there is no conflict, why can both not be applied - with the exception of the grinder which explicitly states in its entry what Daemon means for it.

I gave a bad example about the saves, but there is a conflict in the rules. One of the rules gives Eternal Warrior, one does not. There is nothing saying that those rules combine, so since there is a conflict between the two we go with the codex interpretation which gives them EW and treats their armor saves as invulnerable.

I think that the Daemon FAQ gives us decent indicaiton that they intend the rules to be combined, the FAQ gives Codex Daemon Daemons Fear, the 5++ save is not given due to redundancy with the current book, though they could have avoided saying 5++ unless their regular invul is better.

It seems to me that the reasonable approach (and the one everyone I know uses) is that they benefit from both rules.

Also there is nothing in the new rules saying that they would lose EW so again no particular conflict. I expect the new stuff to be FAQ'd to have a save (though not the vehicles)

Now that I've found my Daemons codex, I can point out that there is a massive conflict between rulebook and codex. Here's the Daemon rule from the codex, "This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules:" That's the daemons rule. There are four subset rules that fall under the heading of the daemon rule, which is a huge change from the BBB Daemon special rule.

Breng77 wrote:I think that the Daemon FAQ gives us decent indicaiton that they intend the rules to be combined, the FAQ gives Codex Daemon Daemons Fear, the 5++ save is not given due to redundancy with the current book, though they could have avoided saying 5++ unless their regular invul is better.

Actually the Daemon FAQ gives a fantastic indication of the opposite, that they do NOT gain the daemon rule from the rulebook. Why would they only give fear if they intended them to work together? Why would they not just add the Daemon rule instead of the fear rule? The answer is simple, they have their own version of Daemon that they us. For proof to back my statement I refer you to any of the Space Marine FAQs, notice where it says to follow the rulebook version of ATSKNF rather than altering the current rule as they did with the Daemons FAQ.

Nothing gives the Codex Daemons Daemon rule a flat out 5+ invulnerable save, thus vehicles do not get the 5+ invulnerable save, nor now do the flamers or screamers get an invulnerable (until we're told otherwise).

I tend to disagree, ATSKNF is quite different from the Daemon rule. If they told you to use the BRB Daemon rule for all Daemons in the Daemon Codex it would change the entire army rather than just one part of the army (Daemons would now have armor saves and 5++ saves, no eternal warrior, and would no longer Deepstrike.) To me including just the fear piece in the Codex FAQ indicates that they want all Daemons to function a particular way (Cause fear, have an Invunerable save, etc.) but did not want to negate the entire Daemon book. With the New Daemons they were in a better place to use the new rule for the inclusion of a 5+ save, and so they did.

Lone Dragoon wrote: "This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules:"

Actually, the list given of rules is not exclusive - it is inclusive. So every model in the army gets the Daemon Special rule - which has its own set of additional rules.

Breng77 wrote:I tend to disagree, ATSKNF is quite different from the Daemon rule. If they told you to use the BRB Daemon rule for all Daemons in the Daemon Codex it would change the entire army rather than just one part of the army (Daemons would now have armor saves and 5++ saves, no eternal warrior, and would no longer Deepstrike.) To me including just the fear piece in the Codex FAQ indicates that they want all Daemons to function a particular way (Cause fear, have an Invunerable save, etc.) but did not want to negate the entire Daemon book. With the New Daemons they were in a better place to use the new rule for the inclusion of a 5+ save, and so they did.

What I was saying was, they could easily have amended the Daemon special rule in the codex to also have the Daemon special rule from the BBB. In other words, if they had said include the Daemon special rule in the list of special rules, it would have given them all 5+ invulnerable saves, and it would have given them the fear rule in addition to the invulnerable save.

calypso2ts wrote:

Lone Dragoon wrote: "This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules:"

Actually, the list given of rules is not exclusive - it is inclusive. So every model in the army gets the Daemon Special rule - which has its own set of additional rules.

The list of rules gained from the Codex rule Daemon is very specific that only those rules listed (and the FAQ amended that to include fear) are what the model has. We do not have permission to add or use the Daemon (BBB version) rule, so we do not get to use it. It would be like saying that Blood Angels Rhinos lose the fast rule because in the appendices at the back the Rhino does not have Fast listed. Or the Flakk missile argument all over again. Until there is a ruling or FAQ that tells us that Daemons get the rule, they cannot use that rule.

I am bewildered as to why this is considered an exclusive list of rules. I am reading straight from the codex...

Daemon "This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules"

Okay so this is a conjunction. There are two propositions. Every model in the army is a Daemon (check brb, hey an entry for Daemon).

"(the daemon rule) includes the following four special rules."

Okay, sounds good - for Chaos Daemons the Daemon rule includes four special rules (in addition to just the special rule Daemon)....how is this in any way shape or form a contradiction?

If the four special rules in any way shape or form contradicted one another, I would say go with the one in the codex, but they do not. Unlike the case of the Blood Angel rhino you cited...

calypso2ts wrote:Daemon "This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules"

Here's my hitch with the whole thing, point out the special rule for Daemon in the codex. It does not tell us to refer to the Warhammer 40k rulebook, again like many other rules do. Speaking specifically in reference to the codex here, What does the daemon rule do? Well it will provide those four rules. There is no special rule laid out for daemon, only that it includes the following four rules. The Daemon rule in the codex overrides the BBB version because it has different rules than those presented in the BBB, just as the BA Rhino I used as an example earlier. There are special rules present in the codex that are not present in the BBB, and thus with those powers added in there is a contradiction. If it worked how you are saying it does, there would be no reason to add the Fear special rule to them in their FAQ. When someone can explain why they added that they have fear that person will have me convinced. Which if they had the daemon rule from the book as Calypso insists incidentally gives them the fear rule, so if they had the daemon rule from the book there would be no need to add fear in the FAQ.

hey dudes.

If it worked how you are saying it does, there would be no reason to add the Fear special rule to them in their FAQ. When someone can explain why they added that they have fear that person will have me convinced.

I'll try.

The FAQ's release was in end of june, similiar to the 6. edition release. when this was, all the daemons had their personal profile save. there was no use to note the main 5++ save in a FAQ anyway. do not forget. GW never errated in advance of a new dex/update/release. the FAQ is not written for the update. it's for the original codex.

what i (maybe, we?) do not understand, why GW doesn't brings codex and FAQ twice. It seems GWs new strategy is to release all FAQs at once. (january, june, sep...?)

i'am very sure, with next FAQ, the 5++ will be given.

in the game report from whitedwarf 200, the units have the 5++ btw. this proves surely nothing, but it's a truely indication!